"Arnaud Delobelle" <arno...@googlemail.com> wrote in message
news:m28wb6ypfs....@googlemail.com...
"Gabriel Genellina" <gagsl-...@yahoo.com.ar> writes:
En Fri, 05 Feb 2010 19:22:39 -0300, bartc <ba...@freeuk.com> escribió:
"Steve Holden" <st...@holdenweb.com> wrote in message
news:mailman.1998.1265399766.28905.python-l...@python.org...
Arnaud Delobelle wrote:
Robert Kern <robert.k...@gmail.com> writes:
I prefer Guido's formulation (which, naturally, I can't find a direct
quote for right now): if you expect that a boolean argument is only
going to take *literal* True or False, then it should be split into
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
two functions.
So rather than three boolean arguments, would you have eight
functions?
If there's genuinely a need for that functionality, yes.
So you want a function such as drawtext(s, bold=true, italic=false,
underline=true) to be split into:
drawtext(s)
drawtextb(s)
drawtexti(s)
drawtextu(s)
drawtextbi(s)
drawtextbu(s)
drawtextiu(s)
drawtextbiu(s)
Note the *literal* part. If you (the programmer) is likely to know the
parameter value when writing the code, then the function is actually two
separate functions.
Thanks, I understand what Steve Holden meant now.
I've just noticed that 'literal' part. But I think I still disagree.
For a real-world example, it means instead of having a room with a
light-switch in it, if I *know* I want the light on or off, I should have
two rooms: one with the light permanently on, and one with it permanently
off, and just walk into the right one.
--
Bartc
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
