On Mar 19, 8:40 pm, Steven D'Aprano <steve +comp.lang.pyt...@pearwood.info> wrote: > On Sat, 19 Mar 2011 01:38:10 -0700, Martin De Kauwe wrote: > >> Why don't you do the range check *before* storing it in state? That way > >> you can identify the calculation that was wrong, instead of merely > >> noticing that at some point some unknown calculation went wrong. > > > I guess no reason really. I suppose in my mind I was thinking it was an > > unlikely safeguard but I liked the idea of adding so would just do it at > > the end of a time step. In reality I think there is practically no > > difference and this way it is done once, in a single location vs. > > potential 10 separate checks? I don't see the advantage? > > You should always aim to fail as close as possible to the source of the > error as is practical. That decreases the amount of debugging required > when something fails: instead of searching your entire program, you only > have to search a very small amount of code. > > -- > Steven
OK I take your point and can see the superior logic! I shall amend what I was planning -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
