On Sat, Aug 27, 2011 at 11:26 AM, Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.pyt...@pearwood.info> wrote: > I say "might be" because I mean it: these arguments have to be weighed up > against the argument against breaking code out of functions. It's easy to > imagine an extreme case where there are a billion *tiny* functions, each of > which does one micro-operation: > > def f1(x): return x + 1 > def f2(x): return 3*x > def f3(x): return f2(f1(x)) # instead of 3*(x+1)
This fails the "give it a decent name" test. Can you name these functions according to what they do, as opposed to how they do it? For instance: def add_flagfall(x): return x + 1 # add a $1 flagfall to the price def add_tax(x): return 3*x # this is seriously nasty tax def real_price(x): return add_tax(add_flagfall(x)) # instead of 3*(x+1) This would be acceptable, because each micro-operation has real meaning. I'd prefer to do it as constants rather than functions, but at least they're justifying their names. And you're absolutely right about monkey-patching. ChrisA -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
