...
Traceback (most recent quip last):
Author: "<DeAprano>", line 7, in <post>
LogicalFallacyError: "Reductio ad absurdum"
Deary deary me Rick. Reductio ad adsurdum is not a fallacy. It is a
counter-argument to an argument or claim, by showing that the premise of
the original claim leads to an absurd conclusion.
You have claimed that we should always be explicit whenever we write. But
you do not actually live up to your own advice, because you can't: it is
absurd to try to be explicit about everything all the time. You have
misunderstood the purpose of the Zen of Python: it is not to claim that
everything should be explicit, but to avoid code that is hard to
understand because things which need to be explicit for clarity are
implied by other parts of your code.
I agree. There is no pont in abolutizing explicitness anyway. It is not
a yes/no question. You cannot tell that somebody is "not explicit". It
is not something that can be decided. But you can say that he was "not
explicit enough" in a concrete case. There is an accepted level of
explicitness. You can probably always be more expicit, or less explicit.
Being more explicit is not the goal. But is a good practice to be more
explicit if it helps you achieve the real goal. For example, writting a
program that can be maintained easily.
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
