On Friday, June 21, 2013 2:25:49 PM UTC-5, MRAB wrote: > On 21/06/2013 19:26, Rick Johnson wrote: > > ============================================================ > > The Apathetic Approach: > > ============================================================ > > I could just assume that a programmer is responsible for the > > code he writes. If he passes mutables into a function as > > default arguments, and then mutates the mutable later, too > > bad, he'll understand the value of writing solid code after > > a few trips to exception Hell. > > ============================================================ > > The Malevolent Approach (disguised as beneva-loon-icy): > > ============================================================ > > I could use early binding to confuse the hell out of him and > > enjoy the laughs with all my ivory tower buddies as he falls > > into fits of confusion and rage. Then enjoy again when he > > reads the docs. Ahh, the gift that just keeps on giving! > > How does the "Apathetic Approach" differ from the > "Malevolent Approach"?
In the apathetic approach i allow the programmer to be the sole proprietor of his own misfortunes. He lives by the sword, and thus, he can die by the sword. Alternatively the malevolent approach injects misfortunes for the programmer on the behalf of esoteric rules. In this case he will live by sword, and he could die by the sword, or he could be unexpectedly blown to pieces by a supersonic Howitzer shell. It's an Explicit death versus an Implicit death; and Explicit should ALWAYS win! The only way to strike a reasonable balance between the explicit death and implicit death is to throw up a warning: "INCOMING!!!!" Which in Python would be the "MutableArgumentWarning". *school-bell* -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
