On Mon, 08 Jul 2013 13:11:37 +1000, Chris Angelico wrote: > On Mon, Jul 8, 2013 at 12:23 PM, Steven D'Aprano > <steve+comp.lang.pyt...@pearwood.info> wrote: >> On Mon, 08 Jul 2013 10:48:03 +1000, Chris Angelico wrote: [...] >>> That means that I, as programmer, have to keep track of the nesting >>> level of subtransactions. Extremely ugly. A line of code can't be >>> moved around without first checking which transaction object to work >>> with. >> >> I feel your pain, but I wonder why we sometimes accept "a line of code >> can't be moved around" as an issue to be solved by the language. After >> all, in general most lines of code can't be moved around. > > It's not something to be solved by the language, but it's often > something to be solved by the program's design. Two lines of code that > achieve the same goal should normally look the same. This is why > Python's policy is "one obvious way to do something" rather than "spell > it five different ways in the same file to make a nightmare for other > people coming after you". Why should database queries be spelled > "trans1.query()" in one place, and "trans2.query()" in another?
Is that a trick question? They probably shouldn't. But it's a big leap from that to "...and therefore `for` and `while` should introduce their own scope". > Similarly, if I want to call another function and that function needs to > use the database, why should I pass it trans3 and have that come out as > trans1 on the other side? Unnecessarily confusing. Makes much more sense > to use the same name everywhere. "Is your name not Bruce? That's going to cause a little confusion." http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_f_p0CgPeyA -- Steven -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
