On 21/03/2014 02:18, Chris Angelico wrote:
On Fri, Mar 21, 2014 at 12:06 PM, Roy Smith <r...@panix.com> wrote:
In article <532b8f0d$0$29994$c3e8da3$54964...@news.astraweb.com>,
Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.pyt...@pearwood.info> wrote:
The rule of three applies here: anything you do in three different places
ought to be managed by a function.
I prefer the rule of two :-)
The way I explain it is: Three is a rule of thumb. Sometimes it's
blatantly obvious at two, and other times you need four or five
similar pieces of code before you can see which part should become the
function. If the code's absolutely identical and reasonably
long/complex, then yes, two's all you need, but how often is that?
Usually it's similar, rather than congruent... err I mean identical.
That's where the third usage comes in. Or if it's maybe 2-3 lines,
used in two places, it doesn't necessarily need to be a function.
Again, a third usage is a strong hint that it should be broken out.
The rule doesn't say that anything that *isn't* in three places yet
should *not* be broken out. :)
ChrisA
Everybody, and especially Antipodeans, knows that there is no rule 6 and
by definition what rule 7 is :)
--
My fellow Pythonistas, ask not what our language can do for you, ask
what you can do for our language.
Mark Lawrence
---
This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection
is active.
http://www.avast.com
--
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
