On Sunday 19 Jul 2015 20:11 CEST, Chris Angelico wrote: >>> Parameterized imports aren't possible, correct. What I'd look at >>> here is a more explicit instantiation. Something like: >>> >>> import twitterDecebal >>> twitter = twitterDecebal.twitterDecebal(5, 60) >> >> I worked with default values, because I thought that would be a >> good idea. I should remove the default values? > > No no, the default values are good. I just gave an example that > didn't use them, as that's where you actually need the call. If > you're always going to use the defaults, well, there's not a lot of > point having the function. But if you often use the defaults (or one > of them), and occasionally override it, then what you have is good > design.
In my case I think the defaults are good. (But I do not know how I will use the function in the future. ;-) ) But I want to share it on GitHub and it would be possible that for someone else my defaults are not correct and then it is nice when they can be overridden. > I think it's fine, then. As long as it makes absolutely no sense to > have two separately-initialized twitter connections, and as long as > it's okay for two separate modules to both import this and to then > share state, then what you have is fine. I do not see myself doing this, but I like to know ‘everything’. When I have a program with two different modules that both import this, they would get in each-others way? How? -- Cecil Westerhof Senior Software Engineer LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/cecilwesterhof -- https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
