Steve Holden wrote: > >>It would be somewhat more self-documenting, but why not just use one > >>name to indicate the state and another, only meaningful in certain > >>states, to indicate the callback? > > > > > > Why should I do that? Checking the type of a variable is conceptually > > no different form testing set membership. So what I did, was just > > bringing two disjoint sets togther and working with a variable from > > that union. This is all in all a rather simple mathematical idea. > > And I don't see why I should put certain information into a seperate > > variable. It makes as much sense as working with numbers and using > > a seperate variable to store whether a particular number is postive, > > even or has some other characteristic. You don't seperate information > > you can easily acquire from the variable itself. So why should I > > seperate this information that is aquired just as easily? > > > > Well, as you might argue, I'm not tryng to effect a change in your > behaviour, I'm simply trying to point out how it could be made more > rational. > What would be the difference in his usage and allowing Null in a RDBMS column ? Or return NaN instead of raising exception for numeric functions ?
-- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
