Op 2006-05-09, Pisin Bootvong schreef <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > Antoon Pardon wrote: >> Op 2006-05-09, Pisin Bootvong schreef <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: >> > Is this a Slippery Slope fallacious argument? >> > (http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?SlipperySlope) >> >> No it is not. >> >> [...] >> >> So the question I have is: Why is requiring me to give this function >> a name considered a good thing, when it leads to a situation that >> is considered bad practice in case of a number. >> >> -- > > Slippery Slope:: > "Argumentation that A is bad, because A might lead to B, and B > to C, and we all know C is very bad."
But I have seen noone here argue that requiring functions to be named leads to requiring all variables to be named. >> Why is requiring me to give this function >> a name considered a good thing, when it leads to a situation that >> is considered bad practice in case of a number. > > A === "requiring me to give function a name" > no B > C === "requiring me to give number a name" > > "Argumentation that requiring one to give function a name is bad, > because that might lead to requiring one to give number a name, and we > all know that that is very bad." That is not the arguement I'm making. The argument is that a particular pratice is considered bad coding, (with an example giving a number) and then showing that requiring a name for a function, almost makes such a practice inevitable (for certain functions used as parameters) -- Antoon Pardon -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
