Antoon Pardon wrote: > 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. >
If I misinterpret your intended meaning, then I'm terribly sorry. However let me clarify how I understand your statements -- English is not my native language but I'm quite sure I have good English skill. you said: > >> 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. So in that question, one of the your assumption is that: "it (required function naming) ***LEADS*** to a situation that is considered bad practice in case of a number (required number naming)" You have not seen anyone here >> "argue that requiring functions to be named leads to requiring all variables to be named" But obviously I have seen someone "argue that requiring functions to be named leads to requiring **NUMBER** to be named" And you said that requiring number to be named is bad. Where did I misunderstand that you, with all good faith, were not trying to say that "A leads B which is bad so "why is A considered a good thing""? And how is it not slippery argument? To put my response another way, I would ask: Does Python require you to name all your number? expression? (Hint: the answer is no) So where did you get the idea that requiring function to be named, as Python does, leads to requiring number to be named? Is it in a research anywhere? Or do majority of people here agree so (that it leads to)? > >> 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) > Your example: def incr_cnt_by_one(obj): obj.cnt += 1 treat_all(lst, incr_cnt_by_one) Did not in anyway show that the number one is required to be named. 1 in that code is written literally; you didn't have to write "one = 1" first. The function to increment obj.cnt by one is named. but the number 1 itself is not named. > Antoon Pardon -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
