On Wed, Apr 04, 2012 at 12:52:00PM -0700, Ethan Furman wrote:
Oleg Broytman wrote:
On Wed, Apr 04, 2012 at 11:03:02AM -0700, Ethan Furman wrote:
Oleg Broytman wrote:
. Pythonic equivalent of "get_clock(THIS) or get_clok(THAT)" is
for flag in (THIS, THAT): try: clock = get_clock(flag) except: pass else: break else: raise ValueError('Cannot get clock, tried THIS and THAT')
Wow -- you'd rather write nine lines of code instead of three?
clock = get_clock(THIS) or get_clock(THAT) if clock is None: raise ValueError('Cannot get clock, tried THIS and THAT')
Yes - to force people to write the last two lines. Without forcing most programmers will skip them.
Forced? I do not use Python to be forced to use one style of programming over another.
Then it's strange you are using Python with its strict syntax (case-sensitivity, forced indents), ubiquitous exceptions, limited syntax of lambdas and absence of code blocks (read - forced functions), etc.
And it's not like returning None will allow some clock calls to work but not others -- as soon as they try to use it, it will raise an exception.
There is a philosophical distinction between EAFP and LBYL. I am mostly proponent of LBYL. Well, I am partially retreat. "Errors should never pass silently. Unless explicitly silenced." get_clock(FLAG, on_error=None) could return None. Oleg. -- Oleg Broytman http://phdru.name/ phd@phdru.name Programmers don't die, they just GOSUB without RETURN.