common practice for creating utility functions?

[Scott David Daniels]

John Salerno wrote:
> ...Is it common ...[and preferred] to create a function that has the sole job of 
> calling another function?
> 
> Example: ... cryptogram. Right now I have four functions:
> 
> convert_quote -- the main function that starts it all
> make_code -- makes and returns the cryptogram
> make_set -- called from make_code, converts the quote into a set so each 
> letter gets only one coded letter
> test_sets -- makes sure a letter isn't assigned to itself
> 
> So my first question is this: should I make a Cryptogram class for this, 
> or are functions fine? 
Functions are just fine.  I'd use a class if they wanted to share state.

> ... can I do something like this:
> def convert_quote(quote):
>     return make_code(quote)
> Or does it not make sense to have a function just call another function?
Obviously you _can_ do that.  I wouldn't, however.  If (to you) the four
functions above "mean" something different, I'd implement convert_quote
with:
      convert_quote = make_code

-- 
-Scott David Daniels
scott.daniels at acm.org