A critic of Guido's blog on Python's lambda

Pisin Bootvong joesb.coe9 at gmail.com
Tue May 9 17:08:58 CEST 2006


Antoon Pardon wrote:
> Op 2006-05-09, Pisin Bootvong schreef <joesb.coe9 at gmail.com>:
> >
> > Antoon Pardon wrote:
> >> Op 2006-05-09, Pisin Bootvong schreef <joesb.coe9 at gmail.com>:
> >> > 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




More information about the Python-list mailing list