Boolean tests [was Re: Attack a sacred Python Cow]

Carl Banks pavlovevidence at gmail.com
Tue Jul 29 19:59:25 CEST 2008


On Jul 29, 5:27 am, Steven D'Aprano
<ste... at REMOVE.THIS.cybersource.com.au> wrote:
> On Tue, 29 Jul 2008 01:37:45 -0700, Carl Banks wrote:
> > I would accept as "evidence" something that satisfies my criteria, which
> > your example did not: it could have easily (and more robustly) been
> > written with a simple explicit test.
>
> Only at the cost of completely ignoring the functional requirements and
> changing the API. In other words: you ignore my code, and invent your own
> imaginary code that does something completely different, then say that
> this imaginary code is better.

And, BTW, you keep making unsubstantiated assertions and keep
expecting me to take them at face value.  I'm really not going to take
your word for it that your "functional requirements" would preclude
the possibility of rewriting it as I said to, unless you provide
details.

Also, your third claim is false since it would have exactly the same
behavior.


Carl Banks



More information about the Python-list mailing list