Clarity vs. code reuse/generality

kj no.email at please.post
Sat Jul 4 23:10:44 CEST 2009


In <7x4otsux7f.fsf at ruckus.brouhaha.com> Paul Rubin <http://phr.cx@NOSPAM.invalid> writes:

>kj <no.email at please.post> writes:
>>     sense = cmp(func(hi), func(lo))
>>     assert sense != 0, "func is not strictly monotonic in [lo, hi]"

>bisection search usually just requires the function to be continuous
>and to have its value cross the target somewhere between the endpoints,
>not be monotonic.

Try the algorithm I posted with lo = -pi/4, hi = 2*pi, func = cos,
target = -1, and see what you get...

>> I regard the very special case of func(hi)==func(lo)==target as
>> pathological (analogous to the fact that a stopped watch is "exactly
>> right" twice a day), and not one I care to support.

>I do think you should support that case, under the "do 'nothing'
>gracefully" principle.

You keep missing the point that this is an *internal* *helper*
*convenience* function, meant to abstract away common logic from
a handful of places and thus eliminate some code repetition within
a module.  It is *not* a library function intended to be called
from elsewhere.  So talk of "supporting" anything is besides the
point.  Any internal use of this function that applies it to a
non-strictly-monotonic function is, by assumption, an error.

kj



More information about the Python-list mailing list