Clarity vs. code reuse/generality

[Lie Ryan]

Aahz wrote:
> In article <006e795f$0$9711$c3e8da3 at news.astraweb.com>,
> Steven D'Aprano  <steve at REMOVE-THIS-cybersource.com.au> wrote:
>> On Mon, 06 Jul 2009 14:32:10 +0200, Jean-Michel Pichavant wrote:
>>> kj wrote:
>>>>     sense = cmp(func(hi), func(lo))
>>>>     assert sense != 0, "func is not strictly monotonic in [lo, hi]"
>>> As already said before, unlike other languages, sense in english does
>>> **not** mean direction. You should rewrite this part using a better
>>> name. Wrong informations are far worse than no information at all.
>> Absolutely.
>>
>>From Webster's Dictionary:
>>      8. (Geom.) One of two opposite directions in which a line,
>>      surface, or volume, may be supposed to be described by the
>>      motion of a point, line, or surface.
>>      [1913 Webster]
>>
>>
>> And from WordNet:
>>
>>     2: the meaning of a word or expression; the way in which a word
>>        or expression or situation can be interpreted
>>
>> Both meanings are relevant to the way KJ is using the word. Please take 
>> your own advice and stop giving wrong information. As a native English 
>> speaker, I had no difficulty understanding the meaning of "sense" in the 
>> sense intended by KJ.
> 
> As another native English speaker, I agree with Jean-Michel; this is the
> first time I've seen "sense" used to mean direction.

When people are fighting over things like `sense`, although sense may
not be strictly wrong dictionary-wise, it smells of something burning...