steven at REMOVE.THIS.cybersource.com.au
Thu May 7 03:48:28 CEST 2009
On Thu, 07 May 2009 01:59:02 +0100, Rhodri James wrote:
> On Wed, 06 May 2009 23:33:20 +0100, Luis Alberto Zarrabeitia Gomez
> <kyrie at uh.cu> wrote:
>> Quoting Rhodri James <rhodri at wildebst.demon.co.uk>:
>>> So the answer to my question would be "nothing"?
>> Indeed, there is nothing broken with the search and replace feature of
>> his editor. When he is copying a non-recursive function, it is
>> _useless_ to do a search and replace. When he is copying a recursive
>> function, it is _required_ to do a search and replace.
> On the contrary, it's merely not very useful for a non-recursive
Whether search and replace is "not very useful" or "not useful at all",
it's still an inconvenience and a PITA. Calling up S&R to search through
a six line function is ridiculously overkill, but if you don't do it,
you'll surely be bitten.
But regardless, everyone is missing the most important point: why are you
copying and pasting code in the first place? That is surely very close to
the top of the list of Worst Ever Anti-Patterns, and it should be avoided
In Python, we can avoid much copy-and-paste coding with decorators. Given
one function, we can create as many variants as we want, differing in pre-
processing of arguments and post-processing of results, by using
decorators. This is a powerful ability to have, but it's crippled for
many recursive functions, because recursive functions in Python don't
actually call themselves, they call whatever happens to be bound to their
name at runtime.
As Luis said, all(?) programming languages have this same weakness. Just
because it's a weakness shared by all languages, doesn't stop it from
being a weakness. My proposal will lesson (but not entirely eliminate)
More information about the Python-list