Compare source code
usenet-nospam at seebs.net
Wed Nov 3 02:20:16 CET 2010
On 2010-11-02, D'Arcy J.M. Cain <darcy at druid.net> wrote:
> "Large" is no excuse for incompetency.
It is in practice.
> So configure it to recognize Python files and act accordingly.
So far as I know, it doesn't have a feature to do this. In any event,
I work around it okay.
>> No, they aren't. See... That would work *if I knew for sure what the intent
>> if foo:
>> Does it look right? We have *no idea*, because we don't actually know
>> whether quux was *intended* to be in the else branch or whether that's a typo.
> And C has the same problem.
> if (foo)
> Is quux meant to be part of the else clause? The writer's indentation
> suggests "yes" but the code says "no".
And that's the thing: In C, I know there's something wrong here. I may not
know what it is, but I know *something* is wrong.
> Same is true for the C code.
> In both cases you can tell what the code
> will do (modulo weird macros in the C code) but the intention is
> impossible to determine without mind reading abilities in both cases.
> We do know that the Python code *appears* to be doing exactly what the
> author intended and the C code *appears* to not be.
Yes. And in my experience, that means that since the code must be
wrong (or I wouldn't be looking at it), it's very nice that in one of
them, I've just been told for sure that the writer was confused right
here at this line. In the other, I have no way of knowing that the
writer was confused.
What was it someone once said? "Explicit is better than implicit."
I *like* my parity bits.
Copyright 2010, all wrongs reversed. Peter Seebach / usenet-nospam at seebs.net
http://www.seebs.net/log/ <-- lawsuits, religion, and funny pictures
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_Game_(Scientology) <-- get educated!
I am not speaking for my employer, although they do rent some of my opinions.
More information about the Python-list