is there any principle when writing python function
rosuav at gmail.com
Mon Aug 29 20:20:49 CEST 2011
On Tue, Aug 30, 2011 at 12:52 AM, Neil Cerutti <neilc at norwich.edu> wrote:
>> I would split the function only when both halves (caller and
>> callee) can be given short and useful names - if you can't
>> explain what a block of code does in a few words, it's probably
>> a poor choice for splitting out into a function.
> I agree, except for the implied unconditional preference for
> short names. I believe the length of a name should usually be
> proportional to the scope of the object it represents.
Oh,I definitely prefer short names to this:
"Short" is a relative term. If the function's name is 20 characters
long and meaningful, that's fine.
> In my house, I'm dad. In my chorus, I'm Neil. In town I'm Neil
> Cerutti, and in the global scope I have to use a meaningless
> unique identifier. Hopefully no Python namespace ever gets that
Chorus? Does that imply that you sing? Neat :)
What you have, I think, is a module named Cerutti, in which you have a
class of which Neil is an instance. Inside method functions, you can
be referenced by "self" (which is to code what pronouns are to
English); outside of them, you are referred to as Neil; and outside
the module, Cerutti.Neil is the cleanest way to reference you. But
your name is still Neil, no matter how you're referenced.
whose name is sometimes Chris, sometimes Rosuav, and sometimes "Chris
or Michael" by people who can't distinguish him from his brother
More information about the Python-list