On Fri, Dec 29, 2017 at 5:03 PM, Franklin? Lee <leewangzhong+pyt...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Fri, Dec 29, 2017 at 1:01 AM, Chris Angelico <ros...@gmail.com> wrote: >> On Fri, Dec 29, 2017 at 1:31 PM, Franklin? Lee >> <leewangzhong+pyt...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> On Thu, Dec 28, 2017 at 5:21 AM, William Rose <william27.07...@gmail.com> >>> wrote: >>>> I agree with the point that it should allow builtin but the main purpose of >>>> it is to not allow global variables >>> >>> But functions are also accessed using global names. What is your >>> answer to the potential problem of programmers being reluctant to >>> factor out code into new functions? >> >> Code review, training, mentorship. If you try to make the language too >> restrictive, all you end up doing is forcing people to creatively get >> around its limitations. Make the language expressive, and then teach >> people how to use it well. >> >> Can you show some examples of code that would be improved by this >> "internal function" concept? > > Hey, I'm the one saying that internal functions will promote bad habits.
My apologies for the lack of clarity; this "you" was addressing the OP primarily. ChrisA _______________________________________________ Python-ideas mailing list Python-ideas@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-ideas Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
