Mitko Haralanov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Thu, 19 Oct 2006 08:16:57 +0200 > Fredrik Lundh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > why are you writing functions that needs to output their own name > > a 100 times? why should the program's *external* behaviour depend > > on such an irrelevant detail of its internal design? sounds like > > lousy design to me. > > I am sorry if I sound defensive in my reply here, I am not trying to > be.
I believe Frederik's abrasive approach is an attempt to help you be dispassionate about your design, so that possible flaws can be examined rationally. > What does it matter why I am doing it? I only want to know if it's > possible and if so, how? Most programming forums, this one included, see a steady flow of people who, having gone some way down a particular path, believe that all they need is to be shown how to complete the journey. An examination of the *actual* problem to be solved often shows that there is a better way to go. We prefer to know what actual problem is to be solved, so that false starts can be terminated quickly, and a practical approach suggested instead. Without knowing what the actual problem is, we can't know what to suggest. -- \ "There was a point to this story, but it has temporarily | `\ escaped the chronicler's mind." -- Douglas Adams | _o__) | Ben Finney -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
