yagyala a écrit :
> Hi.
>
> I recently started working for a company that has just implemented its
> first set of software standards. So far, so good. Here's the problem:
> one of those standards is that the comments for each routine must
> indicate every other routine that it calls.
May I suggest that this is a totally *stupid* (and FWIW, totally
impossible to apply) "standard" ?
Consider the following code, which is totally dumb but quite close to
real-life code in it's design (use of polymorphic dispatch, HOFs and
anonymous functions...) :
def some_func(obj, callback):
return callback(obj.method())
class One(object):
def method(self):
return 42
class Two(object):
def __init__(self, val):
self.val = val
def method(self):
return self.val / 3
def cb_one(val):
return val + 2
def cb_two(val):
return val * 3 + 42
arg_pairs = [(One(), cb_one),
(One(), cb_two),
(Two(33), cb_one),
(Two(99), cb_two)
(One(), lambda x: x ** 2]
for obj, cb in arg_pairs:
print some_func(obj, cb)
How are you going to list the functions called by some_func ???
(snip)
> I'm sure some will wonder about the reasoning of this standard.
Indeed !-)
> The
> company primarily has experience writing scientific alogorythms which
> can get rather long. It makes a bit more sense to document all
> routines called for a very long routine, but for short routines that
> primarily call other routines, as most mine do, well....
Show the above code to your PHB and ask him to explain how you're going
to apply the "standard"...
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
