> assert all(x >= 0 for x in (a, b, c, d, e, f, g, h, i, j)) yep neat!
> Why don't you do the range check *before* storing it in state? That way > you can identify the calculation that was wrong, instead of merely > noticing that at some point some unknown calculation went wrong. I guess no reason really. I suppose in my mind I was thinking it was an unlikely safeguard but I liked the idea of adding so would just do it at the end of a time step. In reality I think there is practically no difference and this way it is done once, in a single location vs. potential 10 separate checks? I don't see the advantage? > You're looking at every single attribute, including those of super > classes, when you only want to check "10 or so" attributes. That's > probably not wise. At the very least, dir() will be a fairly expensive > call. yes your right, sorry I was just trying to post a quick example to go with my question. I would use a list of the attributes to check. > > If you insist on checking state *after* the value is stored, instead of > preventing it from being stored in the first place, it is better to make > the state object responsible for doing it's own bounds checking. That way > only the state object needs to be updated when you change those ten > attributes, instead of some arbitrary number of places scattered all > throughout your code. yes I think this is what I was getting at, I will look at your suggestion thanks. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
