bartc <b...@freeuk.com> writes: > On 31/12/2017 12:41, Chris Angelico wrote: >> On Sun, Dec 31, 2017 at 11:33 PM, bartc <b...@freeuk.com> wrote: >>> On 30/12/2017 23:54, Chris Angelico wrote: > >>>> I've written code that uses dirty tricks like that to avoid >>>> duplication. It's at least as much of a problem as actual duplication >>>> is. Generally, the 'goto' solution results in subsequent programmers >>>> (such as my future selves) staring at the code for 30-60 seconds to >>>> figure out what it's doing. I don't like to do that to myself, much >>>> less to people I actually admire and respect. >>> >>> The problem is having to stare at the code for even longer to figure out the >>> even dirtier tricks you had to use to avoid gotos. >> >> Dirtier tricks like... named functions? > > I like to write clean and readable code. If I thought introducing > functions, whether local or not, as a way of avoiding goto was worth > doing, I would do so.
I think there's a problem with that. Standard C does not have them, you said your language does not implement them properly and I think you are new(ish) to Python. What language did you try them in? It may be that it was overly complex in that language. The idea is clean and simple. > So in this case I disagree with dragging in named functions and > introducing an extra level of control flow just to avoid duplicating > half a dozen lines of code. I would just duplicate those lines (with a > comment that they have to match the other set so that they are > maintained in sync). The suggestion was to use them to avoid gotos. If duplicating is a good idea (and it's a hard line to draw) then we are not talking about the same cases. Given the choice of "dragging in named functions" and dragging in named blocks and gotos, I would choose the functions every time. <text removed> -- Ben. -- https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
