Antoon Pardon wrote: > Op 2005-12-13, Steve Holden schreef <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: [...] >> >>>But lets make an effort to make the code more readable. What >>>about the following suggestion. I use a kind of EnumType with >>>two values: NotRegistered and Registerd. And the name of the >>>type is NotConnected. So I can then write >>> >>> if type(self.callback) is NotConnected. >>> >>>Would that be selfdocumenting enough for you? >>> >> >>It would be somewhat more self-documenting, but why not just use one >>name to indicate the state and another, only meaningful in certain >>states, to indicate the callback? > > > Why should I do that? Checking the type of a variable is conceptually > no different form testing set membership. So what I did, was just > bringing two disjoint sets togther and working with a variable from > that union. This is all in all a rather simple mathematical idea. > And I don't see why I should put certain information into a seperate > variable. It makes as much sense as working with numbers and using > a seperate variable to store whether a particular number is postive, > even or has some other characteristic. You don't seperate information > you can easily acquire from the variable itself. So why should I > seperate this information that is aquired just as easily? >
Well, as you might argue, I'm not tryng to effect a change in your behaviour, I'm simply trying to point out how it could be made more rational. regards Steve -- Steve Holden +44 150 684 7255 +1 800 494 3119 Holden Web LLC www.holdenweb.com PyCon TX 2006 www.python.org/pycon/ -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list