Op 2005-12-14, Steve Holden schreef <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > Antoon Pardon wrote:
>>>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. I guess we will just have to agree to disagree on what is more rational in this case. Maybe it is just a case of what idiom one is used to. -- Antoon Pardon -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list