Op 2006-05-09, Pisin Bootvong schreef <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > Joe Marshall wrote: >> Alex Martelli wrote: >> Most languages allow `unnamed numbers'. The `VAT_MULTIPLIER' argument >> is a >> strawman. Would you want to have to use a special syntax to name the >> increment >> in loop? >> >> defnumber zero 0 >> defnumber one { successor (zero); } >> >> for (int i = zero; i < limit; i += one) { ...} >> >> If you language allows unnamed integers, unnamed strings, unnamed >> characters, unnamed arrays or aggregates, unnamed floats, unnamed >> expressions, unnamed statements, unnamed argument lists, etc. why >> *require* a name for trivial functions? >> Wouldn't all the other constructs benefit by having a required name as >> well? >> > > Is this a Slippery Slope fallacious argument? > (http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?SlipperySlope)
No it is not. > "if python required you to name every function then soon it will > require you to name every number, every string, every immediate result, > etc. And we know that is bad. Therefore requiring you to name your > function is bad!!!! So Python is bad!!!!" I think this is a strawman. IMO requiring to name a function can make things cumbersome. I don't suppose anyone thinks the following is good practice. one = 1. lst.append(one) Yet this practice is forced upon you in a number of cases when you require functions to be named. Look at the following: def incr_cnt_by_one(obj): obj.cnt += 1 treat_all(lst, incr_cnt_by_one) So the question I have is: Why is requiring me to give this function a name considered a good thing, when it leads to a situation that is considered bad practice in case of a number. -- Antoon Pardon -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list