In article <5221352b$0$6599$c3e8da3$54964...@news.astraweb.com>,
Steven D'Aprano wrote:
> Heh, everybody has one of two reactions:
>
> "This is awesome!" [[i.e. what I said]]
>
> "You'll add type checking to my Python code over my dead body!!!"
Duck typing is a funny thing. Sure, I don't ha
On 31 August 2013 01:13, Steven D'Aprano
wrote:
> On Fri, 30 Aug 2013 06:35:47 -0400, Roy Smith wrote:
>
>> In article <52200699$0$6599$c3e8da3$54964...@news.astraweb.com>,
>> Steven D'Aprano wrote:
>>
>>> These days, it would be relatively simple to implement pre- and post-
>>> condition checki
On 8/30/13 8:13 PM, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
On Fri, 30 Aug 2013 06:35:47 -0400, Roy Smith wrote:
In article <52200699$0$6599$c3e8da3$54964...@news.astraweb.com>,
Steven D'Aprano wrote:
These days, it would be relatively simple to implement pre- and post-
condition checking using decorators,
On Fri, 30 Aug 2013 06:35:47 -0400, Roy Smith wrote:
> In article <52200699$0$6599$c3e8da3$54964...@news.astraweb.com>,
> Steven D'Aprano wrote:
>
>> These days, it would be relatively simple to implement pre- and post-
>> condition checking using decorators, and indeed one of the motivating
>>
In article <52200699$0$6599$c3e8da3$54964...@news.astraweb.com>,
Steven D'Aprano wrote:
> These days, it would be relatively simple to implement pre- and post-
> condition checking using decorators, and indeed one of the motivating use-
> cases for function annotations in Python 3 is to allow su
On Thursday, August 29, 2013 12:09:22 AM UTC+3, Joe Junior wrote:
> While designing a simple library, I found myself asking a
>
> philosophical question: to check or not to check the parameter's
>
> interface?
>
Design by contract discipline says: do not.
>
>
> I think that, considering it is
On Thu, 29 Aug 2013 09:40:32 -0300, Joe Junior wrote:
> Well, the main reason for me asking this question here was because of
> the Java/C#/Whatever developer in me craving for an Interface for the
> container's items, and I noticed that I'm not alone in this. But I was
> actually expecting the "W
On 29/08/2013 10:40 PM, Joe Junior wrote:
Another reason for this question is that I read some people saying
they wouldn't use python for large projects, and they always point at
the lack of Interfaces as a concern. I actually disagree, but I can
see their point. What do you think?
Having worke
On 29 August 2013 10:07, Chris Angelico wrote:
> Hmm. l don't know of any good articles off-hand. But what I'm talking
> about is simply developing the skill of reading exceptions, plus a few
> simple things like knowing where it's appropriate to catch-and-log;
> sometimes, what that means is actu
On Thu, Aug 29, 2013 at 10:40 PM, Joe Junior wrote:
> @ChrisA
>>Do you believe that you can write code to catch every bug you might
>>make? If so, you are naive and probably haven't spent much time
>>programming yet :) And if not, then you must acknowledge that bugs
>>WILL happen; therefore you wi
Well, the main reason for me asking this question here was because of
the Java/C#/Whatever developer in me craving for an Interface for the
container's items, and I noticed that I'm not alone in this. But I was
actually expecting the "We're all consenting adults, here", I guess I
just needed the co
On Wed, 28 Aug 2013 18:09:22 -0300, Joe Junior wrote:
> Of course I don't want to check isistance(), I like duck typing, but
> should I check if hasattr() and callable() before adding to the container?
That won't tell you if the object has a quack() method but with
incompatible semantics (e.g. wr
On Thu, 29 Aug 2013 08:31:25 +0200, Fabrice POMBET wrote:
> I am no depository of the pythonic way to think(tm) but I would create
> flock and inherit Duck from flock, or possibly set Flock as a method of
> ducks.
Neither of those are good design.
Donald is an individual Duck, he is not a flock
On Thu, Aug 29, 2013 at 4:31 PM, Fabrice POMBET wrote:
> I am no depository of the pythonic way to think(tm) but I would create flock
> and inherit Duck from flock, or possibly set Flock as a method of ducks.
>
Why should a Duck _be_ a Flock? They are quite different. No, a flock
_has_ a duck (o
Le 29 août 2013 à 00:56, python-list-requ...@python.org a écrit :
"""While designing a simple library, I found myself asking a
philosophical question: to check or not to check the parameter's
interface?
I think that, considering it is Python, the usual answer would be
"no", but here is the situa
On Thu, 29 Aug 2013 11:39:25 +1000, Chris Angelico wrote:
> The novice thinks his primary job is to stop the program from crashing.
> The expert knows that a crash is just another way for things to go
> wrong, and one of the easiest to deal with.
"I find it amusing when novice programmers believe
On Thu, Aug 29, 2013 at 11:20 AM, Cameron Simpson wrote:
> However, when working in Java its type strictness caught a great
> many simple brainfart logic errors by checking function signatures;
> typically calling the wrong function/method or mangling arguments.
> Getting this stuff up front was h
In article ,
Cameron Simpson wrote:
> Anyway, I digress. My point is that there are plusses to having
> signature/type checking at coding time. It is not the Python Way,
> but I surely cannot be alone in sometimes being frustrated chasing
> a deeply nested runtime error that static type checking
On 29Aug2013 09:17, Chris Angelico wrote:
| On Thu, Aug 29, 2013 at 7:54 AM, Terry Reedy wrote:
| > Depending on who the users will be, I might just not worry about it until an
| > exception is raised. If you try to protect against everything that you might
| > do wrong, you are on the road to ma
On Wed, 28 Aug 2013 18:09:22 -0300, Joe Junior wrote:
> While designing a simple library, I found myself asking a philosophical
> question: to check or not to check the parameter's interface?
The only correct answer to that is, "Yes no maybe".
:-)
> I think that, considering it is Python, the
On Thu, Aug 29, 2013 at 7:54 AM, Terry Reedy wrote:
> Depending on who the users will be, I might just not worry about it until an
> exception is raised. If you try to protect against everything that you might
> do wrong, you are on the road to madness, as the protection code might also
> be buggy
On 8/28/2013 5:09 PM, Joe Junior wrote:
While designing a simple library, I found myself asking a
philosophical question: to check or not to check the parameter's
interface?
I think that, considering it is Python, the usual answer would be
"no", but here is the situation that got me thinking:
c
While designing a simple library, I found myself asking a
philosophical question: to check or not to check the parameter's
interface?
I think that, considering it is Python, the usual answer would be
"no", but here is the situation that got me thinking:
class Flock:
def __init__(self):
23 matches
Mail list logo
