Path: csiph.com!v102.xanadu-bbs.net!xanadu-bbs.net!feeder.erje.net!eu.feeder.erje.net!newsfeed.xs4all.nl!newsfeed3.news.xs4all.nl!xs4all!newsgate.cistron.nl!newsgate.news.xs4all.nl!post.news.xs4all.nl!not-for-mail
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <lqed60$si$1@ger.gmane.org>
References: <53CAAD27.9010207@cdreimer.com> <lqed60$si$1@ger.gmane.org>
From: Ian Kelly <ian.g.kelly@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 19 Jul 2014 12:56:55 -0600
Subject: Re: What's the proper style for a library string function?
To: Python <python-list@python.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Precedence: list
Newsgroups: comp.lang.python
Message-ID: <mailman.12057.1405796265.18130.python-list@python.org>
Lines: 27
NNTP-Posting-Host: 2001:888:2000:d::a6
Xref: csiph.com comp.lang.python:74829

On Sat, Jul 19, 2014 at 12:24 PM, Mark Lawrence <breamoreboy@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> Besides that I wouldn't write the function on one line, the first.  Once you
> return your data you can do what you want with it.  The second you can only
> write by default to stdout.  The third is really horrible in my book, YMMV.

I agree. Optional flags that alter the behavior of functions are
considered unpythonic; usually it's better to let the alternative
behavior have its own function, particularly if they can share
implementation.

With that in mind, I would suggest to the OP that you might want to
have *two* functions:

def format_completed_time(start, end):
    return "Time completed: " + str(end - start)

def print_completed_time(start, end):
    print(get_completed_time(start, end))

Also notice that I changed the function naming style from mixedCase to
lower_case_with_underscores. This is the style recommended for Python
by PEP 8, which you should read if you haven't already.
http://legacy.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0008/#naming-conventions

I also changed the verb from "get" to "format".  "get" suggests to me
that it will retrieve the completed time as a processable value, not
as a part of a formatted string.