Path: csiph.com!x330-a1.tempe.blueboxinc.net!usenet.pasdenom.info!news.albasani.net!feeder.news-service.com!news2.euro.net!newsgate.cistron.nl!newsgate.news.xs4all.nl!194.109.133.85.MISMATCH!newsfeed.xs4all.nl!newsfeed6.news.xs4all.nl!xs4all!post.news.xs4all.nl!not-for-mail Return-Path: X-Original-To: python-list@python.org Delivered-To: python-list@mail.python.org X-Spam-Status: OK 0.009 X-Spam-Evidence: '*H*': 0.98; '*S*': 0.00; 'subject:" ': 0.03; 'cpython': 0.05; '*is*': 0.09; 'subject:Function': 0.09; 'examples': 0.12; 'wrote:': 0.15; '3.2.1': 0.16; 'explicitly.': 0.16; 'finney': 0.16; 'subject:vs.': 0.16; 'thunderbird': 0.16; 'pm,': 0.16; 'received:209.85.210.174': 0.19; 'received:mail- iy0-f174.google.com': 0.19; 'header:In-Reply-To:1': 0.22; 'code': 0.24; '(or': 0.25; '(in': 0.26; 'windows': 0.26; 'generic': 0.29; 'code,': 0.29; 'id:': 0.29; 'least': 0.31; 'message- id:@gmail.com': 0.32; 'rather': 0.33; 'implement': 0.33; 'to:addr :python-list': 0.34; 'header:User-Agent:1': 0.34; 'rule': 0.34; "can't": 0.34; 'but': 0.37; 'getting': 0.38; 'received:192': 0.38; 'received:google.com': 0.38; 'received:209.85': 0.38; 'subject:: ': 0.38; 'case,': 0.38; 'common': 0.39; 'received:192.168.1': 0.39; 'either': 0.39; 'to:addr:python.org': 0.39; 'received:209': 0.40; 'subject:. ': 0.66; 'show': 0.67; 'share': 0.68; '5.0': 0.84; 'anyway;': 0.84 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:subject:references :in-reply-to:x-enigmail-version:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=9kK9QjyHaQKRcUGLNUgGACCn31C1+J30G6yh+yNK74U=; b=xmozGBJJ5X9gE8KUfoFnTLHEs0imq0ispneAuGXRaPNNUgCDIPrJzwavMU9NByFTNd EPA3dZB0J6LZbxbPt3pvJQRpQG8R8QB0yMMfUpAlFPZVYF3MS9Jkmr9Cy5CxwzIsCoU+ G5iibTeB6C2bStowdLx2PuqiNDpSEV4VE2aQY= Date: Fri, 29 Jul 2011 21:28:26 -0500 From: Andrew Berg User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:5.0) Gecko/20110624 Thunderbird/5.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "comp.lang.python" Subject: Re: Function "modes" vs. separate functions References: <14874f59-a836-4031-a8c9-6b24f4d5e812@d7g2000vbv.googlegroups.com> <4e335535$0$29975$c3e8da3$5496439d@news.astraweb.com> <87vcukmsxd.fsf@benfinney.id.au> In-Reply-To: <87vcukmsxd.fsf@benfinney.id.au> X-Enigmail-Version: 1.2 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-BeenThere: python-list@python.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: General discussion list for the Python programming language List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Newsgroups: comp.lang.python Message-ID: Lines: 14 NNTP-Posting-Host: 2001:888:2000:d::a6 X-Trace: 1311992919 news.xs4all.nl 23886 [2001:888:2000:d::a6]:44872 X-Complaints-To: abuse@xs4all.nl Xref: x330-a1.tempe.blueboxinc.net comp.lang.python:10566 On 2011.07.29 08:57 PM, Ben Finney wrote: > If they share a lot of code, either it *is* separable to common > functions (in which case, implement it that way), or the “same thing” > code is sufficiently complex that it's better to show it explicitly. > > But this is all getting rather generic and abstract. What specific > real-world examples do you have in mind? I can't come up with any off the top of my head. I was thinking of a general rule anyway; ultimately one decides (or at least should) how to write code on a case-by-case basis. -- CPython 3.2.1 | Windows NT 6.1.7601.17592 | Thunderbird 5.0 PGP/GPG Public Key ID: 0xF88E034060A78FCB