Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.python > #49169
| References | (1 earlier) <mailman.3773.1372110329.3114.python-list@python.org> <8f813b85-9a4e-4612-82b1-dd58f9bfd497@googlegroups.com> <CAPTjJmo_BD80h14Ab+0KsPQddTabSkZq9HVBb6K8UY-rOXYnFw@mail.gmail.com> <CAMuTYXhDF2Tdw6sL3LPn09E1zBfP5USmnnv_xSQezXkJQgCJqA@mail.gmail.com> <CAPTjJmpDwMi3UirUMWBpn+mvxtx6Dxf5hisCQ=f_ZYCgzQ06wA@mail.gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| From | Ian Kelly <ian.g.kelly@gmail.com> |
| Date | 2013-06-25 10:00 -0600 |
| Subject | Re: Is this PEP-able? fwhile |
| Newsgroups | comp.lang.python |
| Message-ID | <mailman.3835.1372176098.3114.python-list@python.org> (permalink) |
On Tue, Jun 25, 2013 at 1:21 AM, Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> wrote: > On Tue, Jun 25, 2013 at 2:20 PM, Benjamin Kaplan > <benjamin.kaplan@case.edu> wrote: >> The reason I was given (which I promptly ignored, of course) is that >> it's "best practice" to only have one exit point for a block of code. >> Only one way of terminating your loop, only one "return" per function, >> never use exceptions, etc. I think it originally came about as a way >> to make sure that your clean-up code was called (and to make it easier >> for code reviewers to make sure your clean up code was called) and >> then started being passed around as a rule among programming teachers >> who didn't have any experience outside the classroom. > > I've heard that "one exit point" rule before, too, but never any > justification for it. Your explanation does at least make sense > (albeit only in a language without even RAII), but I don't like silly > rules like that :) In my experience the sorts of people who preach "one exit point" are also all about defining preconditions and postconditions and proving that the postconditions follow from the preconditions. I think that the two are linked, because the "one exit point" rule makes those sorts of proofs simpler.
Back to comp.lang.python | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
Re: Is this PEP-able? fwhile Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2013-06-25 07:38 +1000
Re: Is this PEP-able? fwhile rusi <rustompmody@gmail.com> - 2013-06-24 19:01 -0700
Re: Is this PEP-able? fwhile Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2013-06-25 13:54 +1000
Re: Is this PEP-able? fwhile Benjamin Kaplan <benjamin.kaplan@case.edu> - 2013-06-24 21:20 -0700
Re: Is this PEP-able? fwhile Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2013-06-25 17:21 +1000
Re: Is this PEP-able? fwhile Ian Kelly <ian.g.kelly@gmail.com> - 2013-06-25 10:00 -0600
Re: Is this PEP-able? fwhile rusi <rustompmody@gmail.com> - 2013-06-25 09:19 -0700
Re: Is this PEP-able? fwhile Neil Cerutti <neilc@norwich.edu> - 2013-06-26 13:09 +0000
Re: Is this PEP-able? fwhile Dennis Lee Bieber <wlfraed@ix.netcom.com> - 2013-06-25 20:40 -0400
Re: Is this PEP-able? fwhile jfharden@gmail.com - 2013-06-26 03:00 -0700
Re: Is this PEP-able? fwhile Jerry Peters <jerry@example.invalid> - 2013-06-26 19:56 +0000
csiph-web