Path: csiph.com!usenet.pasdenom.info!dedibox.gegeweb.org!gegeweb.eu!nntpfeed.proxad.net!proxad.net!feeder1-2.proxad.net!news.tele.dk!news.tele.dk!small.news.tele.dk!newsgate.cistron.nl!newsgate.news.xs4all.nl!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 0.007 X-Spam-Evidence: '*H*': 0.99; '*S*': 0.00; 'value,': 0.04; 'subject:code': 0.07; 'counting': 0.09; 'identifier': 0.09; 'received:80.91': 0.09; 'received:80.91.229': 0.09; 'received:gmane.org': 0.09; 'received:list': 0.09; 'snippet': 0.09; 'spelled': 0.09; 'infinity': 0.16; 'received:80.91.229.3': 0.16; 'received:plane.gmane.org': 0.16; 'subject:python': 0.16; 'all.': 0.16; 'wrote:': 0.18; 'header:User-Agent:1': 0.23; 'received:comcast.net': 0.24; 'question': 0.24; 'asking': 0.27; 'certain': 0.27; 'header:X-Complaints-To:1': 0.27; 'header:In- Reply-To:1': 0.27; 'code': 0.31; 'helpful.': 0.31; 'proceed': 0.33; 'problem': 0.35; 'johnson': 0.35; 'point.': 0.35; 'but': 0.35; 'really': 0.36; 'raising': 0.36; 'doing': 0.36; "didn't": 0.36; 'useful': 0.36; 'example,': 0.37; 'being': 0.38; 'to:addr :python-list': 0.38; 'pm,': 0.38; 'to:addr:python.org': 0.39; 'enough': 0.39; 'received:org': 0.40; 'even': 0.60; 'remove': 0.60; 'full': 0.61; 'information': 0.63; 'name': 0.63; 'circle': 0.68; 'insight': 0.68; 'presented': 0.69; 'hand.': 0.84; 'rick': 0.93 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ To: python-list@python.org From: Ned Batchelder Subject: Re: cascading python executions only if return code is 0 Date: Mon, 23 Dec 2013 07:27:29 -0500 References: <420afeb9-674f-4974-8f6d-6cc80c7f57b1@googlegroups.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: c-50-133-228-126.hsd1.ma.comcast.net User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.8; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.2.0 In-Reply-To: <420afeb9-674f-4974-8f6d-6cc80c7f57b1@googlegroups.com> X-BeenThere: python-list@python.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 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: 31 NNTP-Posting-Host: 2001:888:2000:d::a6 X-Trace: 1387801661 news.xs4all.nl 2927 [2001:888:2000:d::a6]:52327 X-Complaints-To: abuse@xs4all.nl Xref: csiph.com comp.lang.python:62620 On 12/22/13 6:57 PM, Rick Johnson wrote: > Even IF you are presented with a small snippet of code that > include the identifier for the return value, you still > cannot be certain that extrapolating meaning from an > identifier*alone* will give you the insight to remove all > ambiguity. > > For example, let's say the return value is "proceed" and > attached to name spelled "flag". Do you really think you can > extrapolate the purpose of that value being returned? > > "proceed" with what? > > Proceed counting unicorns? > Proceed raising exceptions? > Proceed extrapolating to infinity and beyond?! > > You can guess, but that is all. Which brings us full circle > to the problem at hand. You seem to be arguing that the original question didn't have enough information to be usefully answered. You are doing this after the OP got an answer he was pleased with. Yes, the question had some ambiguity. That's why other people engaged with him to get to a useful point. Waxing philosophically about the impossibility of asking the question isn't helpful. -- Ned Batchelder, http://nedbatchelder.com