guido wrote: > > > it's a reasonable way to make your code a bit more reusable > > > (it's rude to expect every chunk of potentially usable data to > > > have a filename...). > > > > Of course -- that's why I think most code should use file-like objects. > > Agreed. The quoted examples are all kludges in my book. (The API > designer initially accepted only a filename, then realized this was a > bad choice, and fixed it in a backwards compatible way instead of > fixing it right. There are just as many examples where it's done > right, I just can't think of any. :-) really? personally, I think that inventing new method names just because the language doesn't happen to support method overloading is a much bigger kludge ;-) (just like multiple inheritance, overloading can surely be abused by overambitious designers, but *not* having it is way too limiting) otoh, unless someone wants to remove overloading emulation from the modules I mentioned, this is probably a bit off-topic... cheers /F
RetroSearch is an open source project built by @garambo | Open a GitHub Issue
Search and Browse the WWW like it's 1997 | Search results from DuckDuckGo
HTML:
3.2
| Encoding:
UTF-8
| Version:
0.7.4