Shane Hathaway wrote: > Brian's suggestion makes the code read more like an outline. In Brian's > example, the high-level intent stands out from the details that assumes that when you call a library function, the high-level intent of *your* code is obvious from the function name in the library, and to some extent, by the argument names chosen by the library implementor. I'm not so sure that's always a valid assumption. > while in your example, there is no visual cue that distinguishes the details > from the intent. carefully chosen function names (that you chose yourself) plus blank lines can help with that. > Of course, lambdas are even better, when it's possible to > use them: > > doFoo((lambda a, b: a + b), (lambda c, d: c + d)) that only tells you that you're calling "doFoo", with no clues whatsoever to what the code in the lambdas are doing. keyword arguments are a step up from that, as long as your intent matches the library writers intent. </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