Oleg Broytman wrote: > On Wed, Apr 04, 2012 at 12:52:00PM -0700, Ethan Furman wrote: >> Forced? I do not use Python to be forced to use one style of >> programming over another. > > Then it's strange you are using Python with its strict syntax > (case-sensitivity, forced indents), ubiquitous exceptions, limited > syntax of lambdas and absence of code blocks (read - forced functions), > etc. I come from assembly -- 'a' and 'A' are *not* the same. indents -- I already used them; finding a language that gave them the same importance I did was incredible. exceptions -- Python uses them, true, but I don't have to in my own code (I do, but that's besides the point). lambdas -- they work just fine for my needs. etc. >> And it's not like returning None will allow some clock calls to work >> but not others -- as soon as they try to use it, it will raise an >> exception. > > There is a philosophical distinction between EAFP and LBYL. I am > mostly proponent of LBYL. > Well, I am partially retreat. "Errors should never pass silently. > Unless explicitly silenced." get_clock(FLAG, on_error=None) could return > None. It's only an error if it's documented that way and, more importantly, thought of that way. The re module is a good example: if it can't find what you're looking for it returns None -- it does *not* raise a NotFound exception. I see get_clock() the same way: I need a clock that does xyz... None? Okay, there isn't one. ~Ethan~
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