running python 2 vs 3

[Mark Lawrence]

On 21/03/2014 02:18, Chris Angelico wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 21, 2014 at 12:06 PM, Roy Smith <roy at panix.com> wrote:
>> In article <532b8f0d$0$29994$c3e8da3$5496439d at news.astraweb.com>,
>>   Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python at pearwood.info> wrote:
>>
>>> The rule of three applies here: anything you do in three different places
>>> ought to be managed by a function.
>>
>> I prefer the rule of two :-)
>
> The way I explain it is: Three is a rule of thumb. Sometimes it's
> blatantly obvious at two, and other times you need four or five
> similar pieces of code before you can see which part should become the
> function. If the code's absolutely identical and reasonably
> long/complex, then yes, two's all you need, but how often is that?
> Usually it's similar, rather than congruent... err I mean identical.
> That's where the third usage comes in. Or if it's maybe 2-3 lines,
> used in two places, it doesn't necessarily need to be a function.
> Again, a third usage is a strong hint that it should be broken out.
>
> The rule doesn't say that anything that *isn't* in three places yet
> should *not* be broken out. :)
>
> ChrisA
>

Everybody, and especially Antipodeans, knows that there is no rule 6 and 
by definition what rule 7 is :)

-- 
My fellow Pythonistas, ask not what our language can do for you, ask 
what you can do for our language.

Mark Lawrence

---
This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active.
http://www.avast.com