running python 2 vs 3

[alister]

On Fri, 21 Mar 2014 09:40:40 +0000, Mark Lawrence wrote:

> 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 :)

Im sticking with rule 4