name for a mutually inclusive relationship

[Avi Gross]

YAGNI? True, Chris, I never have. 

And if I ever did, I might not even know someone has implemented similar
functionality with 86 optional function arguments that fine-tune what
happens in various cases and what error messages to supply, LOL! So, I would
end up re-implementing it myself.

But isn't this true for so much software we discuss here. The usual mantra
is that 80% of features are used maybe 20% of the time and a few are used
never except maybe while testing.

Realistically, it adds to bloat if a fairly well-defined object is extended
to handle every possible feature that is allowed, and then some. We recently
discussed the "+=" feature for an object when much of the time, it is pretty
much as useful as just using the longer way of adding something to yourself.
But loading a longer object description the 99% of the time when it is not
used, also costs a bit.

My comment was thus mostly academic and suggested realistic scenarios some
people use commonly enough that might be possibly to implement to make it
easier to deal with such a structure and that arguably such could also
handle this edge case. No reason to think this is an important thing to add,
just a category that could be doable.

-----Original Message-----
From: Python-list <python-list-bounces+avigross=verizon.net at python.org> On
Behalf Of Chris Angelico
Sent: Thursday, February 25, 2021 1:14 AM
To: Python <python-list at python.org>
Subject: Re: name for a mutually inclusive relationship

On Thu, Feb 25, 2021 at 4:06 PM Avi Gross via Python-list
<python-list at python.org> wrote:
>
> Is there a more general idea here? How about asking for a control that 
> internally manages N items and requires exactly M of them before the 
> entry is accepted when you click? The case being discussed sort of 
> wants N out of N, or nothing.
>

YAGNI.

ChrisA
--
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list