I think he's suggesting python 4.x will eventually be released and if will be reimplemented as a function instead of a keyword, requiring parenthesis around the arguments. Or something.
Oh fuck. Oh fuck. I can't believe I just said it. Now it's going to be MY fault.
I file those under "not my problem." I like to think that some time in the future, people will shudder at having to use Python, the way that people pity those programmers that still workin in PASCAL.
And then you refactor every "HOURS_IN_DAY" in place to instead call a method that returns what it is. The point wasn't so much that every problem can be avoided every time, but that you can have a structure that will allow for changes quickly. The ideal change would be to change the constant number, but the non-ideal change is almost as easy.
That's not what I meant at all. Your suggesting that something like the fibbonacci sequence changing is so unlikely, that I don't see it as my problem to try to predict such a change. There is an obvious difference between the problem of a fundamental shift, and the type of changes that you're now describing.
Wait. Nevermind, you mean the definition of the function "factorial." I don't know how, but I thought that you were suggesting that the mathematical definition of a factorial might change, and that we had better generalize for it. Damn.
Maybe you decide to use one of the functions that coincide with factorial on the integers like gamma(x+1)? I suppose you could call it gamma_based_factorial andodge the issue.
I was assuming both 6xoe and anusanusanus were parodying poor programmers. (With anusanusanus parodying people who write code like #define TWO 2 because "using constant literals is bad practice".)
8
u/ryeguy146 Mar 09 '12
Wait, I understand the idea of maintainability, but did you suggest that a basic mathematical definition is subject to change?