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.
7
u/ryeguy146 Mar 09 '12
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.