4 ms·

> * the last one (`return None`) make me very dubious I'm curious, as someone who uses this pattern quite a bit, how would you improve on this?

jessaustin 13y ago
Just speculating here, but a func that just ends without returning, effectively returns None, so that idiom may be considered redundant. IMHO, it's often worth the additional clarity to be redundant in this way.
- StavrosK 13y ago
  In [1]: def foo(): pass In [2]: foo() is None Out[2]: True
  - jessaustin 13y ago
    I was speculating about what the original complainer meant, not about what python does... b^)
- pyre 13y ago
  Yes, but the "Pythonic" way to do things is that "explicit is better than implicit," so I'm not sure what the original poster considers wrong with `return None`.
migrantgeek 13y ago
I do this too. I dislike when functions in languages don't explicitly return something even if that something is nothing.
nine_k 13y ago
There are no procedures, only functions that return something. A function either returns something explicitly, or returns None. Easy.
d23 13y ago
That line and this one lead me to believe he's full of hot air: > if a method does not use the object's state (no `self` usage) make it a `class-` or `staticmethod`. Uh, that's a little too "cookbook" for my tastes. The decision of whether to make something a class / static method or not should be decided based on what the function is doing, rather than some pointless dogma. I'm assuming he means this method: > def alarm(self): > with open(BUZZER_MP3_FILE) as f: > play_sound(f.read()) It's a design decision, and one that is particularly trivial at that. Let's say the effects an alarm ultimately change, resulting in an internal state read / write on the object. Now you have to go back and update the class despite the fact that it at a higher philosophical level one could argue that an alarm should only be triggered on an individual boiler. Point being: it's nit-pickery for nit-pickery's sake. I don't personally use `return None`, but it's certainly more explicit and is fine to use if your judgment has found it to make sense.

jessaustin 13y ago

Just speculating here, but a func that just ends without returning, effectively returns None, so that idiom may be considered redundant. IMHO, it's often worth the additional clarity to be redundant in this way.

StavrosK 13y ago
In [1]: def foo(): pass In [2]: foo() is None Out[2]: True
- jessaustin 13y ago
  I was speculating about what the original complainer meant, not about what python does... b^)
pyre 13y ago
Yes, but the "Pythonic" way to do things is that "explicit is better than implicit," so I'm not sure what the original poster considers wrong with `return None`.

migrantgeek 13y ago

I do this too. I dislike when functions in languages don't explicitly return something even if that something is nothing.

nine_k 13y ago

There are no procedures, only functions that return something. A function either returns something explicitly, or returns None. Easy.

d23 13y ago

That line and this one lead me to believe he's full of hot air: > if a method does not use the object's state (no `self` usage) make it a `class-` or `staticmethod`. Uh, that's a little too "cookbook" for my tastes. The decision of whether to make something a class / static method or not should be decided based on what the function is doing, rather than some pointless dogma. I'm assuming he means this method: > def alarm(self): > with open(BUZZER_MP3_FILE) as f: > play_sound(f.read()) It's a design decision, and one that is particularly trivial at that. Let's say the effects an alarm ultimately change, resulting in an internal state read / write on the object. Now you have to go back and update the class despite the fact that it at a higher philosophical level one could argue that an alarm should only be triggered on an individual boiler. Point being: it's nit-pickery for nit-pickery's sake. I don't personally use `return None`, but it's certainly more explicit and is fine to use if your judgment has found it to make sense.