common practice for creating utility functions?

[John Salerno]

Just a quickie for today: Is it common (and also preferred, which are
two different things!) to create a function that has the sole job of
calling another function?

Example: for fun and exercise, I'm creating a program that takes a quote
and converts it into a cryptogram. Right now I have four functions:

convert_quote -- the main function that starts it all
make_code -- makes and returns the cryptogram
make_set -- called from make_code, converts the quote into a set so each
letter gets only one coded letter
test_sets -- makes sure a letter isn't assigned to itself

So my first question is this: should I make a Cryptogram class for this,
or are functions fine? If the latter, then back to my original point:
can I do something like this:

def convert_quote(q uote):
return make_code(quote )

Or does it not make sense to have a function just call another function?

[Paul Rubin]

John Salerno <jo******@NOSPA Mgmail.com> writes:

So my first question is this: should I make a Cryptogram class for
this, or are functions fine? If the latter, then back to my original
point: can I do something like this:

def convert_quote(q uote):
return make_code(quote )

It's fine to do that if it expresses your intentions more clearly.
It's also normal to write a call for a function you haven't written
yet:

some_quote = convert_quote(a nother_quote)

where you write convert_quote afterwards. It may not be til you
actually write convert_quote that you notice that it simply calls
another function. If that happens, it's fine.

Also, you don't need to make a class if you don't need to do OOP-like
things with the instances. But, sometimes, making a class also
clarifies your intentions. For example, making a class means it
becomes much simpler to have multiple cryptograms active at the same
time, if you want to do that.

Programming is not just creating strings of instructions for a
computer to execute. It's also "literary" in that you are trying to
communicate a program structure to other humans reading the code.

Someone once asked the famous bike racing champion Eddy Merckx (he was
sort of the Lance Armstrong of the 1970's and then some) how to become
a good racer. His answer was "ride a lot". It's the same way with
coding. As you get more experienced these questions get easier to
answer for yourself. But always, do whatever works, and if your code
gets messy or hits technical snags, ask yourself what alternative
approaches avoid those snags, and thereby develop a sense of what to
do.

[Dan Sommers]

On Mon, 15 May 2006 18:26:01 GMT,
John Salerno <jo******@NOSPA Mgmail.com> wrote:

So my first question is this: should I make a Cryptogram class for
this, or are functions fine? ...
Perhaps I'm "old school," but I don't bother with classes unless I'm
going to end up with multiple instances (or I'm pushed into a corner by,
e.g., a GUI framework).
... If the latter, then back to my original point: can I do something
like this: def convert_quote(q uote):
return make_code(quote )
Of course you can. Or, since this is python, you can also do this:

convert_quote = make_quote
Or does it not make sense to have a function just call another
function?

If there's a good design-level reason (like keeping certain objects or
classes unaware of others, or leaving room for something you know you
will add later), then there's nothing wrong with a function consisting
solely of another function call. If you end up with a lot of those tiny
functions, though, and they persist through multiple development cycles,
then you may be making a systematic mistake in your design.

Regards,
Dan

--
Dan Sommers
<http://www.tombstoneze ro.net/dan/>
"I wish people would die in alphabetical order." -- My wife, the genealogist

[Scott David Daniels]

John Salerno wrote:

...Is it common ...[and preferred] to create a function that has the sole job of
calling another function?

Example: ... cryptogram. Right now I have four functions:

convert_quote -- the main function that starts it all
make_code -- makes and returns the cryptogram
make_set -- called from make_code, converts the quote into a set so each
letter gets only one coded letter
test_sets -- makes sure a letter isn't assigned to itself

So my first question is this: should I make a Cryptogram class for this,
or are functions fine? Functions are just fine. I'd use a class if they wanted to share state.
... can I do something like this:
def convert_quote(q uote):
return make_code(quote )
Or does it not make sense to have a function just call another function?

Obviously you _can_ do that. I wouldn't, however. If (to you) the four
functions above "mean" something different, I'd implement convert_quote
with:
convert_quote = make_code

--
-Scott David Daniels
sc***********@a cm.org

[John Salerno]

John Salerno wrote:

Just a quickie for today

Another quick one I'll combine in this thread: How can I create two
separate conditions in a for loop?

Such as this, which doesn't seem to work beyond string.punctuat ion:

for char in string.punctuat ion or string.whitespa ce:

[John Salerno]

Dan Sommers wrote:

Perhaps I'm "old school," but I don't bother with classes unless I'm
going to end up with multiple instances (or I'm pushed into a corner by,
e.g., a GUI framework).

Thanks to all of you! In fact, I sort of came to this same conclusion. I
started with a class, but realized there wasn't much of a point since
I'm just doing some 'work' and returning the cryptogram.

I might try the other suggestion too about convert_quote = make_code,
that might be ok. Or I can simply call make_code.

Thanks!

[John Salerno]

John Salerno wrote:

John Salerno wrote:

Just a quickie for today

Another quick one I'll combine in this thread: How can I create two
separate conditions in a for loop?

Such as this, which doesn't seem to work beyond string.punctuat ion:

for char in string.punctuat ion or string.whitespa ce:

I tried this:

punc_space = string.punctuat ion + string.whitespa ce
for char in punc_space:

[BartlebyScrivener]

QOTW

"Programmin g is not just creating strings of instructions for a
computer to execute. It's also 'literary' in that you are trying to
communicate a program structure to other humans reading the code." Paul
Rubin

rpd

[Scott David Daniels]

John Salerno wrote:

How can I create two separate conditions in a for loop?

...
I tried this:

punc_space = string.punctuat ion + string.whitespa ce
for char in punc_space:

That's probably best. If the sources are not so simple, you could use:

import itertools

for char in itertools.chain (onesource, anothersource, yetanother):
...

--Scott David Daniels
sc***********@a cm.org

[John Salerno]

Scott David Daniels wrote:

John Salerno wrote:

How can I create two separate conditions in a for loop?

... I tried this:

punc_space = string.punctuat ion + string.whitespa ce
for char in punc_space:

That's probably best. If the sources are not so simple, you could use:

import itertools

for char in itertools.chain (onesource, anothersource, yetanother):
...

--Scott David Daniels
sc***********@a cm.org

Cool. Iterators are fun! :)