LudovicoVan
Posts:
3,007
From:
London
Registered:
2/8/08
|
|
Re: 0^0=1
Posted:
May 6, 2012 12:44 PM
|
|
--
Julio P. Di Egidio
Software Analyst Programmer
Head of Technical
Integrated Payment Solutions LLP
http://www.integratedpaymentsolutions.co.uk
mailto:julio@integratedpaymentsolutions.co.uk
Tel: 0845 468 1168
Mob: 0782 523 2928
"Gus Gassmann" <horand.gassmann@googlemail.com> wrote in message
news:634f0df5-687d-41fb-b372-1a37c1b957b1@y17g2000vbn.googlegroups.com...
> On May 6, 12:04 pm, "LudovicoVan" <ju...@diegidio.name> wrote:
>> "William Hale" <bill...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>
>> news:billh04-C688F1.04503606052012@news.eternal-september.org...
>> <snip>
>>
>> > You have a program that needs to concatenate the first name and last
>> > name of a person to obtain the full name. However, some people only
>> > have
>> > a first name (Cher, Sting, etc). Your suggested program would produce
>> > an
>> > error message; the programs suggested by others would run ok.
>>
>> Right, but both programmers would be wrong in presuming that there is a
>> correct program behavior other than the one corresponding to the
>> customer's
>> requirements...
>
>> There are indeed cases when you do want an exception to be
>> raised if the last name is empty.
>
> That may well be so. However, I submit to you that these are special
> cases and should not drive the design of a general-purpose routine.
There is no such thing as a "general-purpose routine". The computer itself
is thought of as a general purpose device, yet only in the sense that it can
run any (specific) programs.
> Anyone who *needs* the product method to fail on an empty list would
> be a fool to rely on the method catching the exception and returning
> --- what? You can`t even define it properly. The condition needs to be
> caught *outside* of the routine, before the product is ever called.
"Catching exceptions" happens to be a technical term of which you don't seem
to know the exact meaning.
-LV
|
|
