[REBOL] Re: [refinements] Mutually exclusive refinements
From: SunandaDH:aol at: 15-Aug-2004 9:18
Anton:
> "Mutually exclusive refinements" should mean:
> you don't get any (= exclusive)
> if they are specified together (= mutually).
That's a logical response. But it's not the only logical response.
Take an example: a function whose job it is to adjust a date to the nearest
Monday (start of week) or Saturday (start of weekend).
It is obvious what it should do if I invoke it "properly":
nearest-to/sow now/date
or
nearest-to/sowe now/date
But what if I code?
nearest-to now/date ;; no refinement
or
nearest-to/sow/sowe/date ;; both refinements
Possible responses include (there are many others):
-- function crashes with or without logging an error message
-- function returns none or false
-- function returns input date unchanged
-- function defaults to /sow -- so I get the nearest Monday
-- function works out both /sow and /sowe. Then it returns the earliest one,
so I get a Monday or a Friday
All of those are reasonable behaviours under some conditions. But unless you
know the usage the function was *initially* intended for, it's not really
possible to guess what default behaviour my actual, real, nearest-to function
displays.
Of course, it might make a lot more sense, and remove a lot of dangerous
guessing, if it had been initially written as two separate functions.
Sunanda.
