- changed title to change dont_load=True to load=False
change dont_load=True to load=False
It isn't poor style to not eschew boolean variables that don't read in the negative.
Wouldn't e.g. "load=False" read less poorly than "dont_load=True"? Semantics are not lost, and you don't miss the bonus of not needing to munge the English.
Comments (6)
-
repo owner -
Account Deleted It probably seems more descriptive because you're expressing the exception to the rule.
grep also reveals dont_expire_missing and dont_instrument (no_instrument), and there may well be other with more subtle names.
-
repo owner after the change, the value of "dont_load" was apparent as it is the name of a particular behavior that is "special", and "dont_load" is the name of this behavior. its much more awkward to name a test "test_load_equals_false" than "test_dont_load". but alas. 5c9fec286ed5388ebe4bdc9dda5cd033e437c7ce
-
repo owner also no, there are no other names like this. this is not a common habit.
-
repo owner unless you consider the maxdb no_minvalue/no_maxvalue params. but that is because MaxDB names them NOMINVALUE/NOMAXVALUE.
-
repo owner - removed milestone
Removing milestone: 0.6.0 (automated comment)
- Log in to comment
I'd like to figure out why "dont_load=True" has always seemed more descriptive to me even though the "double negative" flag has always gone off on this one before accepting.