In this question, the OP asks "How could I create a randomly-variable-length list of instances (objects) of this class Teacher without using any list comprehension (maybe from vectorization or broadcasting?)".
My answer focuses on the part of his question that specifies "without any list comprehension", as that seems to be the crux of his problem.
@Steve disagrees with that, and we had a conversation on the comments on that.
The question for Meta is: what should be valued, a more complete answer, or one that is less complex?
This Meta question seems to favor complete, as it would probably suit the OP best.
However, as a general user of the site (ie, while browsing, not asking or answering), I'd rather have answers that go straight to the main point of the question.
That's not to say they should be short. There are some answers that look like an essay, and they are great, as they detail the answer. There are also many answers that add something like 'by the way, I think you could improve your code in this secondary aspect', and that's fine too.
For this specific question, there is even a further second question that is not covered by my answer, but my question here for Meta is more generic: In general, should we
- strive for covering every point on a question, even if it adds complexity to the answers, or
- strive for simplicity and sticking to a point, even if secondary points of the question go unanswered?