Eric Smith wrote:
I think it's a little too cute, and 'pass' is preferable.
Agreed - it was just a little surreal to put the ... in as my usual
pseudo-code stuff happens here marker, only to realise what I had
written was still executable Py3k code.
Cheers,
Nick.
--
Nick Coghlan | [EMAIL
Matthew Hawkins wrote:
If there's another way of doing this I'd like to hear it.
The pass statement is still the right way to denote an empty block (the
compiler is already able to detect that and optimise the code
appropriately).
My tangential comment was based on the fact that this keyword
Nick Coghlan wrote:
it was
just odd to notice that the Py3k interpreter would quite happily execute
the example code in my postscript when I had really only intended to
write it as pseudo-code with sections missing.
Well, they do say that Python is executable
pseudocode. :-)
--
Greg
Greg Ewing wrote:
Nick Coghlan wrote:
it was
just odd to notice that the Py3k interpreter would quite happily execute
the example code in my postscript when I had really only intended to
write it as pseudo-code with sections missing.
Well, they do say that Python is executable
pseudocode.
Steven D'Aprano wrote:
On Sat, 4 Oct 2008 12:26:30 pm Nick Coghlan wrote:
(Tangent: the above two try/except examples are perfectly legal Py3k
code. Do we really need the pass statement anymore?)
I can't imagine why you would think we don't need the pass statement. I
often use it:
* For
Hi.
First post so here it goes.
My name is Adde, and I'm a Swedish software developer. I've been
programming for about 23 years now since starting with Basic on the
C64. I've been through most well known and a couple of lesser known
languages in search of the perfect one. At the moment I'm
Hi Andreas,
On Fri, Oct 3, 2008 at 7:40 PM, Andreas Nilsson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi.
First post so here it goes.
My name is Adde, and I'm a Swedish software developer. I've been programming
for about 23 years now since starting with Basic on the C64. I've been
through most well known and
On Fri, Oct 3, 2008 at 6:10 AM, Andreas Nilsson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
With that out of the way, on to todays subject:
I use list comprehensions and generator expressions a lot and lately I've
found myself writing a lot of code like this:
for i in items if i.some_field == some_value:
- Mensaje original
De: Leif Walsh [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Para: Andreas Nilsson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
CC: python-dev@python.org
Enviado: viernes, 3 de octubre, 2008 10:29:33
Asunto: Re: [Python-Dev] if-syntax for regular for-loops
On Fri, Oct 3, 2008 at 6:10 AM, Andreas Nilsson wrote:
On Fri, Oct 3, 2008 at 12:33 PM, Andreas Nilsson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Thanks for the pointer!
I don't buy the argument that newlines automagically improves readability
though. You also get increased nesting suggesting something interesting is
happening where it isn't and that hurts
Vitor Bosshard wrote:
On Fri, Oct 3, 2008 at 6:10 AM, Andreas Nilsson wrote:
Essentially, all that saves is a newline
or two, which, as I think has been generally accepted, tends to hurt
readability.
The exact same argument could be used for list comprehensions themselves.
No, an LC saves
Greg Ewing wrote:
Vitor Bosshard wrote:
The exact same argument could be used for list comprehensions themselves.
No, an LC saves more than newlines -- it saves the code
to set up and append to a list. This is a substantial
improvement when this code would otherwise swamp the
essentials of
12 matches
Mail list logo
