def _areConstants(expressions):
return all(_isConstant(expression) for expression in expressions)
def _isConstant(expression):
return expression.isExpressionConstantRef() and not
expression.isMutable()
?
When I tried to understand the OP's code, I had to mentally step through
the code and assemble the meaning, whereas the above code requires no such
work (it probably takes a bit longer per-line, but less time over-all).
If you're asking about whether pylint should complain about the OP's code,
I think that it shouldn't -- in the semantics of for/else, return and break
are similar and rewriting OP's code to suppress the warnings is not an
improvement:
def _areConstants(expressions):
for expression in expressions:
if not expression.isExpressionConstantRef():
break
if expression.isMutable():
break
else:
return True
return False
(Caveat: none of this code has been tested)
On 12 January 2014 07:21, Ian Cordasco <graffatcolmin...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Woops. Sorry for the confusion. I never end up using that particular
> construct so I never get it right.
>
> On Sun, Jan 12, 2014 at 9:18 AM, Carl Crowder <carl.crow...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > Ian, it's the opposite - 'else' is only triggered if *no* break
> statement is
> > encountered.
> >
> >
> > On 12 January 2014 16:12, Ian Cordasco <graffatcolmin...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >>
> >> I don't see any mesage from pylint in your email, could you post it
> again?
> >>
> >> Regardless, I think what you're disagreeing with is the language
> >> specification. The documentation specifies that the `else` is only
> >> triggered on breaks:
> >>
> >>
> http://docs.python.org/2/tutorial/controlflow.html#break-and-continue-statements-and-else-clauses-on-loops
> >>
> >> On Sun, Jan 12, 2014 at 8:57 AM, Kay Hayen <kay.ha...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >
> >> > Hello,
> >> >
> >> > often I write code like this:
> >> >
> >> > def _areConstants(expressions):
> >> > for expression in expressions:
> >> > if not expression.isExpressionConstantRef():
> >> > return False
> >> >
> >> > if expression.isMutable():
> >> > return False
> >> > else:
> >> > return True
> >> >
> >> > That is to search in an iterable, and return based on finding
> something,
> >> > or
> >> > returning in the alternative, I specifically prefer the "else:" branch
> >> > over
> >> > merely putting it after the "for" loop.
> >> >
> >> > This triggers the above message, which I consider flawed, because as
> >> > soon as
> >> > there is a "raise", or "return", that should be good enough as well.
> >> > Basically any aborting statement, not only break.
> >> >
> >> > I wanted to hear your opinion on this, pylint bug, or only in my mind.
> >> >
> >> > Yours,
> >> > Kay
> >> > _______________________________________________
> >> > code-quality mailing list
> >> > code-quality@python.org
> >> > https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/code-quality
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> code-quality mailing list
> >> code-quality@python.org
> >> https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/code-quality
> >
> >
> _______________________________________________
> code-quality mailing list
> code-quality@python.org
> https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/code-quality
>
_______________________________________________
code-quality mailing list
code-quality@python.org
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/code-quality
