On 21/04/18 11:18, Chris Angelico wrote:
But you haven't answered anything about what "readable" means. Does it
mean "if I look at this code, I can predict what dis.dis() would
output"? Or does it mean "this code clearly expresses an algorithm and
the programmer's intent"? Frequently I hear people complain that
something is unreadable because it fails the former check. I'm much
more interested in the latter check. For instance, this line of code
expresses the concept "generate the squares of odd numbers":
[x*x for x in range(100) if x % 2]
But it doesn't clearly express the disassembly. Is that a problem? Are
list comprehensions a bad feature for that reason? I don't think so.
ChrisA
For what it worth - readability for me is all about understanding the
intent. I don't care (most of the time) about how the particular code
construct is actually implemented. When I am maintaining code (or trying
to) I need to understand what the developer intended (or in the case of
a bug, the gap between the outcome and the intention).
One of the challenges about readability is it partially depends on skill
level - for a beginner the comprehension may well be baffling where as
someone with more skills would understand it - almost intuitively; as
an example: I have been using Python for 7 years - and comprehensions
with more than one for loop still are not intuitive for me, I can't read
them without an amount of deep thought about how the loops work together.
--
--
Anthony Flury
email : *anthony.fl...@btinternet.com*
Twitter : *@TonyFlury <https://twitter.com/TonyFlury/>*
_______________________________________________
Python-Dev mailing list
Python-Dev@python.org
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev
Unsubscribe:
https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
