On 2018-07-05 01:11, Victor Stinner wrote:
In this case, the second loop might be better left as-is because there are 2 conditions for leaving the loop. Stylistically, it might be starting to hurt readability with something like:The code comes from Lib/_pyio.py. Simplified code: --- nodata_val = b"" ... if n is None or n == -1: ... current_size = 0 while True: chunk = self.raw.read() if chunk in empty_values: nodata_val = chunk break current_size += len(chunk) chunks.append(chunk) return b"".join(chunks) or nodata_val... while avail < n: chunk = self.raw.read(wanted) if chunk in empty_values: nodata_val = chunk break avail += len(chunk) chunks.append(chunk) ... return out[:n] if out else nodata_val --- It seems like "nodata_val = " assignment can be moved out of the first loop, but cannot be moved for the second loop (since the second loop has no iteration if "avail >= n"). Yeah, maybe for this specific file, assignment expressions could be used for the (C) case and would be worth it.
while avail < n or (chunk := self.raw.read(wanted)) not in empty_values: [snip] _______________________________________________ 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
