[Jim Jewett]
>>> I think that adding parentheses would help, by at least signalling that
>>> the logic is longer than just the next (single) expression.
>>>
>>> level = (0 if "absolute_import" in self.futures else -1)
[Steve Holden]
>> Contrast with the bleeding obvious:
>>
>> level = 0
>> if "absolute_import" in self.futures:
>> level = -1
>>
>> or even, if a certain obscurity is desirable:
>>
>> level = - ("absolute_import" in self.futures)
In honor of Peter Naur receiving the 2005 Turing Award:
<http://campus.acm.org/public/pressroom/press_releases/3_2006/turing_3_01_2006.cfm>
and remembering Python's Algol roots, I'd like to constrast it with
the truly obvious:
level = (if "absolute_import" in self.futures then 0 else -1)
That way also has the minor advantage of computing the same value for
`level` as Jim's code ;-)
[Joe Smith]
> Wait a second.
>
> I may be just a user but if the above is correct then that syntax needs to
> die!
> There is no logical reason for "XX if YY else ZZ" to be roughly equivlent
> to:
> "if (YY) then {ZZ} else {XX}" , but AFAICT that is pretty much the way you
> expanded that.
Ya, Steve just got it backwards. "(X if Y else Z)" is the same as
"(if Y then X else Z)", except for the excessive novelty. The obvious
spelling would require making "then" a keyword, which is actually OK
with everyone :-)
> I hope I misunderstood, or that there was a typo in a post.
You were lucky this time, bucko, but don't ever go questioning a
python-dev regular again ;-)
_______________________________________________
Python-Dev mailing list
Python-Dev@python.org
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev
Unsubscribe:
http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
