2011/5/26 Terry Reedy <tjre...@udel.edu>: > On 5/26/2011 2:08 PM, Guido van Rossum wrote: > >> Sorry to butt in here, but I agree with Eric that it was better >> before. There is a common idiom, *pointer++ =<something>, and >> whenever you see that you know that you are appending something to an >> output buffer. Perhaps the most important idea here is that this >> maintains the *invariant* "pointer points just after the last thing in >> the buffer". Always maintaining the invariant is better than trying to >> micro-optimize things so as to avoid updating dead values. The >> compiler is better at that. > > This explanation makes sense (more than Eric's version of perhaps the same > thing ;-). > > http://bugs.python.org/issue12188 > "A condensed version of the above added to PEP 7 would help new developers > see the usage as local idiom rather than style bug."
I think a more general formulation would be: "Idiomatic code is more important than making static analyzers happy." -- Regards, Benjamin _______________________________________________ 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
