Re: Better writing in python

2007-10-24 Thread Alexandre Badez
On Oct 24, 3:46 pm, Duncan Booth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > For a 'python like' look lose the Hungarian notation (even Microsoft > have largely stopped using it) I wish I could. But my corporation do not want to apply python.org coding rules > increase the indentation to 4 spaces, Well, it is

Re: Better writing in python

2007-10-24 Thread beginner
On Oct 24, 9:04 am, "A.T.Hofkamp" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On 2007-10-24, Alexandre Badez <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I'm just wondering, if I could write a in a "better" way this > > code > > > lMandatory = [] > > lOptional = [] > > for arg in cls.dArguments: > > if arg is True: > >

Re: Better writing in python

2007-10-24 Thread Bruno Desthuilliers
Bjoern Schliessmann a écrit : > Alexandre Badez wrote: >> I'm just wondering, if I could write a in a "better" way this code >> [...] >> I think there is a better way, but I can't see how... > > What's "better" for you? Shorter? More performant? More readable? > Complying with best practice? Close

Re: Better writing in python

2007-10-24 Thread Marc 'BlackJack' Rintsch
On Wed, 24 Oct 2007 16:04:28 +0200, A.T.Hofkamp wrote: >> On 2007-10-24, Alexandre Badez <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> I'm just wondering, if I could write a in a "better" way this >> code >> >> lMandatory = [] >> lOptional = [] >> for arg in cls.dArguments: >> if arg is True: >> lMandatory.

Re: Better writing in python

2007-10-24 Thread Bruno Desthuilliers
[EMAIL PROTECTED] a écrit : (snip) > Anyone know why towards arg is True and arg is False, arg is None is > faster than arg == None ... Perhaps reading about both the meaning of the 'is' operator might help ? the expression 'arg is True' will only eval to true if 'id(arg) == id(True)'. Now Pyt

Re: Better writing in python

2007-10-24 Thread George Sakkis
On Oct 24, 10:42 am, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > On Oct 24, 4:15 pm, Paul Hankin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > On Oct 24, 2:02 pm, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > > On Oct 24, 7:09 am, Alexandre Badez <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > I'm just wondering, if I could write a in a "better" way

Re: Better writing in python

2007-10-24 Thread cokofreedom
On Oct 24, 4:15 pm, Paul Hankin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Oct 24, 2:02 pm, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > > > On Oct 24, 7:09 am, Alexandre Badez <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > I'm just wondering, if I could write a in a "better" way this code > > > > lMandatory = [] > > > lOptional = []

Re: Better writing in python

2007-10-24 Thread Tim Chase
> Here is my real code: > > with > dArguments = { > 'argName' : { > 'mandatory' : bool, # True or False > [...], # other field we do not care here > } > } > > lMandatory = [] > lOptional = [] > for arg in cls.dArguments: > if cls.dArguments[arg]['mandatory']: > lMandatory.append

Re: Better writing in python

2007-10-24 Thread Paul Hankin
On Oct 24, 2:02 pm, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > On Oct 24, 7:09 am, Alexandre Badez <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > I'm just wondering, if I could write a in a "better" way this code > > > lMandatory = [] > > lOptional = [] > > for arg in cls.dArguments: > > if arg is True: > > lMandatory.app

Re: Better writing in python

2007-10-24 Thread Bjoern Schliessmann
Alexandre Badez wrote: > I'm just wondering, if I could write a in a "better" way this code > [...] > I think there is a better way, but I can't see how... What's "better" for you? Shorter? More performant? More readable? Complying with best practice? Closely following a specific programming parad

Re: Better writing in python

2007-10-24 Thread A.T.Hofkamp
> On 2007-10-24, Alexandre Badez <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I'm just wondering, if I could write a in a "better" way this > code > > lMandatory = [] > lOptional = [] > for arg in cls.dArguments: > if arg is True: > lMandatory.append(arg) > else: > lOptional.append(arg) > return (lMand

Re: Better writing in python

2007-10-24 Thread kyosohma
On Oct 24, 8:02 am, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > On Oct 24, 7:09 am, Alexandre Badez <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > I'm just wondering, if I could write a in a "better" way this code > > > lMandatory = [] > > lOptional = [] > > for arg in cls.dArguments: > > if arg is True: > > lMandatory.app

Re: Better writing in python

2007-10-24 Thread Duncan Booth
Alexandre Badez <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Thanks for your try Cliff, I was very confused :P > More over I made some mistake when I post (to make it easiest). > > Here is my real code: > > with > dArguments = { > 'argName' : { > 'mandatory' : bool, # True or False > [...], # other fi

Re: Better writing in python

2007-10-24 Thread Alexandre Badez
Thanks for your try Cliff, I was very confused :P More over I made some mistake when I post (to make it easiest). Here is my real code: with dArguments = { 'argName' : { 'mandatory' : bool, # True or False [...], # other field we do not care here } } lMandatory = [] lOptional = [] fo

Re: Better writing in python

2007-10-24 Thread Harold Fellermann
Hi Alexandre, On Oct 24, 2:09 pm, Alexandre Badez <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I'm just wondering, if I could write a in a "better" way this code Please tell us, what it is you want to achieve. And give us some context for this function. > lMandatory = [] > lOptional = [] > for arg in cls.dArgum

Re: Better writing in python

2007-10-24 Thread Neil Cerutti
On 2007-10-24, Alexandre Badez <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I'm just wondering, if I could write a in a "better" way this > code > > lMandatory = [] > lOptional = [] > for arg in cls.dArguments: > if arg is True: > lMandatory.append(arg) > else: > lOptional.append(arg) > return (lMandat

Re: Better writing in python

2007-10-24 Thread Alexandre Badez
On 10/24/07, J. Clifford Dyer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Wed, Oct 24, 2007 at 12:09:40PM -, Alexandre Badez wrote regarding > Better writing in python: > > > > lMandatory = [] > > lOptional = [] > > for arg in cls.dArguments: > > if arg is True: > > lMandatory.append(arg) > > els

Re: Better writing in python

2007-10-24 Thread kyosohma
On Oct 24, 7:09 am, Alexandre Badez <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I'm just wondering, if I could write a in a "better" way this code > > lMandatory = [] > lOptional = [] > for arg in cls.dArguments: > if arg is True: > lMandatory.append(arg) > else: > lOptional.append(arg) > return (lMan

Re: Better writing in python

2007-10-24 Thread Paul Hankin
On Oct 24, 1:09 pm, Alexandre Badez <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I'm just wondering, if I could write a in a "better" way this code > > lMandatory = [] > lOptional = [] > for arg in cls.dArguments: > if arg is True: > lMandatory.append(arg) > else: > lOptional.append(arg) > return (lMan

Re: Better writing in python

2007-10-24 Thread Paul Hankin
On Oct 24, 1:09 pm, Alexandre Badez <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I'm just wondering, if I could write a in a "better" way this code > > lMandatory = [] > lOptional = [] > for arg in cls.dArguments: > if arg is True: > lMandatory.append(arg) > else: > lOptional.append(arg) > return (lMan

Re: Better writing in python

2007-10-24 Thread Paul Hankin
On Oct 24, 1:09 pm, Alexandre Badez <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I'm just wondering, if I could write a in a "better" way this code > > lMandatory = [] > lOptional = [] > for arg in cls.dArguments: > if arg is True: > lMandatory.append(arg) > else: > lOptional.append(arg) > return (lMan

Re: Better writing in python

2007-10-24 Thread Marc 'BlackJack' Rintsch
On Wed, 24 Oct 2007 12:09:40 +, Alexandre Badez wrote: > I'm just wondering, if I could write a in a "better" way this code > > lMandatory = [] > lOptional = [] > for arg in cls.dArguments: > if arg is True: > lMandatory.append(arg) > else: > lOptional.append(arg) > return (lManda

Re: Better writing in python

2007-10-24 Thread J. Clifford Dyer
On Wed, Oct 24, 2007 at 12:09:40PM -, Alexandre Badez wrote regarding Better writing in python: > > lMandatory = [] > lOptional = [] > for arg in cls.dArguments: > if arg is True: > lMandatory.append(arg) > else: > lOptional.append(arg) > return (lMandatory, lOptional) > > I thin