Dan Sommers writes:
> Perhaps by your standard [it's not EAFP]. The code I wrote[:]
already_there = seen.add(element)
if already_there:
# handle the duplicate case
> performs an operation, and then asks whether or not some condition
> was met, as opposed to asking whether the condition is met first,
> and then conditionally performing the operation.
Aside: Checking status returns seems like LBYL to me, too. EAFP
doesn't ask at all, it responds to a tug on its sleeve. :-)
I think the point that we could cheaply have a (nearly?) atomic
"check_presence_and_add_if_not" operation is valid. I can see how
that might be useful in coordinating resource access, for example.
Given dict.setdefault, a parallel method like set.add_unique, which
returns the existing element or None, might be the better approach.
This would also allow the programmer to check for (2 is not 2.0) if he
wants to.
_______________________________________________
Python-ideas mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
https://mail.python.org/mailman3/lists/python-ideas.python.org/
Message archived at
https://mail.python.org/archives/list/[email protected]/message/CMBPSULCM42B6EYIP2N7EWZBYQ7YUSGR/
Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
