[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Alex Martelli) writes:
> Mike Meyer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bengt Richter) writes:
>>
>> > On Sun, 19 Dec 2004 21:29:27 +0100, "Fredrik Lundh"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > (or maybe a restricted unquote_arg function for better safety).
>> > E.g., double back-tick is a syntax error now, so you could write
>> >
>> > def ternary(c, ``t, ``f):
>> > if c: return eval(t)
>> > else: return eval(f)
>>
>> Actually, I think it would be more pythonic if the indication of
>> non-evaluation happened at the function invocation instead of the
>> function definition. Having it at the function definition makes it
>
> As in, say, calling
> x = ternary(c, lambda:t, lambda:f)
> ? The 'lambda:' is a (not nice-looking, but...) "indication of
> non-evaluation"... or am I misundertanding what you're saying?
No, you're saying it exactly right. And that does, indeed, do the
trick. Just a bit ugly is all.
<mike
--
Mike Meyer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://www.mired.org/home/mwm/
Independent WWW/Perforce/FreeBSD/Unix consultant, email for more information.
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
