Sybren Stuvel wrote: > Tal Einat enlightened us with: > > Actually, the common work-around for this is: > > > > (thing and [thing+1] or [-1])[0] > > > > This works since non-empty lists are always considered true in > > conditional context. This is more generic, and IMO more readable. > > I think it's not readable at all. It's confusing - you create a > singleton list, only to extract the first element from it and discard > the list again. I'd rather read a proper if-statement. > I agree that an "if" statement is by far more readble; I was referring only to the dicussion of the "and-or trick", not the entire issue.
I meant to say that: (thing and [thing+1] or [-1])[0] is more readable (IMO) than: thing != -1 and (thing and thing+1 or -1) or 0 - Tal -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
