On May 28, 12:25 am, Marc 'BlackJack' Rintsch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, half.italian
> wrote:
>
> > [entries.__setitem__(int(d.date.strftime('%m'))], d.id) for d in
> > links]
>
> > btw...I was curious of this too. I used 'dir(dict)' and looked for a
> > method that might do what we wanted and bingo!
>
> This is really ugly. Except `__init__()` it's always a code smell if you
> call a "magic" method directly instead of using the corresponding
> syntactic sugar or built in function. And using a list comprehension just
> for side effects is misleading because the reader expects a (useful) list
> to be build when stumbling over a list comp and it's wasteful because an
> unnecessary list of `None`\s is build and thrown away for no reason other
> than to have a one liner. This is not Perl! ;-)
>
> Ciao,
> Marc 'BlackJack' Rintsch
It's ugly I agree, but it was the first solution I found. I need you
guys for the _right_ solutions :) I have stumbled over the same
situation myself. I don't see that the list comprehension itself is
misleading. If nothing is catching the empty list that is returned,
it signals that the returned list is unimportant, and if wrapped by a
call to dict() its obvious also.
Do you think we just shouldn't use list comprehensions to build
dictinaries at all? Or is Stefan's solution acceptable (and pythonic)?
~Sean
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
