XLiIV a écrit :
I started playing with Python and love it since the very beginning,
programming using Python is so ...human-like? but one thing returns to
me almost everytime when I see/write the code
Let's take a look at two ways of thinking...
the standard one which is well-known and loved by almost everyone :)
and that crazy concept below which suprised evan me :wacko:
<code>
import time
ftime = time.time()
localtime = time.localtime(ftime)
localtime = list(localtime[:3])
You don't need the call to list here.
localtime = [str(i) for i in localtime]
print '-'.join(localtime)
</code>
It's harder to read than the below concept, isn't?
Maybe I didn't used to this way of thinking yet. I hope it'll change
soon or i'll quit ;)
<almost code>
time.time() -> ftime -> time.localtime() -> p -> p[:3] -> g -> list(g)
-> '-'.join()
</almost code>
print "-".join(map(str, localtime(time.time())[:3]))
or
print "-".join(str[item] for item in localtime(time.time())[:3])
My example conclusion and not-ansewered-yet question...
-it's nice to read
Very subjective point here. I'm afraid I don't share your POV.
and choosing the good names to variables aren't so
important
-what is the purpose of the variables here? :)
help debugging ? make code easier to grasp ?
I realize that there is no chance to implement it,
In Python ? Not a chance, indeed.
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
