Marko Rauhamaa wrote:
> "BartC" <b...@freeuk.com>:
>
>>> Ah, but what would
>>>
>>> x = [f, g][cond]()
>>>
>>> produce?
>>
>> It will select f or g (which should refer to functions), and call one of
>> those depending on cond. That's not a problem.
>>
>> The problem is it will still evaluate both f and g,
>
> That's not really the problem. The problem is in readability.
I don't get why that's considered hard to read. We write things like this
all the time:
item = somelist[index]
value = data[key]
Presumably people won't have a problem with:
values = [f(), g(), h()]
value = values[index]
(If they do, they're going to have a bad time with Python.) They probably
won't even mind if we skip the temporary variable:
value = [f(), g(), h()][index]
and if they're experienced with languages that treat functions as
first-class values, they'll be fine with factoring out the function call:
value = [f, g, h][index]()
So why is it hard to read when the index is a flag?
value = [f, g][cond]()
Of course one can write hard-to-read code using any idiom by sheer weight of
complexity or obfuscated naming:
value = [some_function(arg)[23]['key'] or
another_function.method((x + y)/(z-x**(y-4)))*
some_list[get_index(a)].spam(eggs=False, tomato='yum'),
something.do_this(p|q).get(alpha, beta) ^
aardvark.bobble("string%s" % carrot.gamma(r&s)*
(this & that).fetch(83, 36, when=when or "now")
][cond or flag or foo(42)-1 > 17 or bar(b) < thingy(c) or not d]
but re-writing that using ternary if operator won't help one iota. I don't
see why `[a, b][flag]` is inherently less readable than `b if flag else a`.
--
Steven
--
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
