On 2016-06-06, Chris Angelico <ros...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Tue, Jun 7, 2016 at 2:05 AM, Jon Ribbens ><jon+use...@unequivocal.co.uk> wrote: >> On 2016-06-06, Chris Angelico <ros...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> In that case, please never insult the intelligence of your future >>> readers by including any of these parentheses: >>> >>> x = 1 + (2 * 3) >> >> I'm not sure what your point is. Yes, obviously you can take anything >> to ridiculous extremes - that's why I said "sensible". > > Earlier in this thread, it was suggested that parens always be used, > even for this kind of example.
Ok, but it wasn't me that said that, and I don't agree with it. >>> value = 77 if (x % 2) else (70*7) >> >> I'm not convinced that one isn't actually a good idea. It does seem >> to aid the readability (especially if you space '70 * 7' properly). >> If the expressions were any more complex then it would be even more >> likely to be a good idea. > > Hmm, I still think not. But if you want the parens, at least > acknowledge that they're not to enforce/remind of operator precedence. That depends on your point of view. I suppose the above without parentheses could theoretically be taken to mean: value = (77 if (x % 2) else 70) * 7 although I would agree that people would be unlikely to assume that was the meaning so they are not required under that heading. >> I can't tell now if you're agreeing with me or disagreeing, because >> you started out sounding like you were disagreeing but then provided >> an example that helps prove my point. > > My point is that if you're not sure, you grab interactive Python and > give it a quick whirl. Usually easier AND quicker than the > alternatives. It's never easier and quicker than the meaning of the code simply being obvious by looking at it, which is the point. -- https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
