On Mon, 21 Aug 2017 05:44:53 -0700, jek wrote:
> This is a very old post, but since I just though I would like a
> conditional return like this, and checked for previous proposals, I
> thought I'd give my opinion.
>
> Unfortunately only about 8 of the 67 replies actually answer the
> question, and there isn't any overwhelming consensus to if a conditional
> return would be good or not. Most (if not all) people dislike the syntax
> though, and I agree.
>
> So, my proposal would be the syntax:
>
> return if <expr>
>
> That is more pythonic than return?, does not involve a new keyword, and
> is "human readable" in a way similar to e.g the ternary statement.
>
> //jek
>
> tue 12 apr 2011 zildjohn01 wrote:
>> I propose the following syntax:
>>
>> return? expr
>>
>> be expanded to
>>
>> _temp = expr if _temp: return _temp
>
> As a side note, for the syntax of a cache, that was discussed a bit, I
> sometimes to use:
>
> try:
> return cache[key]
> except KeyError:
> ret = cache[key] = compute(key)
> return ret
>
> In my limited test it is a bit quicker than both "if x in cache" and
> "v=cache.get(x)" (~ 0.9, 1.1 and 1.3 seconds) Though it might depend on
> the hash complexity and the number of cache hits vs misses, so I guess
> either syntax would do fine.
how does this syntax enable you to specify the value to be returned?
What new benefits would this addition provide beyond what is already
available?
--
My father was a saint, I'm not.
-- Indira Gandhi
--
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
