On 2022-12-18 16:49:27 +0000, Stefan Ram wrote: > Dennis Lee Bieber <wlfr...@ix.netcom.com> writes: > >>for idx, thing in enumerate(things): > >> if idx == 103: > >> continue > >> do_something_with(thing) > >> > > For this example, I'd probably reverse the condition. > > if idx != 103: > > do_something_with(thing) > > The first four lines of the quotation above cannot be a > complete program as "do_something_with" is not defined > therein, so they must be part of a larger program. > If, in this larger program, something still follows > "do_something_with(thing)" in the loop, the new program > after the transformation might not show the same behavior.
“do_something_with(thing)” is obviously not intended to be a single
function call but as a shorthand for “one or more lines of code which do
something with `thing`”. So there is nothing after it because it is
included in it.
That said, the "fail and bail" technique is often more readable than
putting the main incode inside of an if - especially if that code is
long and/or it is guarded by multiple conditions.
hp
--
_ | Peter J. Holzer | Story must make more sense than reality.
|_|_) | |
| | | h...@hjp.at | -- Charles Stross, "Creative writing
__/ | http://www.hjp.at/ | challenge!"
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
-- https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
