On 2023-03-10 at 22:16:05 -0500,
Thomas Passin <li...@tompassin.net> wrote:
> I'd make the pattern in this example even more understandable and less
> error-prone:
>
> def update_pids(target):
> cmd = ["tail", "-n", "1", "-f", f"/var/log/{target}"]
> pids.update({target: subprocess.Popen(cmd)}) if not \
> pids[target] else None
I might be missing something, but how is that more understandable and
less error prone than any of the following:
if not pids[target]:
cmd = ["tail", "-n", "1", "-f", f"/var/log/{target}"]
pids.update({target: subprocess.Popen(cmd)})
or:
cmd = ["tail", "-n", "1", "-f", f"/var/log/{target}"]
pids[target] or pids.update({target: subprocess.Popen(cmd)})
or:
if pids[target]:
pass
else:
cmd = ["tail", "-n", "1", "-f", f"/var/log/{target}"]
pids.update({target: subprocess.Popen(cmd)})
Picking a nit, that's not a good place to continue that line with the
backslash, either. IMO, "not pids[target]" should be atomic.
--
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
