On 2023-05-24 07:12:32 +1000, Chris Angelico wrote:
> On Wed, 24 May 2023 at 07:04, Peter J. Holzer <hjp-pyt...@hjp.at> wrote:
> > But I find it easier to read if I just reuse the same variable name:
> >
> > user = request.GET["user"]
> > user = str(user, encoding="utf-8")
> > user = user.strip()
> > user = user.lower()
> > user = orm.user.get(name=user)
> >
> > Each instance only has a livetime of a single line (or maybe two or
> > three lines if I have to combine variables), so there's little risk of
> > confusion, and reusing the variable name makes it very clear that all
> > those intermediate results are gone and won't be used again.
> >
>
> Small side point: You can make use of the bytes object's decode()
> method to make the chaining much more useful here, rather than the
> str() constructor.
>
> This sort of code might be better as a single expression. For example:
>
> user = (
> request.GET["user"]
> .decode("utf-8")
> .strip()
> .lower()
> )
> user = orm.user.get(name=user)
Yes, that probably wasn't the best example. I sort of deliberately
avoided method chaining here to make my point that you don't have to
invent a new variable name for every intermediate result, but of course
that backfired because in this case you don't need a variable name at
all. I should have used regular function calls ...
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
