Fredrik Lundh wrote: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > I don't find your code any more readable than the OP's > > equivalent code: > > the OP's question was > > How you do this in a practic way without > the use of one-line code ?
I know. But you compared the readability of code with one-liners and long variable names with the readability of code with no one-liners and short variable names. I thought that most of the readability improvement was due to the long-to-short name change. So I posted what I hoped was code equivalent to what you quoted, but using your short names and a one-liner "then-if-else" (on 3 lines :-) It satisfied me that the readability improvement was due to the short varible names. > > The OPs code make one pass through the dict, your's makes > > two. I do not know what effect (if any) that has in the case of > > a very large dict. > > the OPs code contains five reads and three writes, my and > steven's versions contain four reads and three writes. the > yet-to-be-released ternary operator would remove one read > from the OPs code, which makes both alternatives equivalent. > > dictionary accesses don't involve passes over the dictionary. I was actually thinking of the effects of hardware memory cache... > there's a comment on readability and code understanding waiting > to be made here, but I'll leave that for another day. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
