Defending the ternary operator
Carlos Ribeiro
cribeiro at mail.inet.com.br
Mon Feb 10 20:59:34 EST 2003
More information about the Python-list mailing list
Mon Feb 10 20:59:34 EST 2003
- Previous message (by thread): Defending the ternary operator
- Next message (by thread): urllib so slow
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
On Monday 10 February 2003 14:03, Laura Creighton wrote: > Jeremy Fincher > > I may be alone in this, but I find > > > > if condition: > > do_something() > > > > To be significantly more readable than: > > > > if condition: do_something() > > [snip] > > You aren't alone. Far from it. I agree with it, as far as the test is really a 'control condition'. But sometimes we do need simple tests - I call them 'auxiliary tests', for small stuff such as making an option to write out 'item' or 'items', or selecting alternate colors for a report. Having all those tests unfolded only serves to make the logic less readable. That's why I like them as conditional expresssions. -- Carlos Ribeiro cribeiro at mail.inet.com.br
- Previous message (by thread): Defending the ternary operator
- Next message (by thread): urllib so slow
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
More information about the Python-list mailing list