Hello, thanks for all the replies. Of course I am aware that my use of the "else:" is different from the "break" case when it comes to "return". For return, the "else:" is not needed, as it won't continue the execution.
def _areConstants(expressions):
for expression in expressions: if not expression.isExpressionConstantRef(): break if expression.isMutable(): break else: return True return False
That's not an improvement but also not the obvious way to rewrite the code to suppress the, IMHO legitimate, warning. Instead of introducing ``break``\s for an unnecessary ``else`` clause one could also just remove that unnecessary ``else``::
Mind you, I am using the "else:" specifically to express, that I expect the loop to return based on one element. I agree with you that the suggested code is making that hard to discern and that removing the "else" clause is an option. The thing is, I developed a style, where a return in the loop always leads to a return in a else. It's the pick and choose method. So any time, I make decisions based on an iterable, I do it like that. def _areConstants(expressions):
for expression in expressions: if not expression.isExpressionConstantRef(): return False if expression.isMutable(): return False return True
Which improves the situation in a way, because now the fellow Python coder doesn't wonder where the ``break`` should be or if the author understood the semantics of ``else`` on loop constructs.
That precisely is the question. Is the "else" an emphasis, or is it an error indicator. I can assure you that I did it on purpose. But if nobody gets that, it kinds of misses the point. I take the general feedback to say "yes, using else: without need is a style problem". So I will try and give it up. :-)
I would also avoid this question by using `all()` here. :-)
I learned of "any" and "all" relatively late. I agree for booleans it's the better choice, but it's another subject. Many times, it's not a boolean return value. Yours, Kay