it is not worth changing Python over.

I agreed here, is doesn't make that difference

Em qui, 18 de jun de 2020 14:25, Christopher Barker <pythonchb@gmail.com> escreveu:
On Thu, Jun 18, 2020 at 10:00 AM Daniel. <danielhilst@gmail.com> wrote:
def foo():
  if a:
     return
  if B:
      return
  if C:
      return

  do_stuff()
  

Vs

def foo():
   return if a
   return if B
   return if C
   do_stuff

The second is much more compact

is compact good ?!?
 
if A: return 

Well, I'm strongly against these non-indented blocks in python

But why? you nseem to theink the more compact Ruby version is better, so why not the more compact Python version -- the only difference is a colon, and the order:

def foo():
    if a: return
    if B: return
    if C: return

which is equally compact, and  puts the "meat" of the code up front, which feels more clear and obvious to me.

I do use this form myself, in just this situation, where there are multiple cases, and it is compact enough that the return doesn't get lost. That is, I would not do:

if ( A and B) or (this > that) and (something in everything): return

in that case, the return gets lost out at the end -- even if you don't go beyond 72 chars.

anyway, even if it's a slight be more readable to some, it is not worth changing Python over.

-CHB




 
Em qui, 18 de jun de 2020 13:36, Barry Scott <barry@barrys-emacs.org> escreveu:


On 18 Jun 2020, at 13:30, Daniel. <danielhilst@gmail.com> wrote:

I love the do_stuff if cond syntax in Ruby and in perl. It's very natural to real, much more to follow than if cond: do_stuff

I on the other hand hate that syntax and find it harder to read.

Why put the code out of sequence?

if read_this_1st: read_this_2nd()

vs. this that I think of as out of sequence order

read_this_2nd() if not read_this_1st

Barry



But still I don't think that it is enough to demand a language change.

Something near this is to have a default of none for 

A if B else None

So we can ommit the else None part, but this goes against the explicit is better than implicit 

Em qua, 17 de jun de 2020 07:42, Paul Moore <p.f.moore@gmail.com> escreveu:
On Wed, 17 Jun 2020 at 10:44, artem6191 <artem129871@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> So yeah, we can "if <expression>: return", but why not?

That's the wrong question. The correct question is "why is this
needed, and is the need sufficiently pressing to justify the change to
the language?"

You're talking about allowing "return EXPR if CONDITION" as an exact
equivalent of "if CONDITION: return EXPR". There isn't even a benefit
of "it saves a line of code", so it's very hard to see a
justification.

Paul
_______________________________________________
Python-ideas mailing list -- python-ideas@python.org
To unsubscribe send an email to python-ideas-leave@python.org
https://mail.python.org/mailman3/lists/python-ideas.python.org/
Message archived at https://mail.python.org/archives/list/python-ideas@python.org/message/PHB2VWU3J2YAGCWZR5N5N2BAGPFBQMF4/
Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
_______________________________________________
Python-ideas mailing list -- python-ideas@python.org
To unsubscribe send an email to python-ideas-leave@python.org
https://mail.python.org/mailman3/lists/python-ideas.python.org/
Message archived at https://mail.python.org/archives/list/python-ideas@python.org/message/WEK6CTGJGEBD6ROG5BASTJ6C43OKBTRE/
Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/

_______________________________________________
Python-ideas mailing list -- python-ideas@python.org
To unsubscribe send an email to python-ideas-leave@python.org
https://mail.python.org/mailman3/lists/python-ideas.python.org/
Message archived at https://mail.python.org/archives/list/python-ideas@python.org/message/3QILG6Z6V2TGDIRGQFVGTOWGNO4R7KWR/
Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/


--
Christopher Barker, PhD

Python Language Consulting
  - Teaching
  - Scientific Software Development
  - Desktop GUI and Web Development
  - wxPython, numpy, scipy, Cython