Builtin function versus new syntax for PEP308 -- was Re: PEP308: Yet another syntax proposal
Andrew Koenig
ark at research.att.com
Wed Feb 12 19:18:18 EST 2003
Michael> It's bad form to JUST have side-effects in a short-circuiting
Michael> expression. So, if I saw this (with ANY of the proposed
Michael> syntaxes):
Michael> if a>b: doActionForA() else: doActionForB()
Michael> I'd probably suggest a re-write. It's syntactically valid,
Michael> but ought to be written as an if STATEMENT not an if
Michael> EXPRESSION.
Of course, if you're serious about factoring, you should do it this way:
(if a>b: doActionforA else: doActionforB)()
<0.5 wink>
--
Andrew Koenig, ark at research.att.com, http://www.research.att.com/info/ark
More information about the Python-list
mailing list