Some syntactic sugar proposals
lambdadmitry at gmail.com
Mon Nov 15 07:40:42 CET 2010
On Nov 15, 9:39 am, Dmitry Groshev <lambdadmi... at gmail.com> wrote:
> Here are some proposals. They are quite useful at my opinion and I'm
> interested for suggestions. It's all about some common patterns.
> First of all: how many times do you write something like
> t = foo()
> t = t if pred(t) else default_value
> ? Of course we can write it as
> t = foo() if pred(foo()) else default_value
> but here we have 2 foo() calls instead of one. Why can't we write just
> something like this:
> t = foo() if pred(it) else default_value
> where "it" means "foo() value"?
> Second, I saw a lot of questions about using dot notation for a
> "object-like" dictionaries and a lot of solutions like this:
> class dotdict(dict):
> def __getattr__(self, attr):
> return self.get(attr, None)
> __setattr__= dict.__setitem__
> __delattr__= dict.__delitem__
> why there isn't something like this in a standart library?
> And the third. The more I use python the more I see how "natural" it
> can be. By "natural" I mean the statements like this:
> [x.strip() for x in reversed(foo)]
> which looks almost like a natural language. But there is some
> if x in range(a, b): #wrong!
> it feels so natural to check it that way, but we have to write
> if a <= x <= b
> I understand that it's not a big deal, but it would be awesome to have
> some optimisations - it's clearly possible to detect things like that
> "wrong" one and fix it in a bytecode.
> x in range optimisation
> dot dict access
> foo() if foo() else bar()
Oh, I'm sorry. I forgot to delete my little notes at the bottom of
More information about the Python-list