21–30 of 174 posts
I'm not much of a Python guy, but that chained comparison operator is sweet! Sure, it's just syntax sugar, but it saves a lot of keystrokes, especially if the variable name is long. Is Python the only language with this feature?
opt = {0: do_a,
1: do_b,
3: do_b,
4: do_c}
opt[option]()> There is a solution: parentheses without commas. I don't know why this works, but I'm glad it does. It's worth mentioning that this is a somewhat controversial practice. Guido has even discussed removing C-style string literal concatenation: http://lwn.net/Articles/551438/ You may wish to consult your project's style guide and linter settings before using it.
I think in most cases it's better to use triple quotes. And if the content of these variables isn't exclusively shown in the shell, you should use translation files anyway.
This is something I do instead of writing a long if-else: opt = {0: do_a, 1: do_b, 3: do_b, 4: do_c} opt[option]()
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's cute, but the result of a bad design decision. Python overloads "+" as concatenate for strings. This also applies to lists. So [1,2,3] + [4,5,6] yields [1,2,3,4,5,6] This is cute, but not what you want for numerical work. Then, viewing multiplication as repeated addition, Python gives us [1,2,3]*4 yields [1, 2, 3, 1, 2, 3, 1, 2, 3, 1, 2, 3] This is rarely what was wanted. Then there's numpy, which has its own…
"This is rarely what was wanted." I don't know what else you would have expected...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Common Lisp (and other dialects): ( Also: (lcm a b c d ...) ;; lowest common multiple (+) -> 0 (+ a) -> a (+ a b) -> a + b (+ a b c) -> (a + b) + c (*) -> 1 (* a) -> a (* a b) -> a * b (* a b c) -> (a * b) * c Is it just syntactic sugar? ( (and ( isn't the same as ( By the way, this could be turned into a short-circuiting operator: more semantic variation. Suppose < is allowed to control evaluation. Then an expressio…
But can any lisp dialect do: a = c ?
This is something I do instead of writing a long if-else: opt = {0: do_a, 1: do_b, 3: do_b, 4: do_c} opt[option]()
Do you consider that to be idiomatic? I've been out of touch with the a Python community for a few years, but back then I wouldn't have considered that remotely idiomatic, and if I was on a team writing software, I would have argued that we shouldn't be writing code like that.
And it's something I do on occasion. For example:
https://github.com/ubernostrum/webcolors/blob/master/webcolo...
This is something I do instead of writing a long if-else: opt = {0: do_a, 1: do_b, 3: do_b, 4: do_c} opt[option]()
Do you consider that to be idiomatic? I've been out of touch with the a Python community for a few years, but back then I wouldn't have considered that remotely idiomatic, and if I was on a team writing software, I would have argued that we shouldn't be writing code like that.
This is something I do instead of writing a long if-else: opt = {0: do_a, 1: do_b, 3: do_b, 4: do_c} opt[option]()
Do you consider that to be idiomatic? I've been out of touch with the a Python community for a few years, but back then I wouldn't have considered that remotely idiomatic, and if I was on a team writing software, I would have argued that we shouldn't be writing code like that.
I'd love to hear why you think it's not ideal.