From: "Tim Peters" <tim.one@comcast.net> > [Neal Norwitz] > > ... > > One thing to note, many people are saying you can currently do: > > > > cond and true_value or false_value > > > > However, many have gotten it wrong, either by reversing the true/false > > value or by using something in the true_value which may be false > > (sometimes even constants). pychecker tries to find this condition > > (when true_value is a false constant), but it does a poor job > > of determining the idiom IIRC. > > Indeed, that's been the most amazing part of the discussion to me. Not so > much the form above: everyone gets that wrong in the case true_value may > actually be false, but I don't agree they're prone to swap the values. But > *virtually* everyone got the order wrong when rewriting examples with the > weaker > > (false_value, true_value)[cond] > > variant (they swap the values in the tuple). That's evidence that the > expression-like workarounds don't really work for real people. > does that mean that all the _ and _ or _ in the std lib have been written by bots <wink>?
RetroSearch is an open source project built by @garambo | Open a GitHub Issue
Search and Browse the WWW like it's 1997 | Search results from DuckDuckGo
HTML:
3.2
| Encoding:
UTF-8
| Version:
0.7.4