A RetroSearch Logo

Home - News ( United States | United Kingdom | Italy | Germany ) - Football scores

Search Query:

Showing content from http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2003-February/033256.html below:

(OT) [Python-Dev] vox populii illiterati

(OT) [Python-Dev] vox populii illiterati (OT) [Python-Dev] vox populii illiteratiSamuele Pedroni pedronis@bluewin.ch
Mon, 10 Feb 2003 05:02:21 +0100
From: "Andrew Koenig" <ark@research.att.com>
> Samuele> From: "holger krekel" <pyth@devel.trillke.net>
> >>
> >> if obj.method() if hasattr(obj, 'method') else False:
> >>
>
> Samuele> don't worry the pro-camp seems converging toward:
>
> Samuele> if if hasattr(obj,'method'): obj.method() else: False:
>
> Samuele> or
>
> Samuele> if (if hasattr(obj,'method'): obj.method() else: False):
>
> I count myself in the pro-camp, and I would prefer
>
>         if hasattr(obj,'method') and obj.method():
>
> to any of the alternatives, for the obvious reason.

I wouldn't expect anything less from you.

I was just reporting on what kind if-then-else form the pro-camp is converging.

I take the chance to re-re-rember that I'm fully aware that:

_ and x or _

does not work in case x is false. Still when x is not false, it is working
Python.




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