> P.S. Simplifying "and" and "or" may create a need to introduce a
> conditional operator but that is a discussion for another day.
While I don't disagree with some of your main points, I do think that
your proposal would eliminate a natural and easy to understand use of
the current behavior of "or" that I tend to use quite a bit. Your
proposal would break a lot of code, and I can't think of a better
"conditional operator" than the one thats already there.
I often find myself using 'or' to conditionally select a meaningful
value in the absence of a real value:
person = Person.fetch(id=5)
name = person.name or 'John Doe'
birth_date = person.birth_date or '00-00-0000'
ssn = person.social_security or 'not provided'
logger.log_msg('%s born on %s with SSN %s' % (name, birth_date,
ssn))
To me, its just as natural as:
{ 'key' : value }.get('not_there', 'default')
but more general purpose. I like the current behavior, and I think
it makes a whole lot of sense.
Jonathan LaCour
http://cleverdevil.org
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