RetroSearch Browse

Wed Apr 4 21:52:00 CEST 2012 · https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2012-April/118489.html

Oleg Broytman wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 04, 2012 at 11:03:02AM -0700, Ethan Furman wrote:
>> Oleg Broytman wrote:
>>>   . Pythonic equivalent of "get_clock(THIS) or get_clok(THAT)" is
>>>
>>> for flag in (THIS, THAT):
>>>    try:
>>>        clock = get_clock(flag)
>>>    except:
>>>        pass
>>>    else:
>>>        break
>>> else:
>>>    raise ValueError('Cannot get clock, tried THIS and THAT')
>>
>> Wow -- you'd rather write nine lines of code instead of three?
>>
>> clock = get_clock(THIS) or get_clock(THAT)
>> if clock is None:
>>     raise ValueError('Cannot get clock, tried THIS and THAT')
> 
>    Yes - to force people to write the last two lines. Without forcing
> most programmers will skip them.

Forced?  I do not use Python to be forced to use one style of 
programming over another.

And it's not like returning None will allow some clock calls to work but 
not others -- as soon as they try to use it, it will raise an exception.

~Ethan~

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

Showing content from https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2012-April/118489.html below:

[Python-Dev] an alternative to embedding policy in PEP 418 (was: PEP 418: Add monotonic clock)