On 2018-07-17 19:34, Tim Peters wrote:
>
> [Barry Warsaw]
>
> Thanks! I thought it was cute. It was just something that occurred
> to me as I was reviewing some existing code. The intent wasn’t to
> use `subdirs` outside of the assert statement, but I’m warm to it
> because it means I don’t have to do wasted work outside of the
> assert statement, or repeat myself in the assert message part.
>
>
> Because the latter ("repeat myself") is probably more tempting, I'll
> just note that the "laziness" of using an assignment expression instead
> may well have nudged you toward writing _better_ code too.
>
> assert len(subdirs := list(path.iterdir())) == 0, subdirs
>
> Assuming the result of list(path.iterdir()) can change over time (seems
> very likely),
>
> assert len(list(path.iterdir())) == 0, list(path.iterdir())
>
> _could_ end up both triggering and displaying an empty list in the
> exception detail. The assignment-expression version cannot.
>
Why use len(...) == 0 instead of not(...)?
assert not(subdirs := list(path.iterdir())), subdirs
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