[Tim] >> ... I liked the way he _reached_ that conclusion: by looking at real- >> life Python code that may have been written instead to use constructs >> "like this". I find such examination far more persuasive than abstract >> arguments or made-up examples.
[Serhiy Storchaka <storch...@gmail.com>] > I would like to see such examination for PEP 572. And for all other syntax > changing ideas. I did it myself for 572, and posted several times about what I found. It was far more productive to me than arguing (and, indeed, I sat out of the first several hundred msgs on python-ideas entirely because I spent all my time looking at code instead). Short course: I found a small win frequently, a large win rarely, but in most cases wouldn't use it. In all I expect I'd use it significantly more often than ternary "if", but far less often than augmented assignment. But that's me - everybody needs to look at their own code to apply _their_ judgment. 572 is harder than a case/switch statement to consider this way, because virtually every assignment statement binding a name could _potentially_ be changed to a binding expression instead, and there are gazillions of those. For considering case/switch additions, you can automate searches to vastly whittle down the universe of places to look at (`elif` chains, and certain nested if/else if/else if/else ... patterns). > I withdrew some my ideas and patches when my examinations showed that the > number of cases in the stdlib that will take a benefit from rewriting using > a new feature or from applying a compiler optimization is not large enough. Good! I approve :-) _______________________________________________ Python-ideas mailing list Python-ideas@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-ideas Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
