Ok, thanks. I think what I am aiming at is that there is a pool of suggestions
and PEPs that are pointing towards very similar direction and I find myself
often wandering in the same space, just trying to figure out what it exactly is.
It sometimes feels more verbose than it could be for what it is in the context
of how simple python is to use in general.
I am fully well aware that current if-else expression is not going anywhere.
Chances that another expression is introduced, which does exactly the same
thing are close to none.
So I am just gauging if it is a matter of conciseness of existing expressions
or absence of something that could be there. Conditional if-else is just a
place where I got to naturally.
Got some useful references to PEPs, python history and opinions. Maybe it will
become more clear in the future or maybe something new is already being worked
that is going to fill the gap which I am not aware of.
I haven’t even started any proposal myself, I was just following e-mail
requests and rejected PEPs that were mentioned here. Combined it with my own
experience and this is where I got to.
Currently seems like it’s a dead end. Decision’s have been made, opinions taken
into account, but I still have to write either:
a) awkward 1-liner
self.value = value if value is not None else DefaultClass()
b) 3 nicely readable lines with 1 unnecessary assignment.
self.value = value
if value is None:
self.value = DefaultClass()
c) 4 lines, no unnecessary assignments with excellent readability.
if value is None:
self.value = DefaultClass()
else:
self.value = value
The issue with b) and c) is that if I use those ones, my constructors become
unbearably long and finally lead to the point where development becomes
awkward. I would think that for what it does, it shouldn’t be more than 1 line.
Max - 2. But a) is somewhat awkward. All (well not all, just several things)
taken into account I ended up at inconvenience of `ifelse` expression, which
would make a) my natural choice in this case. I am not even suggesting to
introduce analogous `ifelse` with different syntax, just trying to get some
ideas, references, opinions or alternatives that I don’t know about.
Maybe I need to spend some time on it and some solution will come out using
existing python’s functionality or an idea which actually has a chance of being
considered.
How would you write this? Doesn’t the below feel more verbose than it could be?
Add 10 more constructor argument and there are 50 lines of code that do pretty
much nothing. Not very pythonic…? One-line conditionals aren’t very readable
(to me! I am aware that some might not feel this way) and for longer variable
names sometimes don’t even fit into 80 characters.
def __init__(self,
arg1=None,
argument2=None,
arg3foo=None,
...)
if arg1 is None:
self.arg1 = DefaultClass()
else:
self.arg1 = arg1
if argument2 is None:
self.argument2 = DefaultClass()
else:
self.argument2 = argument2
if arg3foo is None:
self.arg3foo = DefaultClass()
else:
self.arg3foo = arg3foo
...
PEP505 would solve this nicely, but it only applies to None and would not apply
to say user-defined sentinels and many other cases where permutations of
different conditionals arise.
Just want to stress out, that I know that this is something very primitive and
might seem insubstantial to consider, but to me personally, solution to this
would make a very big difference. I have been stuck on many such decisions of
best practice and I have found satisfactory solutions to seemingly much more
complex `problems` and am fairly happy having found optimal ways to do many
different things in python - makes life easy. But this one is of very few that
still bother me to this day. And it does seem related to certain queries that
arise here.
So just trying to see what others think, etc, etc
Ok, I have been repeating myself for a bit, but from certain responses it felt
like I have failed to convey where I am coming from. Or maybe no-one else has
issue here, so if I am actually alone that is so bothered about this, it as
also good information.
> On 18 Jul 2023, at 04:40, Greg Ewing <gcew...@snap.net.nz> wrote:
>
> On 18/07/23 10:30 am, Dom Grigonis wrote:
>> Although, the argument that python is meant to be read as english is very
>> much valid, but I do not see why it has to be an overarching one if the
>> opportunity cost of it is too great in other dimensions.
>
> It's not overarching. Many things in Python don't read like English,
> and nobody is suggesting changing them to be more English-like.
>
> I think you've got it backwards here. The fact that it reads like
> English is just a possible explanation of why many people find it more
> readable. The fact that people (well, just Guido at that time) find it
> readable is the reason it was chosen, not beause it's English-like.
>
> --
> Greg
>
> _______________________________________________
> Python-ideas mailing list -- python-ideas@python.org
> To unsubscribe send an email to python-ideas-le...@python.org
> https://mail.python.org/mailman3/lists/python-ideas.python.org/
> Message archived at
> https://mail.python.org/archives/list/python-ideas@python.org/message/ZVVK5APG2MI53UZB5NARI3FQMMLJRKCF/
> Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
_______________________________________________
Python-ideas mailing list -- python-ideas@python.org
To unsubscribe send an email to python-ideas-le...@python.org
https://mail.python.org/mailman3/lists/python-ideas.python.org/
Message archived at
https://mail.python.org/archives/list/python-ideas@python.org/message/PMGL2BHVRHJFVLRFMKX4YDM72IOQ4RKF/
Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
