On Feb 7, 8:20 am, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Paul Rubin: > > > I like the suggestion, except it should be > > port = int(sys.argv.get(1, '8000')) > > one could imagine your example going wrong in a protocol where 0 is > > a valid port number. > > I think a high-level language like Python must have boolean operators > (or and not) that behave in a much more clean way, with a simpler > semantics. That is they have to return only true or false. Otherwise > they are just a source of bugs and confusion. This is a change fit for > Python 3. > That trick with or/and may look good for Perl, but it's unfit for a > language that tries to be clear, readable from people that don't know > it much, and good to learn to program. Python has now the if-then > expression too that is more clear. > > Bye, > bearophile
Personally, between * foo if foo else bar * foo or bar I prefer the second. Maybe it could be spelt * foo else bar ? Moreover between the following two: * foores = foo() foobar = foores if foores else bar * foobar = foo() or bar I also prefer the second. Maybe it could be spelt * foo() else bar ? I have not thought of parsing issues :) -- Arnaud -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
