Seebs <usenet-nos...@seebs.net> writes:
> On 2010-11-09, Ben Finney <ben+pyt...@benfinney.id.au> wrote:
> > The regex is less clear for the purpose than I'd prefer. For a
> > simple ???is it a member of this small set???, I'd find it more
> > readable to use a simple list of the actual strings::
>
> > ' '.join(
> > x for x in target_cflags.split()
> > if x in ['-D', '-I', '-i', '-U'])
>
> The regex is intentionally not anchored with a $, because I'm looking
> for "starts with", not "is".
Ah, okay. Strings have a built-in ‘startswith’ method, but it may be
less convenient for the current case compared to a regex. Here's an
attempt::
' '.join(
x for x in target_cflags.split()
if any(
x.startswith(opt_name)
for opt_name in ['-D', '-I', '-i', '-U']))
I still find that more readable than the version using a regex, but
it's pushing the boundaries of verbosity.
Better would be to use the fact that ‘str.startswith’ can do the same as
above with a tuple of prefix strings::
' '.join(
x for x in target_cflags.split()
if x.startswith(('-D', '-I', '-i', '-U')))
> I think we're stuck with backwards compatibility at least as far as
> 2.4.
Then you don't yet have the ‘any’ and ‘all’ built-in functions, or the
tuple-of-prefixes feature of ‘str.startswith’ either. Bummer.
At which point, the Pythonic thing to do is to convince your
organisation to use a version of Python that's at least officially
supported by the PSF :-)
--
\ “Teach a man to make fire, and he will be warm for a day. Set a |
`\ man on fire, and he will be warm for the rest of his life.” |
_o__) —John A. Hrastar |
Ben Finney
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
