This was sent to me as a private reply to a question that I have posted
to python-list@python.org, so I am forwarding it to here.

Chris, please send your messages to the list, and cc the OP.

-------- Original Message --------
Subject:        Re: Postfix conditionals
Date:   Sun, 5 Jan 2014 14:09:14 -0800
From:   Chris Rebert <c...@rebertia.com>
To:     Göktuğ Kayaalp <s...@gkayaalp.com>
CC:     Python <python-list@python.org>



On Sun, Jan 5, 2014 at 12:24 PM, Göktuğ Kayaalp <s...@gkayaalp.com> wrote:
Hi,

AFAIK, we do not have "postfix conditionals" in Python, i.e. a condition
appended to a
statement, which determines whether the statement runs or not:

  py> for i in [False]:
  ...     break if not i

The above piece of code is equivalent to this in Python:

  py> for i in [False]:
  ...    if not i
  ...        break

I believe that the first example is superior to the second example when the
two is compared
for readability and intuitiveness.

I'm going to have to disagree. I dislike how this obscures the
if-statement, complicates the language grammar, and adds another
unnecessary way to express the same thing (which violates TOOWTDI)
with little countervailing benefit.

We already have a ternary statement that
looks similar,

  py> print('hi') if True else None

Actually, to be pedantic, it's a ternary *expression*. Using it purely
for side-effects (i.e. as a statement) is rather unidiomatic, in the
same way that abusing list comprehensions, e.g.:

    [print(i) for i in range(42)]

is frowned upon.
Not to mention that the ternary doesn't work for actual statements
(print() is just a function call in Python 3):

    >>> (x = 1) if True else (x = 2)
      File "<stdin>", line 1
        (x = 1) if True else (x = 2)
           ^
    SyntaxError: invalid syntax

so I reckon there would be no breakage in old code if this kind of syntax
was added.  Ruby has
this, and AFAIK Perl also does.

I lack the knowledge of whether the community has opinions on this kind of
notation, so I am
posting this here instead of the ideas list.  What are your thoughts on
this?

You can already write:

    for i in [False]:
        if not i: break

if you feel the need for terseness or a one-liner. Perhaps this
satisfies your desire?

Cheers,
Chris



-- 
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list

Reply via email to