On Tue, Jun 7, 2016 at 3:58 PM, Lawrence D’Oliveiro <lawrenced...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Tuesday, June 7, 2016 at 11:53:46 PM UTC+12, Ian wrote: >> On Tue, Jun 7, 2016 at 1:52 AM, Lawrence D’Oliveiro wrote: > >>> Wow, that’s only twice the length of the code you’re replacing. Well done. >> >> Huh? The example that you posted was 17 lines, excluding comments. My >> replacement code is 17 lines, excluding comments. Where are you >> getting "twice the length" from? > > Maybe not twice. But your code for dealing with the include stack was 16 > lines, as opposed to 13 in mine.
Well, I don't know how you're counting that. All the code for dealing with the include stack is in the generate_lines function, which is 10 lines long. The remaining code is then simpler for not having to deal with it. In the original version, I can't identify which lines are "dealing with the include stack" because they're so intertwined. For example, all the sporadic code checking for line == None or line != None only need to exist because of the include stack. -- https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
