Re: Single line if statement with a continue
On 2022-12-18 16:49:27 +, Stefan Ram wrote: > Dennis Lee Bieber writes: > >>for idx, thing in enumerate(things): > >>if idx == 103: > >>continue > >>do_something_with(thing) > >> > > For this example, I'd probably reverse the condition. > > if idx != 103: > > do_something_with(thing) > > The first four lines of the quotation above cannot be a > complete program as "do_something_with" is not defined > therein, so they must be part of a larger program. > If, in this larger program, something still follows > "do_something_with(thing)" in the loop, the new program > after the transformation might not show the same behavior. “do_something_with(thing)” is obviously not intended to be a single function call but as a shorthand for “one or more lines of code which do something with `thing`”. So there is nothing after it because it is included in it. That said, the "fail and bail" technique is often more readable than putting the main incode inside of an if - especially if that code is long and/or it is guarded by multiple conditions. hp -- _ | Peter J. Holzer| Story must make more sense than reality. |_|_) || | | | h...@hjp.at |-- Charles Stross, "Creative writing __/ | http://www.hjp.at/ | challenge!" signature.asc Description: PGP signature -- https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Single line if statement with a continue
On Saturday, 17 December 2022 at 23:58:11 UTC, avi.e...@gmail.com wrote: > Is something sort of taboo when using something like a computer language to > write a program? With what else would you write a program? -- https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Single line if statement with a continue
On Wed, 14 Dec 2022 10:53:10 -0800 (PST), Aaron P declaimed the following: Late response here, and the concept may have been covered in skimmed-over posts.. >I occasionally run across something like: > >for idx, thing in enumerate(things): >if idx == 103: >continue >do_something_with(thing) > For this example, I'd probably reverse the condition. if idx != 103: do_something_with(thing) and hence completely drop the "continue" -- after all, if idx is 103, the if statement falls through, and the end of the loop acts as an implicit "continue" OTOH: if the "if/continue" is buried in four or five layers of conditionals, it could be cleaner than trying to configure the conditionals to have a chained exit. -- Wulfraed Dennis Lee Bieber AF6VN wlfr...@ix.netcom.comhttp://wlfraed.microdiversity.freeddns.org/ -- https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Single line if statement with a continue
On Sun, 18 Dec 2022 at 10:59, wrote: > > If a compiler or interpreter HAPPILY (as happy as machines/code get) compiles > or interprets your code without errors every time you use it a certain way, > then it is not wrong to use it. Of course if it subject to change or already > deprecated, ... > Source code is, first and foremost, for programmers to read. You're confusing it with binary executables. ChrisA -- https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Single line if statement with a continue
My view is that simple things that fit easily on a screen, and also held all at once in my mind, should be written fairly concisely. I do admit how much I can hold at once varies based on how well I can concentrate at that moment and have met people whose short-term memory for many things is larger or smaller than mine. But generally people can handle simple constructs like we are discussing. Complicated things and ones that might need changes later should be written very cautiously and in detail including judicious use of comments around and within the code OR consider re-planning it into a less complicated form that calls on other fairly simple functions that can each be decently understood based on naming and usage. If you have a complicated calculation that eventually assigns values to a1, a2, a3, a4 then a language like Python makes a One liner easy as in: If (condition): a1, a2, a3, a4 = func(args) But now that four or more lines have been collapsed into one, maybe something like this works too and maybe is a tad more readable with parentheses: If (condition): (a1, a2, a3, a4) = func(args) I am not suggesting using something silly like this though: if(1): (a, b, c, d) = (min(1,2), (1+2)/2, (1*2*2*3)/4, max(1,2)) That is so way beyond a one liner that it is best seen as multiple lines. It may be legal but is best used to obfuscate! The problem with some RULES is that not only are they not real rules but sometimes have exceptions where they get in the way of getting things done. - Avi -----Original Message- From: Python-list On Behalf Of Rob Cliffe via Python-list Sent: Thursday, December 15, 2022 8:31 AM To: python-list@python.org Subject: Re: Single line if statement with a continue On 15/12/2022 04:35, Chris Angelico wrote: On Thu, 15 Dec 2022 at 14:41, Aaron P wrote: I occasionally run across something like: for idx, thing in enumerate(things): if idx == 103: continue do_something_with(thing) It seems more succinct and cleaner to use: if idx == 103: continue. Nothing at all wrong with writing that on a single line. If you have issues with Flake8 not accepting your choices, reconfigure Flake8 :) ChrisA I'm so glad that Chris and others say this. It (i.e. if plus break/continue/return on a single line) is something I have quite often done in my own code, albeit with a feeling of guilt that I was breaking a Python taboo. Now I will do it with a clear conscience. 😁 Best wishes Rob Cliffe -- https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list -- https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
RE: Single line if statement with a continue
r that it is best seen as multiple lines. It may be legal but is best used to obfuscate! The problem with some RULES is that not only are they not real rules but sometimes have exceptions where they get in the way of getting things done. - Avi -Original Message- From: Python-list On Behalf Of Rob Cliffe via Python-list Sent: Thursday, December 15, 2022 8:31 AM To: python-list@python.org Subject: Re: Single line if statement with a continue On 15/12/2022 04:35, Chris Angelico wrote: > On Thu, 15 Dec 2022 at 14:41, Aaron P wrote: >> I occasionally run across something like: >> >> for idx, thing in enumerate(things): >> if idx == 103: >> continue >> do_something_with(thing) >> >> It seems more succinct and cleaner to use: >> >> if idx == 103: continue. >> >> >> Nothing at all wrong with writing that on a single line. If you have >> issues with Flake8 not accepting your choices, reconfigure Flake8 :) >> >> ChrisA I'm so glad that Chris and others say this. It (i.e. if plus break/continue/return on a single line) is something I have quite often done in my own code, albeit with a feeling of guilt that I was breaking a Python taboo. Now I will do it with a clear conscience. 😁 Best wishes Rob Cliffe -- https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list -- https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Single line if statement with a continue
On 16/12/2022 02.30, Rob Cliffe via Python-list wrote: On 15/12/2022 04:35, Chris Angelico wrote: On Thu, 15 Dec 2022 at 14:41, Aaron P wrote: I occasionally run across something like: for idx, thing in enumerate(things): if idx == 103: continue do_something_with(thing) It seems more succinct and cleaner to use: if idx == 103: continue. Nothing at all wrong with writing that on a single line. If you have issues with Flake8 not accepting your choices, reconfigure Flake8 :) ChrisA I'm so glad that Chris and others say this. It (i.e. if plus break/continue/return on a single line) is something I have quite often done in my own code, albeit with a feeling of guilt that I was breaking a Python taboo. Now I will do it with a clear conscience. 😁 Anxiety doesn't help anyone - least of all you. Remember another Python mantra: "we're all adults here"! (also (compulsory interjection) PEP-008 is not a set of rules for all Python code - see PEP-008) -- Regards, =dn -- https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Single line if statement with a continue
Just wanted to say that a silent reader like me learnt more about PEP-8 solely from this thread than my mentor at work or any other course I have taken earlier this year. Thank you so much. On Sun, 18 Dec 2022, 00:16 Rob Cliffe via Python-list, < python-list@python.org> wrote: > > > On 15/12/2022 04:35, Chris Angelico wrote: > > On Thu, 15 Dec 2022 at 14:41, Aaron P > wrote: > >> I occasionally run across something like: > >> > >> for idx, thing in enumerate(things): > >> if idx == 103: > >> continue > >> do_something_with(thing) > >> > >> It seems more succinct and cleaner to use: > >> > >> if idx == 103: continue. > >> > >> > >> Nothing at all wrong with writing that on a single line. If you have > >> issues with Flake8 not accepting your choices, reconfigure Flake8 :) > >> > >> ChrisA > I'm so glad that Chris and others say this. It (i.e. if plus > break/continue/return on a single line) is something I have quite often > done in my own code, albeit with a feeling of guilt that I was breaking > a Python taboo. Now I will do it with a clear conscience. 😁 > Best wishes > Rob Cliffe > -- > https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list > -- https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Single line if statement with a continue
On 15/12/2022 04:35, Chris Angelico wrote: On Thu, 15 Dec 2022 at 14:41, Aaron P wrote: I occasionally run across something like: for idx, thing in enumerate(things): if idx == 103: continue do_something_with(thing) It seems more succinct and cleaner to use: if idx == 103: continue. Nothing at all wrong with writing that on a single line. If you have issues with Flake8 not accepting your choices, reconfigure Flake8 :) ChrisA I'm so glad that Chris and others say this. It (i.e. if plus break/continue/return on a single line) is something I have quite often done in my own code, albeit with a feeling of guilt that I was breaking a Python taboo. Now I will do it with a clear conscience. 😁 Best wishes Rob Cliffe -- https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Single line if statement with a continue
On 2022-12-15, MRAB wrote: > A problem with having a single return is that it can lead to excessive > indentation: > > if test_1: > ... > > if test_2: > ... > > if test_3: > ... > > return I sometimes have to work on code like that with bocks nested 8-10 levels deep spread out over hundreds of lines. The first thing I do is convert it to something like the code below. Check for error conditions up front and exit accordingly. When working in C, a "goto error" or "goto done" instead of "return" can provide a "single return" if that's deemed important. > > With multiple returns, however: > > if not test_1: > return > > ... > > if not test_2: > return > > ... > > if not test_3: > return > > ... > > return -- https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Single line if statement with a continue
On 12/15/2022 3:58 AM, Chris Green wrote: Thomas Passin wrote: I personally tend to use if test: return even inside larger blocks. I always try to avoid multiple returns from functions/methods, as soon as things get complex it's all to easy to miss clean-up etc. "No multiple returns" is often found in programming guidelines. Yes, or alternatively, "If any branch uses a return, they all should." -- https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Single line if statement with a continue
On 2022-12-15 19:05, avi.e.gr...@gmail.com wrote: Multiple returns is not always a problem as it depends on the nature of a task whether it has complex enough cases. I have seen code that instead sets Boolean variables when it is ready to return and everything else keeps checking the variables to skip further processing so the program then slides down to a single return statement. If done properly, it boils down to the same result if VERY carefully done but with lots of sometimes complex IF statements that may be not be updated well if the logic changes a bit. In such cases, I vastly prefer clean and unambiguous returns from the function right at the point where the decision is made, UNLESS the exit is not always clean as there may be cleanup or finalization of some kind required that is best done at a single point. A problem with having a single return is that it can lead to excessive indentation: if test_1: ... if test_2: ... if test_3: ... return With multiple returns, however: if not test_1: return ... if not test_2: return ... if not test_3: return ... return If efficiency is an issue, then clearly a rapid exit may beat one where processing continues for a while and also often beats a method that involves creating and calling multiple smaller functions with lots of overhead. Having said all that, of course, if you can find a fairly simple algorithm that only returns from one place, use it instead of a convoluted one. The issue is not necessarily that multiple return points are bad, but that they are often a symptom of sloppy planning. But for some problems, they fit well and simplify things. -Original Message- From: Python-list On Behalf Of Stefan Ram Sent: Thursday, December 15, 2022 7:42 AM To: python-list@python.org Subject: Re: Single line if statement with a continue Chris Green writes: I always try to avoid multiple returns from functions/methods, as soon as things get complex it's all to easy to miss clean-up etc. This "complexity" could also mean that the function has become too large. In such a case, one could say that the /size/ of the function is the actual cause of problems and not multiple returns. |Fools ignore complexity. Pragmatists suffer it. Some can avoid it. |Geniuses remove it. Alan Perlis (1922/1990) Within a small function, multiple returns are rarely a problem. When a function is large, one can apply well-known refactors. For an example, look at the code in the first post of the thread Python script not letting go of files Date: Tue, 29 Nov 2022 12:52:15 + and then at my reply of 29 Nov 2022 14:44:39 GMT. "No multiple returns" is often found in programming guidelines. I religiously followed that when I did more C programming than today. Then, I read an article about how the result pattern makes functions measurably slower. (It should not with an optimizing compiler, but it did due to those measurements. Can't find that article now, though.) "Result pattern" I call writing, if a: result = 123 else: result = 456 return result , instead of, if a: return 123 else return 456 . -- https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list -- https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Single line if statement with a continue
I once saw a C function full of GOTOs which jumped to the return state at the bottom of the functions because the programmer had learned that “multiple returns are a bad idea.” I totally agree multiple returns causing confusion is a symptom of poor design, not a cause. Required cleanup is easily handled by the try / finally construct. From: Python-list on behalf of avi.e.gr...@gmail.com Date: Thursday, December 15, 2022 at 2:07 PM To: python-list@python.org Subject: RE: Single line if statement with a continue *** Attention: This is an external email. Use caution responding, opening attachments or clicking on links. *** Multiple returns is not always a problem as it depends on the nature of a task whether it has complex enough cases. I have seen code that instead sets Boolean variables when it is ready to return and everything else keeps checking the variables to skip further processing so the program then slides down to a single return statement. If done properly, it boils down to the same result if VERY carefully done but with lots of sometimes complex IF statements that may be not be updated well if the logic changes a bit. In such cases, I vastly prefer clean and unambiguous returns from the function right at the point where the decision is made, UNLESS the exit is not always clean as there may be cleanup or finalization of some kind required that is best done at a single point. If efficiency is an issue, then clearly a rapid exit may beat one where processing continues for a while and also often beats a method that involves creating and calling multiple smaller functions with lots of overhead. Having said all that, of course, if you can find a fairly simple algorithm that only returns from one place, use it instead of a convoluted one. The issue is not necessarily that multiple return points are bad, but that they are often a symptom of sloppy planning. But for some problems, they fit well and simplify things. -Original Message- From: Python-list On Behalf Of Stefan Ram Sent: Thursday, December 15, 2022 7:42 AM To: python-list@python.org Subject: Re: Single line if statement with a continue Chris Green writes: >I always try to avoid multiple returns from functions/methods, as soon >as things get complex it's all to easy to miss clean-up etc. This "complexity" could also mean that the function has become too large. In such a case, one could say that the /size/ of the function is the actual cause of problems and not multiple returns. |Fools ignore complexity. Pragmatists suffer it. Some can avoid it. |Geniuses remove it. Alan Perlis (1922/1990) Within a small function, multiple returns are rarely a problem. When a function is large, one can apply well-known refactors. For an example, look at the code in the first post of the thread Python script not letting go of files Date: Tue, 29 Nov 2022 12:52:15 + and then at my reply of 29 Nov 2022 14:44:39 GMT. >"No multiple returns" is often found in programming guidelines. I religiously followed that when I did more C programming than today. Then, I read an article about how the result pattern makes functions measurably slower. (It should not with an optimizing compiler, but it did due to those measurements. Can't find that article now, though.) "Result pattern" I call writing, if a: result = 123 else: result = 456 return result , instead of, if a: return 123 else return 456 . -- https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list__;!!Cn_UX_p3!lVeLOl91qPUjowC1ch_u353upn8X-V4rsReaNberWpIXBlBP6CYcDgr_aaMb0ZHoYX4YWO8id1biCn6sW7V6vJM$<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list__;!!Cn_UX_p3!lVeLOl91qPUjowC1ch_u353upn8X-V4rsReaNberWpIXBlBP6CYcDgr_aaMb0ZHoYX4YWO8id1biCn6sW7V6vJM$> -- https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list__;!!Cn_UX_p3!lVeLOl91qPUjowC1ch_u353upn8X-V4rsReaNberWpIXBlBP6CYcDgr_aaMb0ZHoYX4YWO8id1biCn6sW7V6vJM$<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list__;!!Cn_UX_p3!lVeLOl91qPUjowC1ch_u353upn8X-V4rsReaNberWpIXBlBP6CYcDgr_aaMb0ZHoYX4YWO8id1biCn6sW7V6vJM$> -- https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
RE: Single line if statement with a continue
Multiple returns is not always a problem as it depends on the nature of a task whether it has complex enough cases. I have seen code that instead sets Boolean variables when it is ready to return and everything else keeps checking the variables to skip further processing so the program then slides down to a single return statement. If done properly, it boils down to the same result if VERY carefully done but with lots of sometimes complex IF statements that may be not be updated well if the logic changes a bit. In such cases, I vastly prefer clean and unambiguous returns from the function right at the point where the decision is made, UNLESS the exit is not always clean as there may be cleanup or finalization of some kind required that is best done at a single point. If efficiency is an issue, then clearly a rapid exit may beat one where processing continues for a while and also often beats a method that involves creating and calling multiple smaller functions with lots of overhead. Having said all that, of course, if you can find a fairly simple algorithm that only returns from one place, use it instead of a convoluted one. The issue is not necessarily that multiple return points are bad, but that they are often a symptom of sloppy planning. But for some problems, they fit well and simplify things. -Original Message- From: Python-list On Behalf Of Stefan Ram Sent: Thursday, December 15, 2022 7:42 AM To: python-list@python.org Subject: Re: Single line if statement with a continue Chris Green writes: >I always try to avoid multiple returns from functions/methods, as soon >as things get complex it's all to easy to miss clean-up etc. This "complexity" could also mean that the function has become too large. In such a case, one could say that the /size/ of the function is the actual cause of problems and not multiple returns. |Fools ignore complexity. Pragmatists suffer it. Some can avoid it. |Geniuses remove it. Alan Perlis (1922/1990) Within a small function, multiple returns are rarely a problem. When a function is large, one can apply well-known refactors. For an example, look at the code in the first post of the thread Python script not letting go of files Date: Tue, 29 Nov 2022 12:52:15 + and then at my reply of 29 Nov 2022 14:44:39 GMT. >"No multiple returns" is often found in programming guidelines. I religiously followed that when I did more C programming than today. Then, I read an article about how the result pattern makes functions measurably slower. (It should not with an optimizing compiler, but it did due to those measurements. Can't find that article now, though.) "Result pattern" I call writing, if a: result = 123 else: result = 456 return result , instead of, if a: return 123 else return 456 . -- https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list -- https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Single line if statement with a continue
r...@zedat.fu-berlin.de (Stefan Ram) writes: >>"No multiple returns" is often found in programming guidelines. > > I religiously followed that when I did more C programming > than today. Then, I read an article about how the result > pattern makes functions measurably slower. (It should not > with an optimizing compiler, but it did due to those > measurements. Can't find that article now, though.) That makes me think about the quote from Edsger W. Dijkstra about the go to statement: Please do not fall into the trap of believing that I am terribly dogmatic about the go to statement. I have the uncomfortable feeling that others are making a religion out of it, as if the conceptual problems of programming could be solved by a simple trick, by a simple form of coding discipline! -- Cecil Westerhof Senior Software Engineer LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/cecilwesterhof -- https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Single line if statement with a continue
Thomas Passin wrote: >I personally tend to use > > if test: return > > even inside larger blocks. I always try to avoid multiple returns from functions/methods, as soon as things get complex it's all to easy to miss clean-up etc. "No multiple returns" is often found in programming guidelines. -- Chris Green · -- https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
RE: Single line if statement with a continue
Unless someone is counting lines of code for some purpose, like number of
error found per thousand lines of code, many short one-liners strike me as
more readable and especially if followed by a blank line so it is a bit
obvious.
Consider a similar issue in many languages that use curly braces and where
they can be skipped in a one liner like "if (condition) statement" rather
than the style some use on multiple lines like:
If (condition) {
Statement
}
Or even:
If (condition)
{
Statement
}
Of course, once you have additional parts following like an "else" that
contains multiple statements, it seems more symmetric to do both parts the
same style.
And in commented code, a one-liner may get long and harder to read as in
If (condition) statement # long comment
Note the above are not python and the absence of a colon is intentional. No
one language is being discussed and some have their own vagaries and
variants such as not knowing if your code is done if you change lines in
ambiguous situations. And note some languages support methods like the ?:
operator or the inline if/else python allows as in this:
min = 5
low = 12
x = low if low >= 12 else min
x
12
low = 3
x = low if low >= 12 else min
result
12
Clearly that is a one-liner that almost has to be a one liner as there is no
obvious easy way to wrap it into multiple lines.
I mean the following works, albeit darned if I know if any of it should be
indented or who wants to read it this way:
x = low \
if \
low >= 12 \
else \
min
x
5
As many have discussed, it is a matter of taste and people should be
flexible enough to program in whatever style others want to see when that
applies such as working in a group project or fixing someone else's code.
-Original Message-
From: Python-list On
Behalf Of dn
Sent: Thursday, December 15, 2022 12:24 AM
To: python-list@python.org
Subject: Re: Single line if statement with a continue
On 15/12/2022 07.53, Aaron P wrote:
> I occasionally run across something like:
>
> for idx, thing in enumerate(things):
> if idx == 103:
> continue
> do_something_with(thing)
>
> It seems more succinct and cleaner to use:
>
> if idx == 103: continue.
>
> Of course this would be considered an anti-pattern, and Flake8 will
complain.
>
> Any opinions, or feedback on the matter.
These aged-eyes prefer the second line and indentation.
However, another alternative (given simplicity of example):
for ...
if idx != 103:
do_something ...
Which could, in-turn, be boiled-down to a 'one-liner'.
--
Regards,
=dn
--
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
--
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Single line if statement with a continue
On Thu, 15 Dec 2022 at 16:29, Thomas Passin wrote: > > PEP-8, which is Guido's style guide and generally good to follow, does > not completely discourage single-line usage like the example. It's not > clear to me how Chris's example fits into the guidelines. > > PEP-8: > "While sometimes it’s okay to put an if/for/while with a small body on > the same line, never do this for multi-clause statements. > ... > # Wrong: > if foo == 'blah': do_blah_thing() > for x in lst: total += x > while t < 10: t = delay() > " > > If the one-liner were not in a multi-statement block, it would be all > right with PEP-8. Not sure what your point is about it being "in" a multi-statement block - PEP 8 has nothing to say about that. What it's saying is that you shouldn't do this: if foo == 'blah': one(); two(); three() And I agree; if you're putting more than one statement after your 'if', it's generally clearest to have it on multiple lines. But a simple "continue" or "break" statement works just fine on the same line as the if. ChrisA -- https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Single line if statement with a continue
PEP-8, which is Guido's style guide and generally good to follow, does not completely discourage single-line usage like the example. It's not clear to me how Chris's example fits into the guidelines. PEP-8: "While sometimes it’s okay to put an if/for/while with a small body on the same line, never do this for multi-clause statements. ... # Wrong: if foo == 'blah': do_blah_thing() for x in lst: total += x while t < 10: t = delay() " If the one-liner were not in a multi-statement block, it would be all right with PEP-8. OTOH, there is nothing that says one has to fully comply with PEP-8. I personally tend to use if test: return even inside larger blocks. If one is working with other someone else's project and there is a style guide, it's important to follow that guide because the other people involved will find it easier to read and understand your code. If you are working on your own project, PEP-8 is always a good starting point, and flake8 and pylint will be happier. That's worth something. On 12/14/2022 11:35 PM, Chris Angelico wrote: On Thu, 15 Dec 2022 at 14:41, Aaron P wrote: I occasionally run across something like: for idx, thing in enumerate(things): if idx == 103: continue do_something_with(thing) It seems more succinct and cleaner to use: if idx == 103: continue. Of course this would be considered an anti-pattern, and Flake8 will complain. Any opinions, or feedback on the matter. Nothing at all wrong with writing that on a single line. If you have issues with Flake8 not accepting your choices, reconfigure Flake8 :) ChrisA -- https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Single line if statement with a continue
On 15/12/2022 07.53, Aaron P wrote: I occasionally run across something like: for idx, thing in enumerate(things): if idx == 103: continue do_something_with(thing) It seems more succinct and cleaner to use: if idx == 103: continue. Of course this would be considered an anti-pattern, and Flake8 will complain. Any opinions, or feedback on the matter. These aged-eyes prefer the second line and indentation. However, another alternative (given simplicity of example): for ... if idx != 103: do_something ... Which could, in-turn, be boiled-down to a 'one-liner'. -- Regards, =dn -- https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Single line if statement with a continue
On Thu, 15 Dec 2022 at 14:41, Aaron P wrote: > > I occasionally run across something like: > > for idx, thing in enumerate(things): > if idx == 103: > continue > do_something_with(thing) > > It seems more succinct and cleaner to use: > > if idx == 103: continue. > > Of course this would be considered an anti-pattern, and Flake8 will complain. > > Any opinions, or feedback on the matter. Nothing at all wrong with writing that on a single line. If you have issues with Flake8 not accepting your choices, reconfigure Flake8 :) ChrisA -- https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
