Re: code style and readability [was: Re: Checking the boolean value of a collection]
Larry Bates wrote: I also have a personal dislike for early returns because I've found it makes it harder insert execution trace logging into the code. in a language that makes it trivial to wrap arbitrary callables in tracing wrappers? -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: code style and readability [was: Re: Checking the boolean value of a collection]
Bruno Desthuilliers a écrit : Larry Bates a écrit : (snip) Sorry but I respectfully disagree that this is "abuse" of the __call__ method. As long as we respectfully agree to disagree... !-) Anyway, I don't think we have enough background to seriously agree or disagree on what would make more sense here... -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: code style and readability [was: Re: Checking the boolean value of a collection]
Larry Bates a écrit : Bruno Desthuilliers wrote: Bruno Desthuilliers a écrit : Larry Bates a écrit : (snip) IMHO it reads better if you use the __call__ method of the class to return the value IMHO, it makes no sense at all to abuse the __call__ magic method here. Sorry - after a more careful re-read of other posts in the thread, it might make sense, given the use case : condition = FolderInUse(core) if condition.true_for(folder): # code here but then, a plain function (or a partial) might be even better - that is, if the FolderInUse class doesn't have other responsabilities. Sorry but I respectfully disagree that this is "abuse" of the __call__ method. As long as we respectfully agree to disagree... !-) -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: code style and readability [was: Re: Checking the boolean value of a collection]
Bruno Desthuilliers wrote: Bruno Desthuilliers a écrit : Larry Bates a écrit : (snip) IMHO it reads better if you use the __call__ method of the class to return the value IMHO, it makes no sense at all to abuse the __call__ magic method here. Sorry - after a more careful re-read of other posts in the thread, it might make sense, given the use case : condition = FolderInUse(core) if condition.true_for(folder): # code here but then, a plain function (or a partial) might be even better - that is, if the FolderInUse class doesn't have other responsabilities. Sorry but I respectfully disagree that this is "abuse" of the __call__ method. I do agree that a plain function probably makes more sense but it appears that the class does "other"things because of references to other class instances, etc. I also have a personal dislike for early returns because I've found it makes it harder insert execution trace logging into the code. Just my experience. -Larry -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: code style and readability [was: Re: Checking the boolean value of a collection]
Bruno Desthuilliers a écrit : Larry Bates a écrit : (snip) IMHO it reads better if you use the __call__ method of the class to return the value IMHO, it makes no sense at all to abuse the __call__ magic method here. Sorry - after a more careful re-read of other posts in the thread, it might make sense, given the use case : condition = FolderInUse(core) if condition.true_for(folder): # code here but then, a plain function (or a partial) might be even better - that is, if the FolderInUse class doesn't have other responsabilities. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: code style and readability [was: Re: Checking the boolean value of a collection]
Marco Bizzarri a écrit : On Sat, Sep 13, 2008 at 4:11 PM, Fredrik Lundh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Marco Bizzarri wrote: class FolderInUse: def true_for(self, archivefolder): return any([instance.forbid_to_close(archivefolder) for instance in self.core.active_outgoing_registration_instances()]) Is this any better? The true_for name does not satisfy me a lot... well, "true_for" is indeed pretty inscrutable, but I'm not sure that would be the first thing I'd complain about in that verbose mess... "verbose mess". It is always frustrating when you do what you think is your best and you read that. The effbot is sometimes a bit abrupt in his formulations, for sure !-) -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: code style and readability [was: Re: Checking the boolean value of a collection]
Larry Bates a écrit : (snip) IMHO it reads better if you use the __call__ method of the class to return the value IMHO, it makes no sense at all to abuse the __call__ magic method here. and rewrite it as a regular loop for clarity. Sometimes the simplest way is the easiest to read. class FolderInUse: def __call__(self, archivefolder): result = False for instance in self.core.active_outgoing_registration_instances(): if instance.forbid_to_close(archivefolder): result = True break return result the loop would be simpler with an early return: for instance in self.core.active_outgoing_registration_instances(): if instance.forbid_to_close(archivefolder): return True return False Then it can be called with: if FolderInUse(archivefolder): ... This will call the class constructor and initializer and return a new instance, not the *instance method* __call__. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: code style and readability [was: Re: Checking the boolean value of a collection]
Marco Bizzarri wrote: On Sat, Sep 13, 2008 at 4:11 PM, Fredrik Lundh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Marco Bizzarri wrote: class FolderInUse: def true_for(self, archivefolder): return any([instance.forbid_to_close(archivefolder) for instance in self.core.active_outgoing_registration_instances()]) Is this any better? The true_for name does not satisfy me a lot... well, "true_for" is indeed pretty inscrutable, but I'm not sure that would be the first thing I'd complain about in that verbose mess... "verbose mess". It is always frustrating when you do what you think is your best and you read that. Anyway: I'm here to learn, and, of course, part of it is to listen those who've been there much longer than you. So, thanks for your sincere evaluation, Fredrik :-). (when you pick method names, keep in mind that the reader will see the context, the instance, and the arguments at the same time as they see the name. there's no need to use complete sentences; pick short short descriptive names instead.) Maybe I'm looking at the wrong direction, right now. From the point of view of the FolderInUse clients, they will do: condition = FolderInUse(core) condition.true_for(folder) Is this too verbose? This is not a polemic statement, I'm really asking your opionion. The expression inside the true_for is indeed complex, and maybe I can simplify it; however, I'm deeply convinced that instance.forbid_to_close(folder) has some good points on it; I mean, once I read this kind of code, I can hope to understand it without looking at what forbid_to_close does. >>> class FolderInUse: >>> >>>def true_for(self, archivefolder): >>>return any([instance.forbid_to_close(archivefolder) for instance in >>>self.core.active_outgoing_registration_instances()]) IMHO it reads better if you use the __call__ method of the class to return the value and rewrite it as a regular loop for clarity. Sometimes the simplest way is the easiest to read. class FolderInUse: def __call__(self, archivefolder): result = False for instance in self.core.active_outgoing_registration_instances(): if instance.forbid_to_close(archivefolder): result = True break return result Then it can be called with: if FolderInUse(archivefolder): ... -Larry -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
code style and readability [was: Re: Checking the boolean value of a collection]
On Sat, Sep 13, 2008 at 4:11 PM, Fredrik Lundh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Marco Bizzarri wrote: > >> class FolderInUse: > >> >> >>def true_for(self, archivefolder): >>return any([instance.forbid_to_close(archivefolder) for instance in >>self.core.active_outgoing_registration_instances()]) >> >> Is this any better? The true_for name does not satisfy me a lot... > > well, "true_for" is indeed pretty inscrutable, but I'm not sure that would > be the first thing I'd complain about in that verbose mess... "verbose mess". It is always frustrating when you do what you think is your best and you read that. Anyway: I'm here to learn, and, of course, part of it is to listen those who've been there much longer than you. So, thanks for your sincere evaluation, Fredrik :-). > (when you pick method names, keep in mind that the reader will see the > context, the instance, and the arguments at the same time as they see the > name. there's no need to use complete sentences; pick short short > descriptive names instead.) Maybe I'm looking at the wrong direction, right now. From the point of view of the FolderInUse clients, they will do: condition = FolderInUse(core) condition.true_for(folder) Is this too verbose? This is not a polemic statement, I'm really asking your opionion. The expression inside the true_for is indeed complex, and maybe I can simplify it; however, I'm deeply convinced that instance.forbid_to_close(folder) has some good points on it; I mean, once I read this kind of code, I can hope to understand it without looking at what forbid_to_close does. > > -- Marco Bizzarri http://notenotturne.blogspot.com/ http://iliveinpisa.blogspot.com/ -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
