Re: Short-circuit Logic

Date	2013-05-27 11:57 +1000
From	Cameron Simpson <cs@zip.com.au>
Subject	Re: Short-circuit Logic
References	<51a2ab67$0$30002$c3e8da3$5496439d@news.astraweb.com>
Newsgroups	comp.lang.python
Message-ID	<mailman.2228.1369621763.3114.python-list@python.org> (permalink)

Show all headers | View raw

On 27May2013 00:40, Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> wrote:
| On Sun, 26 May 2013 16:22:26 -0400, Roy Smith wrote:
| 
| > In article <mailman.2196.1369599562.3114.python-list@python.org>,
| >  Terry Jan Reedy <tjreedy@udel.edu> wrote:
| > 
| >> On 5/26/2013 7:11 AM, Ahmed Abdulshafy wrote:
| >> 
| >> >       if not allow_zero and abs(x) < sys.float_info.epsilon:
| >> >                  print("zero is not allowed")
| >> 
| >> The reason for the order is to do the easy calculation first and the
| >> harder one only if the first passes.
| > 
| > This is a particularly egregious case of premature optimization.  You're
| > worried about how long it takes to execute abs(x)?  That's silly.
| 
| I don't think it's a matter of premature optimization so much as the 
| general principle "run code only if it needs to run". Hence, first you 
| check the flag to decide whether or not you care whether x is near zero, 
| and *only if you care* do you then check whether x is near zero.
| 
| # This is silly:
| if x is near zero:
|     if we care:
|         handle near zero condition()
| 
| # This is better:
| if we care:
|     if x is near zero
|         handle near zero condition()
| 
| 
| Not only is this easier to understand because it matches how we do things 
| in the real life, but it has the benefit that if the "near zero" 
| condition ever changes to become much more expensive, you don't have to 
| worry about reordering the tests because they're already in the right 
| order.

I wouldn't even go that far, though nothing you say above is wrong.

Terry's assertion "The reason for the order is to do the easy
calculation first and the harder one only if the first passes" is
only sometimes that case, though well worth considering if the
second test _is_ expensive.

There are other reasons also. The first is of course your response,
that if the first test fails there's no need to even bother with
the second one. Faster, for free!

The second is that sometimes the first test is a guard against even
being able to perform the second test. Example:

  if s is not None and len(s) > 0:
    ... do something with the non-empty string `s` ...

In this example, None is a sentinel value for "no valid string" and
calling "len(s)" would raise an exception because None doesn't have
a length.

With short circuiting logic you can write this clearly and intuitively in one line
without extra control structure like the nested ifs above.

Cheers,
-- 
Cameron Simpson <cs@zip.com.au>

Who are all you people and why are you in my computer?  - Kibo

Thread

Short-circuit Logic Ahmed Abdulshafy <abdulshafy@gmail.com> - 2013-05-26 04:11 -0700
  Re: Short-circuit Logic Roy Smith <roy@panix.com> - 2013-05-26 07:38 -0400
  Re: Short-circuit Logic Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2013-05-26 12:13 +0000
    Re: Short-circuit Logic Ahmed Abdulshafy <abdulshafy@gmail.com> - 2013-05-27 13:11 -0700
      Re: Short-circuit Logic Nobody <nobody@nowhere.com> - 2013-05-28 01:10 +0100
        Re: Short-circuit Logic Ahmed Abdulshafy <abdulshafy@gmail.com> - 2013-05-28 01:39 -0700
          RE: Short-circuit Logic Carlos Nepomuceno <carlosnepomuceno@outlook.com> - 2013-05-28 12:32 +0300
          Re: Short-circuit Logic Mark Lawrence <breamoreboy@yahoo.co.uk> - 2013-05-28 12:45 +0100
          Re: Short-circuit Logic Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2013-05-28 13:51 +0000
            Re: Short-circuit Logic Grant Edwards <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2013-05-28 15:14 +0000
              Re: Short-circuit Logic Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2013-05-28 15:55 +0000
      Re: Short-circuit Logic Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2013-05-28 13:48 +0000
        Re: Short-circuit Logic Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2013-05-29 00:01 +1000
        Re: Short-circuit Logic Ahmed Abdulshafy <abdulshafy@gmail.com> - 2013-05-29 07:27 -0700
          Re: Short-circuit Logic Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2013-05-30 00:32 +1000
          Re: Short-circuit Logic rusi <rustompmody@gmail.com> - 2013-05-29 07:33 -0700
            Re: Short-circuit Logic Ian Kelly <ian.g.kelly@gmail.com> - 2013-05-29 10:50 -0600
              Re: Short-circuit Logic Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2013-05-30 02:28 +0000
                Re: Short-circuit Logic Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2013-05-30 13:45 +1000
                Re: Short-circuit Logic Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2013-05-30 05:42 +0000
                Re: Short-circuit Logic Jussi Piitulainen <jpiitula@ling.helsinki.fi> - 2013-05-30 10:22 +0300
                Re: Short-circuit Logic Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2013-05-30 08:29 +0000
                Re: Short-circuit Logic Jussi Piitulainen <jpiitula@ling.helsinki.fi> - 2013-05-30 12:07 +0300
                Re: Short-circuit Logic Nobody <nobody@nowhere.com> - 2013-05-30 23:55 +0100
                Re: Short-circuit Logic Dennis Lee Bieber <wlfraed@ix.netcom.com> - 2013-05-30 19:31 -0400
                Re: Short-circuit Logic Stefan Drees <stefan@drees.name> - 2013-05-31 17:34 +0200
                Re: Short-circuit Logic Roy Smith <roy@panix.com> - 2013-05-30 08:48 -0400
                Re: Short-circuit Logic Dennis Lee Bieber <wlfraed@ix.netcom.com> - 2013-05-30 19:38 -0400
                Re: Short-circuit Logic Nobody <nobody@nowhere.com> - 2013-05-31 02:10 +0100
                Re: Short-circuit Logic Roy Smith <roy@panix.com> - 2013-05-30 21:21 -0400
                Re: Short-circuit Logic Dennis Lee Bieber <wlfraed@ix.netcom.com> - 2013-05-30 21:57 -0400
                Re: Short-circuit Logic Michael Torrie <torriem@gmail.com> - 2013-05-30 21:33 -0600
                RE: Short-circuit Logic Carlos Nepomuceno <carlosnepomuceno@outlook.com> - 2013-05-31 03:03 +0300
                Re: Short-circuit Logic Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2013-05-30 18:29 +1000
                RE: Short-circuit Logic Carlos Nepomuceno <carlosnepomuceno@outlook.com> - 2013-05-31 00:03 +0300
                Re: Short-circuit Logic Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2013-05-31 05:13 +0000
                RE: Short-circuit Logic Carlos Nepomuceno <carlosnepomuceno@outlook.com> - 2013-05-31 09:42 +0300
                Re: Short-circuit Logic Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2013-05-31 08:11 +0000
                Re: Short-circuit Logic Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2013-05-31 17:09 +1000
                Re: Short-circuit Logic Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2013-05-31 08:45 +0000
                Re: Short-circuit Logic Roy Smith <roy@panix.com> - 2013-05-31 09:20 -0400
                RE: Short-circuit Logic Carlos Nepomuceno <carlosnepomuceno@outlook.com> - 2013-06-01 10:23 +0300
                Re: Short-circuit Logic 88888 Dihedral <dihedral88888@gmail.com> - 2013-05-30 20:11 -0700
            Re: Short-circuit Logic Dave Angel <davea@davea.name> - 2013-05-29 20:23 -0400
              Re: Short-circuit Logic Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2013-05-30 05:20 +0000
          Re: Short-circuit Logic Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2013-05-30 05:10 +0000
            Re: Short-circuit Logic Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2013-05-30 15:22 +1000
              Re: Short-circuit Logic Roy Smith <roy@panix.com> - 2013-05-30 08:40 -0400
                Re: Short-circuit Logic Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2013-05-30 22:58 +1000
                Re: Short-circuit Logic rusi <rustompmody@gmail.com> - 2013-05-30 09:58 -0700
                Re: Short-circuit Logic Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2013-05-31 03:23 +1000
                Re: Short-circuit Logic Rick Johnson <rantingrickjohnson@gmail.com> - 2013-05-30 17:13 -0700
                Re: Short-circuit Logic Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2013-05-31 12:29 +1000
                Re: Short-circuit Logic Ethan Furman <ethan@stoneleaf.us> - 2013-05-30 08:02 -0700
                Re: Short-circuit Logic Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2013-05-31 01:56 +1000
                Re: Short-circuit Logic Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2013-05-30 16:40 +0000
                Re: Short-circuit Logic Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2013-05-30 19:22 +0000
                Re: Short-circuit Logic Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2013-05-31 07:46 +1000
                Re: Short-circuit Logic Ethan Furman <ethan@stoneleaf.us> - 2013-05-30 09:30 -0700
              Re: Short-circuit Logic Neil Cerutti <neilc@norwich.edu> - 2013-05-30 19:30 +0000
                Re: Short-circuit Logic Ian Kelly <ian.g.kelly@gmail.com> - 2013-05-30 13:49 -0600
  Re: Short-circuit Logic Terry Jan Reedy <tjreedy@udel.edu> - 2013-05-26 16:19 -0400
    Re: Short-circuit Logic Roy Smith <roy@panix.com> - 2013-05-26 16:22 -0400
      Re: Short-circuit Logic Terry Jan Reedy <tjreedy@udel.edu> - 2013-05-26 17:28 -0400
      Re: Short-circuit Logic Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2013-05-27 00:40 +0000
        Re: Short-circuit Logic Cameron Simpson <cs@zip.com.au> - 2013-05-27 11:57 +1000
        Re: Short-circuit Logic rusi <rustompmody@gmail.com> - 2013-05-26 21:44 -0700
        Re: Short-circuit Logic Vito De Tullio <vito.detullio@gmail.com> - 2013-05-27 06:59 +0200
  Re: Short-circuit Logic Nobody <nobody@nowhere.com> - 2013-05-27 18:52 +0100
  Re: Short-circuit Logic Ahmed Abdulshafy <abdulshafy@gmail.com> - 2013-05-27 13:08 -0700
    Re: Short-circuit Logic Dennis Lee Bieber <wlfraed@ix.netcom.com> - 2013-05-27 21:36 -0400

csiph-web