Path: csiph.com!usenet.pasdenom.info!weretis.net!feeder1.news.weretis.net!feeder.erje.net!newsfeed.xs4all.nl!newsfeed6.news.xs4all.nl!xs4all!post.news.xs4all.nl!not-for-mail
MIME-Version: 1.0
Sender: z@etiol.net
In-Reply-To: <507fa256$0$11093$c3e8da3@news.astraweb.com>
References: <mailman.2403.1350540402.27098.python-list@python.org> <507fa256$0$11093$c3e8da3@news.astraweb.com>
From: Zero Piraeus <schesis@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2012 06:31:50 -0400
Subject: Re: A desperate lunge for on-topic-ness
To: python-list@python.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Precedence: list
Newsgroups: comp.lang.python
Message-ID: <mailman.2423.1350556333.27098.python-list@python.org>
Lines: 63
NNTP-Posting-Host: 2001:888:2000:d::a6
Xref: csiph.com comp.lang.python:31626

:

There seems to be a consensus [to the extent there ever is, anyway]
around using parentheses etc., then ...

On 18 October 2012 02:31, Steven D'Aprano
<steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> wrote:
> I've been burnt enough by word-wrapping in editors that don't handle word-
> wrapping that well that it makes me really uncomfortable to go over 78-79
> characters, even by only 1 extra. So I don't like doing this.

I have to admit, I try quite hard not to exceed 78. I don't know why
[never been bitten by badly behaved editors], but something about 79
characters in an 80-char window makes me uncomfortable.

> Just about the only time I go over is if I have a comment that includes a
> URL with more than 78 characters. I hate breaking URLs more than I hate
> breaking the 79 character limit.

Agreed.

> You missed one:
>
> 5a. Perform an assignment to a temp variable that you really should have
> done anyway, but reducing the number of characters in the line was the
> impetus that finally made you act.

Ah. Yes :-)

On 18 October 2012 05:33,  <wxjmfauth@gmail.com> wrote:
> I use a "double indentation".
>
>>>> if 'asdf' and 'asdf' and 'asdf' \
> ...         'asdf' and 'asdf' and \
> ...         'asdf' and 'asdf':
> ...     print('do if')
> ...     s = 'asdf'
> ...     ss = 'asdf'

Actually, I had a follow-up question about indentation planned. I used
to double-indent, but am now more likely to go with e.g.

>>> if check_something(
...     arg1,
...     arg2,
...     arg3
... ):
...     do_something()

as others have suggested. An alternative would be something like

>>> if check_something(arg1,
...                    arg2,
...                    arg3):
...     do_something()

which I like much less. I have to admit, though, that all the original
options make me feel a little dirty except (#4) "shorter variable
names" [which just makes me feel that I am being overly precious] and
(#6 generalised) "this needs refactoring" [which I would say includes
Steven's #5a].

 -[]z.