Path: csiph.com!v102.xanadu-bbs.net!xanadu-bbs.net!news.albasani.net!weretis.net!feeder4.news.weretis.net!feeds.phibee-telecom.net!newsfeed.xs4all.nl!newsfeed4.news.xs4all.nl!xs4all!newsgate.cistron.nl!newsgate.news.xs4all.nl!post.news.xs4all.nl!not-for-mail Return-Path: X-Original-To: python-list@python.org Delivered-To: python-list@mail.python.org X-Spam-Status: OK 0.000 X-Spam-Evidence: '*H*': 1.00; '*S*': 0.00; 'broken': 0.04; 'causing': 0.04; 'skip:[ 20': 0.04; 'subject:Python': 0.06; 'intermediate': 0.07; 'file)': 0.09; 'filename': 0.09; 'filenames': 0.09; 'received:80.91': 0.09; 'received:80.91.229': 0.09; 'received:gmane.org': 0.09; 'received:list': 0.09; '"insert': 0.16; 'example?': 0.16; 'files"': 0.16; 'naming': 0.16; 'received:80.91.229.3': 0.16; 'received:plane.gmane.org': 0.16; 'subject:breaking': 0.16; 'wrote:': 0.18; 'examples': 0.20; 'fit': 0.20; '(the': 0.22; 'header:User-Agent:1': 0.23; 'received:comcast.net': 0.24; 'cheers,': 0.24; "i've": 0.25; 'values': 0.27; 'header:X-Complaints-To:1': 0.27; 'header:In- Reply-To:1': 0.27; 'forgot': 0.30; 'skip:( 20': 0.30; 'comments': 0.31; 'towards': 0.31; 'case,': 0.35; 'more,': 0.35; 'processed': 0.36; 'subject:?': 0.36; 'hi,': 0.36; 'two': 0.37; 'to:addr :python-list': 0.38; 'pm,': 0.38; 'sure': 0.39; 'to:addr:python.org': 0.39; 'skip:p 20': 0.39; 'received:org': 0.40; 'break': 0.61; 'first': 0.61; 'places': 0.64; 'natural': 0.68; 'end.': 0.84; 'subject:long': 0.84; 'victor': 0.84 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ To: python-list@python.org From: Ned Batchelder Subject: Re: Python and PEP8 - Recommendations on breaking up long lines? Date: Wed, 27 Nov 2013 22:05:21 -0500 References: <34479463-b8a8-4417-9989-cd29369461c2@googlegroups.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: c-50-133-228-126.hsd1.ma.comcast.net User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.8; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.1.1 In-Reply-To: <34479463-b8a8-4417-9989-cd29369461c2@googlegroups.com> X-BeenThere: python-list@python.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: General discussion list for the Python programming language List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Newsgroups: comp.lang.python Message-ID: Lines: 46 NNTP-Posting-Host: 2001:888:2000:d::a6 X-Trace: 1385607934 news.xs4all.nl 15967 [2001:888:2000:d::a6]:58849 X-Complaints-To: abuse@xs4all.nl Xref: csiph.com comp.lang.python:60668 On 11/27/13 9:03 PM, Victor Hooi wrote: > Hi, > > Also, forgot two other examples that are causing me grief: > > cur.executemany("INSERT INTO foobar_foobar_files VALUES (?)", > [[os.path.relpath(filename, foobar_input_folder)] for filename in filenames]) > > I've already broken it up using the parentheses, not sure what's the tidy way to break it up again to fit under 80? In this case, the 80-character mark is hitting me around the "for filename" towards the end. file_values = [ (os.path.relpath(filename, foobar_input_folder),) for filename in filenames ] cur.executemany( "INSERT INTO foobar_foobar_files VALUES (?)", file_values ) > > and: > > if os.path.join(root, file) not in previously_processed_files and os.path.join(root, file)[:-3] not in previously_processed_files: > > In this case, the 80-character mark is actually partway through "previously processed files" (the first occurrence)... full_file = os.path.join(root, file) full_not_in = full_file not in previously_processed_files tail_not_in = full_file[:-3] not in previously_processed_files if full_not_in and tail_not_in: ... This has the advantage of naming these complex intermediate conditions, and giving you natural places to write comments explaining them. Why [:-3] for example? More, shorter, statements. --Ned. > > Cheers, > Victor >