Path: csiph.com!newsfeed.hal-mli.net!feeder3.hal-mli.net!newsfeed.hal-mli.net!feeder1.hal-mli.net!newsfeed.xs4all.nl!newsfeed3a.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 0.006 X-Spam-Evidence: '*H*': 0.99; '*S*': 0.00; 'else:': 0.03; 'string': 0.09; 'from:addr:ethan': 0.09; 'from:addr:stoneleaf.us': 0.09; 'from:name:ethan furman': 0.09; 'message-id:@stoneleaf.us': 0.09; '~ethan~': 0.09; '"good': 0.16; "'':": 0.16; 'all?': 0.16; 'first:': 0.16; 'indexerror:': 0.16; 'subject:bit': 0.16; 'sure.': 0.16; 'index': 0.16; 'wrote:': 0.18; 'seems': 0.21; 'print': 0.22; 'header:User-Agent:1': 0.23; "haven't": 0.24; 'header:In-Reply- To:1': 0.27; 'am,': 0.29; 'fastest': 0.30; 'code': 0.31; '"",': 0.31; 'clever': 0.31; 'yourself.': 0.31; 'file': 0.32; 'run': 0.32; '(most': 0.33; 'but': 0.35; 'there': 0.35; 'doing': 0.36; 'charset:us-ascii': 0.36; 'wrong': 0.37; 'to:addr:python-list': 0.38; 'recent': 0.39; 'to:addr:python.org': 0.39; 'read': 0.60; 'most': 0.60; 'range': 0.61; 'received:173': 0.61; 'further': 0.61; 'email addr:gmail.com': 0.63; 'occur': 0.65; 'obvious': 0.74; 'obvious.': 0.84 Date: Thu, 13 Feb 2014 11:23:59 -0800 From: Ethan Furman User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:16.0) Gecko/20121010 Thunderbird/16.0.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: python-list@python.org Subject: Re: A curious bit of code... References: <4cc09129-43ee-4205-a24c-03f92b594abc@googlegroups.com> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-AntiAbuse: This header was added to track abuse, please include it with any abuse report X-AntiAbuse: Primary Hostname - gator3304.hostgator.com X-AntiAbuse: Original Domain - python.org X-AntiAbuse: Originator/Caller UID/GID - [47 12] / [47 12] X-AntiAbuse: Sender Address Domain - stoneleaf.us X-BWhitelist: no X-Source-IP: 173.12.184.233 X-Source: X-Source-Args: X-Source-Dir: X-Source-Sender: ([173.12.184.233]) [173.12.184.233]:33832 X-Source-Auth: ethan+stoneleaf.us X-Email-Count: 2 X-Source-Cap: dG9idWs7dG9idWs7Z2F0b3IzMzA0Lmhvc3RnYXRvci5jb20= 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: 44 NNTP-Posting-Host: 2001:888:2000:d::a6 X-Trace: 1392320801 news.xs4all.nl 2927 [2001:888:2000:d::a6]:53259 X-Complaints-To: abuse@xs4all.nl Xref: csiph.com comp.lang.python:66219 On 02/13/2014 11:17 AM, Neil Cerutti wrote: > On 2014-02-13, forman.simon@gmail.com > wrote: >> I ran across this and I thought there must be a better way of >> doing it, but then after further consideration I wasn't so >> sure. >> >> if key[:1] + key[-1:] == '<>': ... >> >> Some possibilities that occurred to me: >> >> if key.startswith('<') and key.endswith('>'): ... >> >> and: >> >> if (key[:1], key[-1:]) == ('<', '>'): ... >> >> >> I haven't run these through a profiler yet, but it seems like >> the original might be the fastest after all? > > I think the following would occur to someone first: > > if key[0] == '<' and key[-1] == '>': > ... > > It is wrong to avoid the obvious. Needlessly ornate or clever > code will only irritate the person who has to read it later; most > likely yourself. Not whet the obvious is wrong: -> key = '' --> if key[0] == '<' and key[-1] == '>': ... print "good key!" ... else: ... print "bad key" ... Traceback (most recent call last): File "", line 1, in IndexError: string index out of range -- ~Ethan~