Path: csiph.com!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!not-for-mail
From: Tim Chase <python.list@tim.thechases.com>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.python
Subject: Re: How to make Python interpreter a little more strict?
Date: Sun, 27 Mar 2016 15:32:36 -0500
Lines: 36
Message-ID: <mailman.94.1459110963.28225.python-list@python.org>
References: <20160325150608.21c3827a@fujitsu> <CAPTjJmqYuzLRGX6x6w5hpWQaB4UJ+-Dy=RXgotUxT-CO6rjYXA@mail.gmail.com> <mailman.67.1459037003.28225.python-list@python.org> <56f7536b$0$22140$c3e8da3$5496439d@news.astraweb.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
In-Reply-To: <56f7536b$0$22140$c3e8da3$5496439d@news.astraweb.com>
Precedence: list
Xref: csiph.com comp.lang.python:105872

On 2016-03-27 14:28, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
> > So intrigued by this question I tried the following
> > def fnc( n ):
> >      print "fnc called with parameter '%d'" % n
> >      return n
> > 
> > for i in range(0,5):
> >      if i%2 == 0:
> >          fnc
> >          next
> >      print i
> > 
> > and got the same result as the OP  
> 
> In this case, the two lines "fnc" and "next" simply look up the
> function names, but without actually calling them. They're not
> quite "no-ops", since they can fail and raise NameError if the name
> doesn't exist, but otherwise they might as well be no-ops.

Which is actually useful.  I've got some 2.4 code that reads

  try:
    any
  except NameError:
    def any(...):
      ...

(with a similar block for all() )

I don't want to call any() or all(), I simply want to test whether
they exist.

-tkc