Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.lang.python > #79415 > unrolled thread

(test) ? a:b

Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.python

Contents

  (test) ? a:b "ast" <nomail@invalid.com> - 2014-10-22 10:29 +0200
    Re: (test) ? a:b buscacio@gmail.com - 2014-10-22 02:05 -0700
      Re: (test) ? a:b "ast" <nomail@invalid.com> - 2014-10-22 11:14 +0200
        Re: (test) ? a:b Mark Lawrence <breamoreboy@yahoo.co.uk> - 2014-10-22 12:45 +0100
          Re: (test) ? a:b "ast" <nomail@invalid.com> - 2014-10-27 09:01 +0100
        Re: (test) ? a:b Michael Torrie <torriem@gmail.com> - 2014-10-22 11:16 -0600
          Re: (test) ? a:b Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2014-10-23 11:44 +1100
      Re: (test) ? a:b Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2014-10-22 20:15 +1100
      Re: (test) ? a:b Mark Lawrence <breamoreboy@yahoo.co.uk> - 2014-10-22 10:16 +0100
      Re: (test) ? a:b Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2014-10-22 20:27 +1100
        Re: (test) ? a:b Gregory Ewing <greg.ewing@canterbury.ac.nz> - 2014-10-23 16:46 +1300
          Re: (test) ? a:b MRAB <python@mrabarnett.plus.com> - 2014-10-23 11:12 +0100
            Re: (test) ? a:b "ast" <nomail@invalid.com> - 2014-10-24 08:38 +0200
          Re: (test) ? a:b Michael Torrie <torriem@gmail.com> - 2014-10-25 19:04 -0600
            Re: (test) ? a:b Gregory Ewing <greg.ewing@canterbury.ac.nz> - 2014-10-27 22:04 +1300
          Re: (test) ? a:b Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2014-10-26 12:20 +1100
          Re: (test) ? a:b Michael Torrie <torriem@gmail.com> - 2014-10-25 21:05 -0600
      Re: (test) ? a:b Ned Batchelder <ned@nedbatchelder.com> - 2014-10-22 07:30 -0400
        Re: (test) ? a:b Marko Rauhamaa <marko@pacujo.net> - 2014-10-22 14:41 +0300
        Re: (test) ? a:b Rustom Mody <rustompmody@gmail.com> - 2014-10-22 06:16 -0700
          Re: (test) ? a:b "BartC" <bc@freeuk.com> - 2014-10-22 19:08 +0100
            Re: (test) ? a:b Dennis Lee Bieber <wlfraed@ix.netcom.com> - 2014-10-22 19:55 -0400
              Re: (test) ? a:b "BartC" <bc@freeuk.com> - 2014-10-23 11:50 +0100
                Re: (test) ? a:b Marko Rauhamaa <marko@pacujo.net> - 2014-10-23 16:44 +0300
                  Re: (test) ? a:b Ian Kelly <ian.g.kelly@gmail.com> - 2014-10-23 08:24 -0600
                  Re: (test) ? a:b Alain Ketterlin <alain@dpt-info.u-strasbg.fr> - 2014-10-23 16:41 +0200
                    Re: (test) ? a:b Marko Rauhamaa <marko@pacujo.net> - 2014-10-23 19:20 +0300
                  Re: (test) ? a:b Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2014-10-24 19:38 +1100
                    Re: (test) ? a:b Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2014-10-24 19:45 +1100
                    Re: (test) ? a:b Marko Rauhamaa <marko@pacujo.net> - 2014-10-24 12:37 +0300
                      Re: (test) ? a:b Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2014-10-25 00:07 +1100
                        Re: (test) ? a:b Ian Kelly <ian.g.kelly@gmail.com> - 2014-10-24 12:22 -0600
                          Re: (test) ? a:b Marko Rauhamaa <marko@pacujo.net> - 2014-10-24 21:46 +0300
                    Re: (test) ? a:b Dan Stromberg <drsalists@gmail.com> - 2014-10-24 10:20 -0700
                      Re: (test) ? a:b alister <alister.nospam.ware@ntlworld.com> - 2014-10-24 20:58 +0000
                        Re: (test) ? a:b Marko Rauhamaa <marko@pacujo.net> - 2014-10-25 00:02 +0300
                        Re: (test) ? a:b Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2014-10-25 16:03 +1100
                          Re: (test) ? a:b Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2014-10-25 16:25 +1100
                          Re: (test) ? a:b Ned Batchelder <ned@nedbatchelder.com> - 2014-10-25 07:58 -0400
                          Re: (test) ? a:b Ian Kelly <ian.g.kelly@gmail.com> - 2014-10-25 07:53 -0600
                          Re: (test) ? a:b Dennis Lee Bieber <wlfraed@ix.netcom.com> - 2014-10-25 14:11 -0400
                          Re: (test) ? a:b alister <alister.nospam.ware@ntlworld.com> - 2014-10-25 19:49 +0000
                          Re: (test) ? a:b Ben Finney <ben+python@benfinney.id.au> - 2014-10-26 07:45 +1100
                            Re: (test) ? a:b Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2014-10-26 11:10 +1100
                              Re: (test) ? a:b Ben Finney <ben+python@benfinney.id.au> - 2014-10-26 12:03 +1100
                                Re: (test) ? a:b Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2014-10-26 15:15 +1100
                                  Re: (test) ? a:b Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2014-10-26 15:34 +1100
                                  Re: (test) ? a:b Terry Reedy <tjreedy@udel.edu> - 2014-10-26 17:12 -0400
                                  Re: (test) ? a:b Ben Finney <ben+python@benfinney.id.au> - 2014-10-27 11:38 +1100
                                  Re: (test) ? a:b MRAB <python@mrabarnett.plus.com> - 2014-10-27 01:40 +0000
                                  Re: (test) ? a:b Rustom Mody <rustompmody@gmail.com> - 2014-10-26 19:19 -0700
                              Re: (test) ? a:b Ben Finney <ben+python@benfinney.id.au> - 2014-10-26 12:10 +1100
                              Re: (test) ? a:b Joshua Landau <joshua@landau.ws> - 2014-10-27 01:55 +0000
                              Re: (test) ? a:b Ben Finney <ben+python@benfinney.id.au> - 2014-10-27 13:28 +1100
                                Re: (test) ? a:b Rustom Mody <rustompmody@gmail.com> - 2014-10-26 19:38 -0700
                              Re: (test) ? a:b Joshua Landau <joshua@landau.ws> - 2014-10-27 02:43 +0000
                              Re: (test) ? a:b Ben Finney <ben+python@benfinney.id.au> - 2014-10-27 13:56 +1100
                          Re: (test) ? a:b Dan Stromberg <drsalists@gmail.com> - 2014-10-25 15:34 -0700
                          Re: (test) ? a:b Ben Finney <ben+python@benfinney.id.au> - 2014-10-26 10:53 +1100
                          Re: (test) ? a:b Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2014-10-26 11:01 +1100
                          Re: (test) ? a:b Mark Lawrence <breamoreboy@yahoo.co.uk> - 2014-10-26 01:09 +0100
                          Re: (test) ? a:b Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2014-10-26 11:13 +1100
            Re: (test) ? a:b Vito De Tullio <vito.detullio@gmail.com> - 2014-10-23 06:55 +0200
        Re: (test) ? a:b Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2014-10-23 03:28 +1100
          Re: (test) ? a:b Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2014-10-23 03:40 +1100
          Re: (test) ? a:b alister <alister.nospam.ware@ntlworld.com> - 2014-10-22 18:03 +0000
          Re: (test) ? a:b Matthew Ruffalo <mmr15@case.edu> - 2014-10-22 14:27 -0400
          Re: (test) ? a:b Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2014-10-23 05:30 +1100
          Re: (test) ? a:b Ned Batchelder <ned@nedbatchelder.com> - 2014-10-22 16:11 -0400
      Re: (test) ? a:b Mark Lawrence <breamoreboy@yahoo.co.uk> - 2014-10-22 12:41 +0100
        Re: (test) ? a:b alister <alister.nospam.ware@ntlworld.com> - 2014-10-22 15:12 +0000
          Re: (test) ? a:b Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2014-10-23 02:18 +1100
            Re: (test) ? a:b alister <alister.nospam.ware@ntlworld.com> - 2014-10-22 15:24 +0000
      Re: (test) ? a:b Dan Stromberg <drsalists@gmail.com> - 2014-10-22 09:09 -0700
    Re: (test) ? a:b Tobiah <toby@tobiah.org> - 2014-10-24 10:23 -0700
      Re: (test) ? a:b Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2014-10-25 04:27 +1100
        Re: (test) ? a:b Tobiah <toby@tobiah.org> - 2014-10-24 11:31 -0700

Page 4 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4]

#79695

On 26/10/2014 01:01, Chris Angelico wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 26, 2014 at 10:53 AM, Ben Finney <ben+python@benfinney.id.au> wrote:
>> Dan Stromberg <drsalists@gmail.com> writes:
>>
>>> EG, if I have 3 mutually exclusive command line options, I'll do
>>> something like:
>>>
>>> if option_a + option_b + option_c != 1:
>>>     sys.stderr.write('{}: -a, -b and -c are mutually exclusive\n'.format(sys.argv[0]))
>>
>> That is an excellent illustration of why exploiting this accidental
>> property of True and False leads to obfuscated code. The above test
>> gives me no clue that we're operating on boolean values, nor that we're
>> testing for exclusive options.
>
> Would it be more readable thus?
>
> if len([opt for opt in (option_a, option_b, option_c) if opt]) != 1:
>
> Because that's what it's doing. I think treating bools as numbers is
> fine. Matter of opinion I guess.
>
> ChrisA
>

Horrible IMHO, it just doesn't fit in my mind set.  Still each to their own.

-- 
My fellow Pythonistas, ask not what our language can do for you, ask
what you can do for our language.

Mark Lawrence

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#79696

On Sun, Oct 26, 2014 at 11:09 AM, Mark Lawrence <breamoreboy@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> Horrible IMHO, it just doesn't fit in my mind set.  Still each to their own.

Yeah, the comprehension version is way more explicit (though it
probably ought to be a set and a set comp, not a tuple and a list
comp), and not as good, IMO. But it explains and justifies the
original.

ChrisA

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#79501

Dennis Lee Bieber wrote:

>> x = [f(), g()] [cond]
>>
>>the latter evaluates both f() and g() instead of just one. Apart from
>>being inefficient, it can have unintended side-effects.
> 
> Ah, but what would
> 
> x = [f, g][cond]()
> 
> produce?


headache

-- 
By ZeD

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#79455

Ned Batchelder wrote:

> On 10/22/14 5:05 AM, buscacio@gmail.com wrote:

>> without not:
>> j = [j+1, 3][j>=10]
>> with not:
>> j = [3, j+1][not (j>=10)]
>>
> 
> Why on earth would you recommend this outdated hack, when there's a true
> conditional operator?
> 
>      j = 3 if j >= 10 else j+1

I think that's a bit harsh. Especially since this appears to have been
Buscacio's first post here. Hopefully not his(?) last post!

The old (b, a)[condition] idiom is not outdated for anyone supporting Python
2.4, and I wouldn't call it a hack. Indexing into a sequence with a bool is
basic to Python's semantics: True and False are ints equal to 1 and 0
respectively. It's also a technique easily extensible to more than two
values:

    '01TX'[n % 4]

is in my opinion more readable than:

    i = n % 4
    '0' if i == 0 else '1' if i == 1 else 'T' if i == 3 else 'X'


> Of course, many people feel like the conditional operator isn't worth
> the squished-up unreadability, but if someone asks for a conditional
> operator, at least show them one!

The advantage of the `x if cond else y` operator is that it is a
short-cutting operator, it doesn't evaluate either x or y unless needed.
But for many cases that's not important, and in those cases I won't say I
prefer the old (y, x)[cond] idiom, but neither do I dislike it.


-- 
Steven

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#79458

On Thu, Oct 23, 2014 at 3:28 AM, Steven D'Aprano
<steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> wrote:
> It's also a technique easily extensible to more than two
> values:
>
>     '01TX'[n % 4]
>
> is in my opinion more readable than:
>
>     i = n % 4
>     '0' if i == 0 else '1' if i == 1 else 'T' if i == 3 else 'X'

That's true when it's fundamentally arithmetic. But part of that
readability difference is the redundancy in the second one. What if it
weren't so redundant?

'Negative' if x < 0 else 'Low' if x < 10 else 'Mid' if x < 20 else 'High'

You can't easily turn that into a dict lookup, nor indexing. It's
either a chained if/elif tree or nested if/else expressions, which
come to the same thing. So I'd say all the techniques have their
advantages and disadvantages. The most important thing to note is
where they differ in semantics, like the short-circuiting of if/else.

ChrisA

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#79463

On Thu, 23 Oct 2014 03:28:48 +1100, Steven D'Aprano wrote:

>> Why on earth would you recommend this outdated hack, when there's a
>> true conditional operator?
>> 
>>      j = 3 if j >= 10 else j+1
> 
> I think that's a bit harsh. Especially since this appears to have been
> Buscacio's first post here. Hopefully not his(?) last post!
> 
> The old (b, a)[condition] idiom is not outdated for anyone supporting
> Python 2.4, and I wouldn't call it a hack. Indexing into a sequence with
> a bool is basic to Python's semantics: True and False are ints equal to
> 1 and 0 respectively. It's also a technique easily extensible to more
> than two values:
> 
>     '01TX'[n % 4]
> 
> is in my opinion more readable than:
> 
>     i = n % 4 '0' if i == 0 else '1' if i == 1 else 'T' if i == 3 else
>     'X'

chained ternary operations are evil no mater what style or language they 
are written in as they rapidly become confusing & unreadable

"Readability counts"

in my opinion they are better written as nested if statements 

-- 
Ambiguity:
	Telling the truth when you don't mean to.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#79465

On 10/22/2014 12:40 PM, Chris Angelico wrote:
> That's true when it's fundamentally arithmetic. But part of that
> readability difference is the redundancy in the second one. What if it
> weren't so redundant?
>
> 'Negative' if x < 0 else 'Low' if x < 10 else 'Mid' if x < 20 else 'High'
>
> You can't easily turn that into a dict lookup, nor indexing. It's
> either a chained if/elif tree or nested if/else expressions, which
> come to the same thing.
No, you can't turn that into a dict lookup, but this is one of the
canonical use cases for the bisect module:

>>> from bisect import bisect
>>> breakpoints = [0, 10, 20]
>>> labels = ['Negative', 'Low', 'Mid', 'High']
>>> values = [-5, 5, 15, 25]
>>> [labels[bisect(breakpoints, value)] for value in values]
['Negative', 'Low', 'Mid', 'High']

It's also worth noting that using bisect is O(log(n)) instead of O(n),
but if you're going to hit a point where the asymptotic behavior matters
I'm sure you will have long since abandoned a manually-written if/elif
chain.

MMR...

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#79466

On Thu, Oct 23, 2014 at 5:27 AM, Matthew Ruffalo <mmr15@case.edu> wrote:
> On 10/22/2014 12:40 PM, Chris Angelico wrote:
>> That's true when it's fundamentally arithmetic. But part of that
>> readability difference is the redundancy in the second one. What if it
>> weren't so redundant?
>>
>> 'Negative' if x < 0 else 'Low' if x < 10 else 'Mid' if x < 20 else 'High'
>>
>> You can't easily turn that into a dict lookup, nor indexing. It's
>> either a chained if/elif tree or nested if/else expressions, which
>> come to the same thing.
> No, you can't turn that into a dict lookup, but this is one of the
> canonical use cases for the bisect module:
>
>>>> from bisect import bisect
>>>> breakpoints = [0, 10, 20]
>>>> labels = ['Negative', 'Low', 'Mid', 'High']
>>>> values = [-5, 5, 15, 25]
>>>> [labels[bisect(breakpoints, value)] for value in values]
> ['Negative', 'Low', 'Mid', 'High']
>
> It's also worth noting that using bisect is O(log(n)) instead of O(n),
> but if you're going to hit a point where the asymptotic behavior matters
> I'm sure you will have long since abandoned a manually-written if/elif
> chain.

Indeed. If the performance is making any difference, something's gone
wrong. I'm seeing that as not significantly clearer than the chained
if/else statement or expression: you need a list of breakpoints and a
list of results, which need to be kept in sync. But there's probably
no ideal solution to this.

ChrisA

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#79468

On 10/22/14 12:28 PM, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
> Ned Batchelder wrote:
>
>> On 10/22/14 5:05 AM, buscacio@gmail.com wrote:
>
>>> without not:
>>> j = [j+1, 3][j>=10]
>>> with not:
>>> j = [3, j+1][not (j>=10)]
>>>
>>
>> Why on earth would you recommend this outdated hack, when there's a true
>> conditional operator?
>>
>>       j = 3 if j >= 10 else j+1
>
> I think that's a bit harsh. Especially since this appears to have been
> Buscacio's first post here. Hopefully not his(?) last post!

You are right, it sounds a bit harsh. Sorry.

-- 
Ned Batchelder, http://nedbatchelder.com

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#79436

On 22/10/2014 10:27, Chris Angelico wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 22, 2014 at 8:16 PM, Mark Lawrence <breamoreboy@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>>> without not:
>>> j = [j+1, 3][j>=10]
>>> with not:
>>> j = [3, j+1][not (j>=10)]
>>>
>>
>> The death penalty should be reintroduced into the UK for two crimes, writing
>> code like the above and using google groups.
>
> No no no. Code like that doesn't deserve death, just community
> service. I've seen much MUCH worse... where multiple conditional
> expressions get combined arithmetically, and then the result used
> somewhere... I also may have been guilty of same, myself, though I'm
> going to plead the internet's equivalent of the Fifth Amendment to the
> US Constitution and not incriminate myself by showing the code...
>
> ChrisA
>

Perhaps you're correct.  Is there anything worse than looking at a 
dreadful piece of code that makes no sense at all and knowing that you'd 
written it six months earlier?

-- 
My fellow Pythonistas, ask not what our language can do for you, ask
what you can do for our language.

Mark Lawrence

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#79446

On Wed, 22 Oct 2014 12:41:49 +0100, Mark Lawrence wrote:

> On 22/10/2014 10:27, Chris Angelico wrote:
>> On Wed, Oct 22, 2014 at 8:16 PM, Mark Lawrence
>> <breamoreboy@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>>>> without not:
>>>> j = [j+1, 3][j>=10]
>>>> with not:
>>>> j = [3, j+1][not (j>=10)]
>>>>
>>>>
>>> The death penalty should be reintroduced into the UK for two crimes,
>>> writing code like the above and using google groups.
>>
>> No no no. Code like that doesn't deserve death, just community service.
>> I've seen much MUCH worse... where multiple conditional expressions get
>> combined arithmetically, and then the result used somewhere... I also
>> may have been guilty of same, myself, though I'm going to plead the
>> internet's equivalent of the Fifth Amendment to the US Constitution and
>> not incriminate myself by showing the code...
>>
>> ChrisA
>>
>>
> Perhaps you're correct.  Is there anything worse than looking at a
> dreadful piece of code that makes no sense at all and knowing that you'd
> written it six months earlier?

looking a a dreadful piece of unreadable & unfathomable code & knowing 
you wrote it only Yesterday ;-) 



-- 
Chamberlain's Laws:
	(1) The big guys always win.
	(2) Everything tastes more or less like chicken.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#79447

On Thu, Oct 23, 2014 at 2:12 AM, alister
<alister.nospam.ware@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>> Perhaps you're correct.  Is there anything worse than looking at a
>> dreadful piece of code that makes no sense at all and knowing that you'd
>> written it six months earlier?
>
> looking a a dreadful piece of unreadable & unfathomable code & knowing
> you wrote it only Yesterday ;-)

Sounds like you have some experience with Perl...

ChrisA

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#79448

On Thu, 23 Oct 2014 02:18:42 +1100, Chris Angelico wrote:

> On Thu, Oct 23, 2014 at 2:12 AM, alister
> <alister.nospam.ware@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>>> Perhaps you're correct.  Is there anything worse than looking at a
>>> dreadful piece of code that makes no sense at all and knowing that
>>> you'd written it six months earlier?
>>
>> looking a a dreadful piece of unreadable & unfathomable code & knowing
>> you wrote it only Yesterday ;-)
> 
> Sounds like you have some experience with Perl...
> 
> ChrisA

Never met the girl I deny everything.

Actual no experience in perl & my professional programming experience is 
limited to 8 bit assembler (68XX & 8051) 30 years ago. 
c & c++ were too low level for my liking so I started looking at python 
for fun on my Linux box's and was blown away by its smoothness.

-- 
On the other hand, life can be an endless parade of TRANSSEXUAL
QUILTING BEES aboard a cruise ship to DISNEYWORLD if only we let it!!

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#79453

On Wed, Oct 22, 2014 at 2:05 AM,  <buscacio@gmail.com> wrote:
> Em quarta-feira, 22 de outubro de 2014 06h29min55s UTC-2, ast  escreveu:
>> Hello
>>
>>
>>
>> Is there in Python something like:
>>
>>
>>
>> j = (j >= 10) ? 3 : j+1;
>>
>>
>>
>> as in C language ?
>>
>>
>>
>> thx
>
> without not:
> j = [j+1, 3][j>=10]
> with not:
> j = [3, j+1][not (j>=10)]

This is not very readable, and eagerly evaluates the two list values.
A proper ternary operator will not evaluate the unused
candidate-result. This matters a little for performance, but matters
more if one or both of the candidate results have side-effects.

It's better to use "j = 3 if j >= 10 else j + 1".

What you've suggested here was one of the ternary operator workarounds
before a true ternary operator was introduced in 2.5.

I don't use Python's ternary operator much though - I tend to find
if+else more clear, and it shows up well in a debugger. The ternary
operator tends to lead to long one-liners (especially if nested!),
which are usually best avoided.

I'd even go so far as to say that most uses of a ternary operator
probably should be a small function.  It's slower, but it lends itself
to DRY and abstraction better.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#79591

On 10/22/2014 01:29 AM, ast wrote:
> Hello
>
> Is there in Python something like:
>
> j = (j >= 10) ? 3 : j+1;
>
> as in C language ?
>
> thx


Out of all of the replies, I don't think anyone
actually offered the answer:


     a if condition else b

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#79593

On Sat, Oct 25, 2014 at 4:23 AM, Tobiah <toby@tobiah.org> wrote:
> Out of all of the replies, I don't think anyone
> actually offered the answer:
>
>
>     a if condition else b

Jean-Michel did, the very first response.

ChrisA

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#79601

On 10/24/2014 10:27 AM, Chris Angelico wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 25, 2014 at 4:23 AM, Tobiah <toby@tobiah.org> wrote:
>> Out of all of the replies, I don't think anyone
>> actually offered the answer:
>>
>>
>>      a if condition else b
>
> Jean-Michel did, the very first response.
>
> ChrisA
>


I had to search for it.  For some reason Thunderbird
didn't thread that message with all the others.

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Page 4 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4]

Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.python

csiph-web