Thanks for having a look! The example now looks like (looking at int case
only, same applies to UID):

        case int():
            if value < 0:
                try:
                    self._fp.write(struct.pack('>Bq', 0x13, value))
                except struct.error:
                    raise OverflowError(value) from None
            elif value < 1 << 8:
                self._fp.write(struct.pack('>BB', 0x10, value))
            ...
            elif value < 1 << 64:
                self._fp.write(b'\x14' + value.to_bytes(16, 'big',
signed=True))
            else:
                raise OverflowError(value)

I was more thinking it would read/look something like:

        case int() if value < 0:
                try:
                    self._fp.write(struct.pack('>Bq', 0x13, value))
                except struct.error:
                    raise OverflowError(value) from None
        case int() if value < 1 << 8:
                self._fp.write(struct.pack('>BB', 0x10, value))
        ...
        case int() if value < 1 << 64:
                self._fp.write(b'\x14' + value.to_bytes(16, 'big',
signed=True))
        case int():
            raise OverflowError(value)

Which I think works as expected under the current PEP622?

On Mon, 17 Aug 2020 at 14:16, Mark Shannon <m...@hotpy.org> wrote:

>
>
> On 17/08/2020 1:13 pm, Henk-Jaap Wagenaar wrote:
> > On Mon, 17 Aug 2020 at 11:30, Mark Shannon <m...@hotpy.org
> > <mailto:m...@hotpy.org>> wrote:
> >
> >
> >     I would also bring you attention to my rigorous analysis of the
> >     possible
> >     application to PEP 622 the entirety of CPython.
> >     If I have made any mistakes there, I'd be happy to correct them.
> >
> >
> > You say "I've elided a lot of complex logic int cases, as it is not
> > relevant." in the plistlib._BinaryPlistWriter._write_object example,
> > this seems to be a prime example where guards could be used to
> > simplify/unnest the logic? Even if you disagree, I think it is highly
> > relevant and worth commenting on, one way or another!
>
> Thanks for the feedback.
>
> I've expanded the code in the `int` and `UID` cases, and made it clearer
> why the remaining code has been elided.
>
>
> Cheers,
> Mark.
>
_______________________________________________
Python-Dev mailing list -- python-dev@python.org
To unsubscribe send an email to python-dev-le...@python.org
https://mail.python.org/mailman3/lists/python-dev.python.org/
Message archived at 
https://mail.python.org/archives/list/python-dev@python.org/message/PUENMFG7AFEGN446JHNBLSRUVCV52HHZ/
Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/

Reply via email to