On Tue, Apr 07, 2015 at 03:11:30AM +0100, Rob Cliffe wrote:
> As a matter of interest, how far away from mainstream am I in
> preferring, *in this particular example* (obviously it might be
> different for more complicated computation),
>
> def foo(x):
> return math.sqrt(x) if x >=
On 07/04/2015 02:08, Guido van Rossum wrote:
I've taken the liberty of adding the following old but good rule to
PEP 8 (I was surprised to find it wasn't already there since I've
lived by this for ages):
*
Be consistent in return statements. Either all return statements
in a functi
On Apr 06, 2015, at 06:08 PM, Guido van Rossum wrote:
>I've taken the liberty of adding the following old but good rule to PEP 8
>(I was surprised to find it wasn't already there since I've lived by this
>for ages):
>
> Be consistent in return statements. Either all return statements in a
> fu
I've taken the liberty of adding the following old but good rule to PEP 8
(I was surprised to find it wasn't already there since I've lived by this
for ages):
-
Be consistent in return statements. Either all return statements in a
function should return an expression, or none of them sh
On Fri, Apr 3, 2015 at 6:44 AM, Martin Teichmann
wrote:
> Nick, I couldn't agree more with you, yet I think PJ actually brought
> up a very interesting point. Post-processing is a very common thing
> these days, and has been re-written so many times that I think it is
> about time that something l
On Sat, Apr 4, 2015 at 6:40 PM, Greg Ewing wrote:
> Eric Snow wrote:
>>
>> I've felt for a long time that it would be helpful in some situations
>> to have a reverse descriptor protocol.
>
> Can you elaborate on what you mean by that?
Sure. It's more python-ideas territory (I posted about it a f
