ternary operator

[Andrew Koenig]

>> 
>> Then how would you write the following loop?
>> 
>> i = 0;
>> while i < len(n) and x[i] != y:
>> i += 1

Alex> Hmmm, the fact that i<len(n) gives no guarantee that
Alex> i is a valid index on x, in general.  So, I'm not sure
Alex> if you may not perchance mean i<len(x) instead, which
Alex> might be a more ordinary case.

Right.

Alex> If so, and x is a list, then:
Alex>     i = x.index(y)
Alex> is, I think, the best approach in Python.

But that doesn't really answer the question, does it?

Alex> None of this is meant to deny the usefulness of
Alex> the short-circuiting and/or operators.  It's just
Alex> that there are several attractive alternatives for
Alex> this _specific_ case in Python, but of course many
Alex> other cases exist where relying on and/or short-
Alex> circuit semantics yields the most elegant solution.

Right.

Moreover, I think that loops that use "break" statements
are harder to reason about than ones that don't.

-- 
Andrew Koenig, ark at research.att.com, http://www.research.att.com/info/ark