Is this a legal / acceptable statement ?

[Philippe Martin]

bruno at modulix wrote:

> Philippe Martin wrote:
>> bruno at modulix wrote:
>> 
>> 
>>>Philippe Martin wrote:
>>>(snip)
>>>
>>>>l_init really is a boolean parameter and l_value a value that _might_
>>>>exist in a shelve.
>>>>
>>>>So I just want to have a parameter to a method so if the first value
>>>>tested is false (l_init) then the second (l_value) does not get tested
>>>>... because it is the second in the statement and only seems to get
>>>>evaluated if the first one is true.
>>>
>>>s/seems to get/is/
>>>
>>>But this is a really unpythonic way to do things IMHO. Either use a
>>>try/except block (probably the most straightforward solution), or, as in
>>>Larry's post, test for the existence of 'l_value' in locals().
>>>
>>>My 2 cents...
>>>--
>>>bruno desthuilliers
>>>python -c "print '@'.join(['.'.join([w[::-1] for w in p.split('.')]) for
>>>p in 'onurb at xiludom.gro'.split('@')])"
>> 
>> 
>> Well, that was the question - I wanted to avoid that because I'm already
>> in a try/except and do not like to imbricate them too much.
> 
> Then reads Fredrik's answer and this:
> '''
> Help on module shelve:
> 
> (...)
> 
> DESCRIPTION
>     A "shelf" is a persistent, dictionary-like object.
>     (...)
> """
> 
> What about :
> 
> if shelf.has_key('l_value'):
>   ...
> 
> ?-)
> 
> --
> bruno desthuilliers
> python -c "print '@'.join(['.'.join([w[::-1] for w in p.split('.')]) for
> p in 'onurb at xiludom.gro'.split('@')])"

Yes that would make sense.

Philippe