code review

[Thomas Jollans]

On 06/30/2012 10:30 PM, Alister wrote:
> On Sat, 30 Jun 2012 21:38:58 +0200, Thomas Jollans wrote:
> 
>> On 06/30/2012 08:39 PM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>>> Peter Otten wrote:
>>>
>>>> If you spell it
>>>>
>>>> def is_valid_password(password):
>>>>     return mud.minpass <= len(password) <= mud.maxpass
>>>>
>>>> it is even easier to see that you are performing an interval check.
>>>
>>> This is probably a tautology around here, but *what* *a* *great*
>>> *programming* *language*.
>>>
>>>
>> Personally, I don't like this feature of the language. I find a ternary
>> operator that uses symbols that can also be binary operators confusing
>> and inconsistent with the way operators usually work/the way terms are
>> usually associated.
>>
>> It has the charm of being something you'd "naturally" write in the
>> context of non-programming mathematics, at the cost of being very odd
>> indeed in the context of programming in general and Python in
>> particular.
> 
> Surely this fits perfectly with the lines 1 & 7 in the zen of python 
> (import this)
> "Beautifull is better than ugly" and "Readability counts"
> 
> I find that construct both beautiful and readable, if it cannot be used 
> in the languages then that is their loss.

Are we quoting the Zen now?

Contra:

In re usual operator rules:
"Special cases aren't special enough to break the rules."

Which of the two comparisons is done first anyway?
"In the face of ambiguity, refuse the temptation to guess."

Speaking of two comparisons, no "and"!
"Explicit is better than implicit."

Then again, pro:

"Beautiful is better than ugly."
"Readability counts."
"[Although] practicality beats purity."


I can see the appeal. It's quite elegant in and of itself. However, I
find that in the context of the whole Python language, it's a bit of a
glitch and reduces elegance. (I'm probably in the minority on this one)