.split() Qeustion

[Duncan Booth]

Joshua Landau <joshua at landau.ws> wrote:

> That's true with this example, but is:
> 
> lines = [
>     "Developments in high-speed rail, and high-speed",
>     "transport more generally, have historically been",
>     "impeded by the difficulties in managing friction",
>     "and air resistance, both of which become",
>     "substantial when vehicles approach high speeds.",
>     "The vactrain concept eliminates these obstacles",
>     "by employing magnetically levitating trains in",
>     "tubes kept at a complete vacuum, allowing for",
>     "heoretical speeds of thousands of miles per",
>     "hour. The high cost of constructing such a system,",
>     "however, and the difficulty of maintaining a",
>     "vacuum over large distances, has prevented this",
>     "type of system from ever being built. The",
>     "Hyperloop can be viewed as a modified vactrain,",
>     "employing more cost-effective solutions to the",
>     "same problems the latter was designed to solve."
> ]
> 
> really more readable than:
> 
> lines = """\
> Developments in high-speed rail, and high-speed
> transport more generally, have historically been
> impeded by the difficulties in managing friction
> and air resistance, both of which become
> substantial when vehicles approach high speeds.
> The vactrain concept eliminates these obstacles
> by employing magnetically levitating trains in
> tubes kept at a complete vacuum, allowing for
> heoretical speeds of thousands of miles per
> hour. The high cost of constructing such a system,
> however, and the difficulty of maintaining a
> vacuum over large distances, has prevented this
> type of system from ever being built. The
> Hyperloop can be viewed as a modified vactrain,
> employing more cost-effective solutions to the
> same problems the latter was designed to solve.
> """[1:-1].split("\n")
> 
> ?

I suppose the question really is whether the author of the second 
example really meant to start with the word 'evelopments'?

If that was a mistake, then the first one is demonstrably less error 
prone. If it was intentional then the second one is definitely less 
readable.

Either way I think you've proved that the first way of writing it is 
more readable.

-- 
Duncan Booth