(test) ? a:b

[Steven D'Aprano]

Marko Rauhamaa wrote:

> "BartC" <bc at freeuk.com>:
> 
>>> Ah, but what would
>>>
>>> x = [f, g][cond]()
>>>
>>> produce?
>>
>> It will select f or g (which should refer to functions), and call one of
>> those depending on cond. That's not a problem.
>>
>> The problem is it will still evaluate both f and g,
> 
> That's not really the problem. The problem is in readability.


I don't get why that's considered hard to read. We write things like this
all the time:

item = somelist[index]
value = data[key]

Presumably people won't have a problem with:

values = [f(), g(), h()]
value = values[index]

(If they do, they're going to have a bad time with Python.) They probably
won't even mind if we skip the temporary variable:

value = [f(), g(), h()][index]

and if they're experienced with languages that treat functions as
first-class values, they'll be fine with factoring out the function call:

value = [f, g, h][index]()


So why is it hard to read when the index is a flag?

value = [f, g][cond]()


Of course one can write hard-to-read code using any idiom by sheer weight of
complexity or obfuscated naming:

value = [some_function(arg)[23]['key'] or 
         another_function.method((x + y)/(z-x**(y-4)))*
         some_list[get_index(a)].spam(eggs=False, tomato='yum'),
         something.do_this(p|q).get(alpha, beta) ^
         aardvark.bobble("string%s" % carrot.gamma(r&s)*
         (this & that).fetch(83, 36, when=when or "now")
         ][cond or flag or foo(42)-1 > 17 or bar(b) < thingy(c) or not d]


but re-writing that using ternary if operator won't help one iota. I don't
see why `[a, b][flag]` is inherently less readable than `b if flag else a`.



-- 
Steven