[Tutor] redundant function ( or, I need advice about cleaning up my code )

[Liam Clarke]

Hi,

>You're almost only using C-style for loops. It works, but you should
> try to use more foreach-style for loops. Instead of doing:
>       for i in range(len(a)):
>               # do something with a[i]
> You should use:
>       for element in a:
>               # do something with element

Just saw this, so if I've got a ten item list, for element in a: will
pull up a[element]?
 
If so, that totally rocks, and I have to make my code look prettier.

On Sun, 31 Oct 2004 00:58:56 +0100, Max Noel <maxnoel_fr at yahoo.fr> wrote:
> (argh, clicked "reply" again. I *will* get used to this one day, I
> swear)
> 
> Begin forwarded message:
> 
> > From: Max Noel <maxnoel_fr at yahoo.fr>
> > Date: October 31, 2004 00:49:56 BST
> > To: Morgan Meader <morgan at insightmill.com>
> > Subject: Re: [Tutor] redundant function ( or, I need advice about
> > cleaning up my code )
> >
> >
> > On Oct 13, 2004, at 20:40, Morgan Meader wrote:
> >
> >>        if job.matrix.info['gROWtype'][i] == 'power_ground' or \
> >>           job.matrix.info['gROWtype'][i] == 'mixed' or \
> >>           job.matrix.info['gROWtype'][i] == 'signal':
> >
> >       This test can be shortened somewhat by using the in operator.
> >
> >       if job.matrix.info['gRowType][i] in ('power_ground', 'mixed',
> > 'signal'):
> >               # do stuff
> >
> >>    layers.sort()
> >
> >       Mmh... I don't see an initialization for this variable... Is it a
> > global variable? If so, it's a Bad Thing.
> >
> >>            if layerTypes[i] != 'signal':
> >>                if layerPols == 'positive':
> >>                    step.affect(layerNames[i])
> >
> >       You can do that with a single test.
> >
> >       if layerTypes[i] != 'signal' and layerPols == 'positive':
> >               step.affect(layerNames[i])
> >
> >       If the first part of the test evaluates to False, the second part
> > won't be evaluated, as there is no need to (we already know the
> > boolean expression is false).
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >       Also, there are a few things that I think could be improved in your
> > general coding style:
> > - Use functions. Lots of them. This single function you submitted to
> > us is huge. It could probably be broken up into at least 5 parts.
> > - You're almost only using C-style for loops. It works, but you should
> > try to use more foreach-style for loops. Instead of doing:
> >       for i in range(len(a)):
> >               # do something with a[i]
> > You should use:
> >       for element in a:
> >               # do something with element
> > It's faster, more elegant and usually more efficient. Have a look at
> > list comprehensions, too, they're very useful.
> > - I'm not absolutely sure, but it seems that some of the functions
> > you're using are modifying their arguments instead of returning
> > values. That's not a good idea, especially since Python can return
> > arrays, dictionaries or tuples.
> >
> > HTH,
> >
> > -- Wild_Cat
> > maxnoel_fr at yahoo dot fr -- ICQ #85274019
> > "Look at you hacker... A pathetic creature of meat and bone, panting
> > and sweating as you run through my corridors... How can you challenge
> > a perfect, immortal machine?"
> >
> >
> --
> maxnoel_fr at yahoo dot fr -- ICQ #85274019
> "Look at you hacker... A pathetic creature of meat and bone, panting
> and sweating as you run through my corridors... How can you challenge a
> perfect, immortal machine?"
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Tutor maillist  -  Tutor at python.org
> http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/tutor
> 


-- 
'There is only one basic human right, and that is to do as you damn well please.
And with it comes the only basic human duty, to take the consequences.