Re: Python (was Re: I did not inhale)

On 31/08/2024 05:37, Keith Thompson wrote:

Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> writes:

On Wed, 28 Aug 2024 19:19:38 -0700, Keith Thompson wrote:

My impression is that your unconventional style indicates a relative
lack of experience in Python.

>
You think maybe I should practise by writing more Python code?

 And you snipped the part where I acknowledged that might be an invalid
conclusion.  I have no opinion on what you should do.
 

OK, how about your thoughts on comparing this
>
     for attrname in obj.tag_attrs :
         attr = getattr(obj, attrname)
         if attr != None :
             if isinstance(attr, enum.Enum) :
                 attr = attr.value
             elif isinstance(attr, Type) :
                 attr = unparse_signature(attr)
             elif not isinstance(attr, str) :
                 raise TypeError("unexpected attribute type %s for %s" % (type(attr).__name__, repr(attr)))
             attrs.append("%s=%s" % (attrname, quote_xml_attr(attr)))
     out.write(" " * indent + "<" + tag_name)
>
with this
>
     for attrname in obj.tag_attrs :
         attr = getattr(obj, attrname)
         if attr != None :
             if isinstance(attr, enum.Enum) :
                 attr = attr.value
             elif isinstance(attr, Type) :
                 attr = unparse_signature(attr)
             elif not isinstance(attr, str) :
                 raise TypeError("unexpected attribute type %s for %s" % (type(attr).__name__, repr(attr)))
         attrs.append("%s=%s" % (attrname, quote_xml_attr(attr)))
     out.write(" " * indent + "<" + tag_name)

 The difference is obvious: the second calls attrs.append() even if attr
is None.  I don't know what point you're trying to make.
 

Was it? I was convinced he'd posted exactly the same code by mistake, even though my brain told me there something that about them that didn't match. It took me nearly a minute to spot the difference.
I don't know how much quicker it would have been with 'end' delimiters, but then the versions would have been:
             end
             A...
          end
and:
             end
          end
          A...
instead of:
             A...
and:
          A...
Disregarding indentation, it's (end, A, end) vs (end, end A) instead of (A) and (A).
I think it would have been more obvious than with no 'end's.