Proposal: function which simulates C ?: operator

[Adal Chiriliuc]

I think a function similar to the one below should be added to the
builtin module:

def boolselect(cond ition, trueresult, falseresult):
if condition:
return trueresult
else:
return falseresult

--- WITH

scalewidth = boolselect(self .__vertical, _scalew, _scaleh)

a1 = 0
a4 = boolselect(self .__vertical, self.__width, self.__height)
a2 = (a4 - scalewidth) // 2
a3 = a2 + scalewidth

self.__meterwid th = self.__meterrec t[0].Width()
self.__meterhei ght = self.__meterrec t[0].Height()
self.__meterlen gth = boolselect(self .__vertical, self.__meterhei ght, self.__meterwid th)

t = boolselect(self .__range >= 18, -18, -12)
redzone = self.__dBToOffs et(-6)
yellowzone = self.__dBToOffs et(t)

--- WITHOUT

if self.__vertical :
scalewidth = _scalew
else:
scalewidth = _scaleh

a1 = 0
if self.__vertical :
a4 = self.__width
else:
a4 = self.__height
a2 = (a4 - scalewidth) // 2
a3 = a2 + scalewidth

self.__meterwid th = self.__meterrec t[0].Width()
self.__meterhei ght = self.__meterrec t[0].Height()
if self.__vertical :
self.__meterlen gth = self.__meterhei ght
else:
self.__meterlen gth = self.__meterwid th

if self.__range >= 18:
t = -18
else:
t = -12
redzone = self.__dBToOffs et(-6)
yellowzone = self.__dBToOffs et(t)

---

What do you think?

PS: maybe a better name than boolselect could be found.

[Mitja]

Adal Chiriliuc <[e-mail] m>
(news:13******* *************** *@smtp.myrealbo x.com) wrote:

I think a function similar to the one below should be
added to the
builtin module:

def boolselect(cond ition, trueresult, falseresult):
if condition:
return trueresult
else:
return falseresult

--- WITH

scalewidth = boolselect(self .__vertical, _scalew, _scaleh)

--- WITHOUT

if self.__vertical :
scalewidth = _scalew
else:
scalewidth = _scaleh What do you think?

Here's a nifty workaround I figured out myself but am sure others use it as
well:
scalewidth=(_sc aleh,_scalew)[__self.vertical]

HTH

It's not as readable as the "if cond ? true_expr : false_expr", but I think
introducing syntax like this is far from needed and pretty complicated.

[Mel Wilson]

In article <13************ ***********@smt p.myrealbox.com >,
Adal Chiriliuc <[e-mail] m> wrote:

I think a function similar to the one below should be added to the
builtin module:

def boolselect(cond ition, trueresult, falseresult):
if condition:
return trueresult
else:
return falseresult

[ ... ]
What do you think?

PS: maybe a better name than boolselect could be found.

Some poeple might be disturbed by what it would do with

this_line = boolselect (dummy_flag, "Dummy line\n", infile.readline ())

Side-effects are the main reason that a simple function
can't generally replace a full conditional ternary operator.
See google for the ternary operator debate, and see the other
discussion in clp right now.

Regards. Mel.

[Paul Rubin]

Adal Chiriliuc <[e-mail] m> writes:

I think a function similar to the one below should be added to the
builtin module:

def boolselect(cond ition, trueresult, falseresult):
if condition:
return trueresult
else:
return falseresult

That doesn't work because both results get evaluated either way. E.g.

boolselect(x==0 , f(x), g(x))

calls both f and g. You need something like

(lambda: g(x), lambda: f(x))[bool(condition)]()

[Erik Max Francis]

Adal Chiriliuc wrote:

I think a function similar to the one below should be added to the
builtin module:

def boolselect(cond ition, trueresult, falseresult):
if condition:
return trueresult
else:
return falseresult

This doesn't simulate the conditional operator; it doesn't do
short-circuiting. See PEP 308; this kind of construct was explicitly
rejected (but then, so is the whole PEP).

--
__ Erik Max Francis && ma*@alcyone.com && http://www.alcyone.com/max/
/ \ San Jose, CA, USA && 37 20 N 121 53 W && AIM erikmaxfrancis
\__/ Forever we / Infinitely
-- Sandra St. Victor

[Tor Iver Wilhelmsen]

Paul Rubin <http://ph****@NOSPAM.i nvalid> writes:

(lambda: g(x), lambda: f(x))[bool(condition)]()

Since you call the object afterwards, you don't need the lambdas
(which add a layer of indirection), just the function references:

(g, f)[bool(condition)]()

[Erik Max Francis]

Tor Iver Wilhelmsen wrote:

Paul Rubin <http://ph****@NOSPAM.i nvalid> writes:

(lambda: g(x), lambda: f(x))[bool(condition)]()

Since you call the object afterwards, you don't need the lambdas
(which add a layer of indirection), just the function references:

(g, f)[bool(condition)]()

Well, you meant:

(g, f)[bool(condition)](x)

but that was taking his example too literally; he was just using f(x)
and g(x) to expressions that you wanted laziy evaluated.

--
__ Erik Max Francis && ma*@alcyone.com && http://www.alcyone.com/max/
/ \ San Jose, CA, USA && 37 20 N 121 53 W && AIM erikmaxfrancis
\__/ Forever we / Infinitely
-- Sandra St. Victor

[Paul Rubin]

Tor Iver Wilhelmsen <to************ *****@broadpark .no> writes:

(lambda: g(x), lambda: f(x))[bool(condition)]()

Since you call the object afterwards, you don't need the lambdas
(which add a layer of indirection), just the function references:

(g, f)[bool(condition)]()

Good catch, for that particular example. The lambdas are needed for
more general cases, e.g. (x > 0 ? (f(x)+g(y)) : (h(x)-z(y)))

There's been various proposals floated for macros in Python. If
something like that becomes real, that can solve this whole problem.

[Adal Chiriliuc]

I didn't know this was discussed so much in the past. I should have
searched before.

Most of you objected that this is a bad solution because it evaluates
both variants. That's true if you want a real ternary operator. I now
think I gave a bad title to this thread. It shouldn't have mentioned
?:

I've searched through the C++ sources I'm now porting to Python
(450 KB) and found 44 uses of ?: and from these only 4 needed short
circuit evaluation (to avoid dereferencing NULL pointers or zero
division).

I now suggest that this function be added without implying that it's
the Python equivalent of ?: and with the docs clearly explaining that
it's not ?: and how it differs. It will be like Python private vars,
almost but not quite (of course, Python private vars are a lot more
close to the ideal than this is).

Anyway, I suggested this because the function I have is actually named
Util.BoolSelect , and this is kind of long :)

[Peter Hansen]

Adal Chiriliuc wrote:

I didn't know this was discussed so much in the past. I should have
searched before.
And if you read all of it, you probably wouldn't be making
the following suggestion, either. :-)
I now suggest that this function be added without implying that it's
the Python equivalent of ?: and with the docs clearly explaining that
it's not ?: and how it differs.

It won't happen because (a) it's a trivial function to write
on-demand, and (b) there are already several different ways of
spelling it with current Python syntax if you don't want a
function, and (c) I suspect that the requirement for short-circuit
evaluation would actually be *more* common in Python than it
appears it is in C++ based on your very limited sample population.

-Peter