Re: Comments merging, pass 2

Bill Mill wrote:
 >
 > I'm glad you took it well, especially since I was wrong on a bunch of
 > it. I knew that would happen - I'm very often wrong when I criticize
 > someone else.
 >

Regarding code I think it would be wrong, sometimes even harmfull, not 
to say anything if you see something strange. Critisizing on code has a 
Q/A effect as one is forced to review and rethink it.

<snip>
> 
> And I hate it in those languages too, so I'm admitting a bias on this
> issue. Especially in python, where it's not even really in the
> language, I don't think it should be used.
> 

Guess I'm just used to doing it that way.
I think it's actually quite a efficient way to code such a conditional 
switch. I tend to use it if I don't want some not-so-important code to 
get into the way and disturb the flow.

I agree that it looks really wierd in Python.

<snip>test impl</snip>
> :!python test.py
> t1: 27.0438070297
> t2: 21.8385300636
> 
> But, realistically, 6 seconds over a million iterations translates
> into a .000006 second difference in execution speed, with integers at
> least. I just wanted to write the test for fun :)
> 
> Whatever's most readable is what should be used, and I don't find the
> and/or version to be more readable; that may just be personal bias.
> 

Do you now how to write such a test regarding memory usage? I was 
thinking about how but wouldn't know where to start.

<snip>
> You are correct, and I am wrong. I was not seeing things clearly
> yesterday afternoon - it all seems really apparent to me now.
> 
> 
>>Have a look at the whole statement.
>>
>># original
>>if len(renderer.getContent()) == 1 \
>>   and renderer.flavour.has_key('comment-story') \
>>   and not entry.has_key("nocomments"):
>>
>># new
>>if len(renderer.getContent()) == 1 \
>>   and renderer.flavour.has_key('comment-story') \
>>   and (config.has_key('comment_trigger') and \
>>     [form.has_key(config.get('comment_trigger'))] or [True])[0] \
>>   and not entry.has_key("nocomments"):
>>
> 
> 
> OK, I see what you're saying now. I still have a vague uneasiness
> about this statement; it seems to be too complicated for its own good.
> But, I can't think of a better way to do it, so I retract any
> objection I had to the logic of it.
> 
> <snip>clear and patient explanation of how I'm wrong</snip>
> 

I didn't write such a detailed explanation to prove you wrong.
After your comment on the code I wasn't sure anymore if I might had 
missed something. The "patient explanation" was actually my analysis of 
the whole thing to make sure that my twisted mind hadn't played any 
tricks on me.

<snip>
> Yeah, I realized this last night, and added an error variable instead
> of changing the comment description. That would really piss me off if
> I did that. Good point about the non-sanitization too, I didn't
> consider funky syntaxes.
> 
> Peace
> Bill Mill
> bill.mill at gmail.com
> 

It actually bit me to, that's how I figured it would be better to leave 
the description allone :-))

cheers
Steven


-------------------------------------------------------
SF email is sponsored by - The IT Product Guide
Read honest & candid reviews on hundreds of IT Products from real users.
Discover which products truly live up to the hype. Start reading now. 
http://productguide.itmanagersjournal.com/