Python statements not forcing whitespace is messy?

[buffi]

Am I the only one that thinks that python statements should force
whitespace before and after them?

Right now this is not enforced and for an example these statements are
valid

print"hello"
"foo"if"bar"else"foobar"
for(x,y)in[(1,2),(3,4)]rint(x,y)
[(y)for(x,y)in[("foo",2),("bar",4)]if"foo"in(x)]

....and so on.

I know that writing code like this really shouldn't be done but
wouldn't it be a good idea to enforce the use of whitespace around
statements?

(I wrote a short blog post about this here http://blog.buffis.com/?p=55
but thought I would post here as well to see what other developers
think)
- Björn Kempén

 

[James Stroud]

Am I the only one that thinks that python statements should force
whitespace before and after them?

Right now this is not enforced and for an example these statements are
valid

print"hello"
"foo"if"bar"else"foobar"
for(x,y)in[(1,2),(3,4)]rint(x,y)
[(y)for(x,y)in[("foo",2),("bar",4)]if"foo"in(x)]

...and so on.

I know that writing code like this really shouldn't be done but
wouldn't it be a good idea to enforce the use of whitespace around
statements?

(I wrote a short blog post about this here http://blog.buffis.com/?p=55
but thought I would post here as well to see what other developers
think)
- Björn Kempén

You may have a point--but on the other hand, this may be purposefully
allowed help to recruit perl programmers.

James

 

[J. Cliff Dyer]

Am I the only one that thinks that python statements should force
whitespace before and after them?

Right now this is not enforced and for an example these statements are
valid

print"hello"
"foo"if"bar"else"foobar"
for(x,y)in[(1,2),(3,4)]rint(x,y)
[(y)for(x,y)in[("foo",2),("bar",4)]if"foo"in(x)]

...and so on.

On the other hand, this is just as bad:

[ ( y ) for ( x , y ) in [ ( "foo" , 2 ) , ( "bar" , 4 ) ] if "foo" in (
x ) ]


And I'd hate to have to remember all of the rules for what can go
together and what can't, especially when it comes time to debug. No.
I don't think it should be forced, but maybe put it in PEP8 or PEP3008.

Also, the only thing I find thoroughly disagreeable in all of that
mess, is the run-ins involving " characters. The rest are at least
clear at a glance what belongs where.

Also, would you require the following?

my_function (swallow='European')

Because that is just an awful use of whitespace.

Cheers,
Cliff

 

[Eduardo O. Padoan]

And I'd hate to have to remember all of the rules for what can go
together and what can't, especially when it comes time to debug. No.
I don't think it should be forced, but maybe put it in PEP8 or PEP3008.

It is: see "Whitespace in Expressions and Statements" in PEP 8.

 

[buffi]

Am I the only one that thinks that python statements should force
whitespace before and after them?

Right now this is not enforced and for an example these statements are
valid

print"hello"
"foo"if"bar"else"foobar"
for(x,y)in[(1,2),(3,4)]rint(x,y)
[(y)for(x,y)in[("foo",2),("bar",4)]if"foo"in(x)]

...and so on.

On the other hand, this is just as bad:

[ ( y ) for ( x , y ) in [ ( "foo" , 2 ) , ( "bar" , 4 ) ] if "foo" in (
x ) ]

And I'd hate to have to remember all of the rules for what can go
together and what can't, especially when it comes time to debug. No.
I don't think it should be forced, but maybe put it in PEP8 or PEP3008.

Also, the only thing I find thoroughly disagreeable in all of that
mess, is the run-ins involving " characters. The rest are at least
clear at a glance what belongs where.

Also, would you require the following?

my_function (swallow='European')

Because that is just an awful use of whitespace.

Cheers,
Cliff

I believe that having whitespace around the builtin statements, and
having whitespace around everything is pretty different.

There would be no downside whatsoever to enforcing this, except for
backwards incompatibility (which is a rather huge downside but well...
py3k is gonna break everything anyways). There obviously shouldnt be
any limit to the maximum amount of whitespace used around statements
(due to formatting and so on), but allowing stuff like print"hello" is
just horrible.

- Björn Kempén

 

[Steve Holden]

Am I the only one that thinks that python statements should force
whitespace before and after them?
Right now this is not enforced and for an example these statements are
valid
print"hello"
"foo"if"bar"else"foobar"
for(x,y)in[(1,2),(3,4)]rint(x,y)
[(y)for(x,y)in[("foo",2),("bar",4)]if"foo"in(x)]
...and so on.

On the other hand, this is just as bad:

[ ( y ) for ( x , y ) in [ ( "foo" , 2 ) , ( "bar" , 4 ) ] if "foo" in (
x ) ]

And I'd hate to have to remember all of the rules for what can go
together and what can't, especially when it comes time to debug. No.
I don't think it should be forced, but maybe put it in PEP8 or PEP3008.

Also, the only thing I find thoroughly disagreeable in all of that
mess, is the run-ins involving " characters. The rest are at least
clear at a glance what belongs where.

Also, would you require the following?

my_function (swallow='European')

Because that is just an awful use of whitespace.

Cheers,
Cliff

I believe that having whitespace around the builtin statements, and
having whitespace around everything is pretty different.

There would be no downside whatsoever to enforcing this, except for
backwards incompatibility (which is a rather huge downside but well...
py3k is gonna break everything anyways). There obviously shouldnt be
any limit to the maximum amount of whitespace used around statements
(due to formatting and so on), but allowing stuff like print"hello" is
just horrible.

If you don't like it then don't write it. I've been reading this group
on and off for about ten years and I believe your email is the first to
point out that this is possible. Clearly it isn't something that happens
a lot, and I don't know why you have a bug up your ass about it, as the
Americans say.

The Python philosophy is to be permissive, and to expect individual
users to write readable Python. Since they obviously do (one message in
ten years providing a counter-example) I think you are wasting your time
and energy on this.

regards
Steve
--
Steve Holden +1 571 484 6266 +1 800 494 3119
Holden Web LLC/Ltd http://www.holdenweb.com
Skype: holdenweb http://del.icio.us/steve.holden

Sorry, the dog ate my .sigline

 

[buffi]

buffi wrote:
Am I the only one that thinks that python statements should force
whitespace before and after them?
Right now this is not enforced and for an example these statements are
valid
print"hello"
"foo"if"bar"else"foobar"
for(x,y)in[(1,2),(3,4)]rint(x,y)
[(y)for(x,y)in[("foo",2),("bar",4)]if"foo"in(x)]
...and so on.
On the other hand, this is just as bad:
[ ( y ) for ( x , y ) in [ ( "foo" , 2 ) , ( "bar" , 4 ) ] if "foo" in (
x ) ]
And I'd hate to have to remember all of the rules for what can go
together and what can't, especially when it comes time to debug. No.
I don't think it should be forced, but maybe put it in PEP8 or PEP3008.
Also, the only thing I find thoroughly disagreeable in all of that
mess, is the run-ins involving " characters. The rest are at least
clear at a glance what belongs where.
Also, would you require the following?
my_function (swallow='European')
Because that is just an awful use of whitespace.
Cheers,
Cliff

I believe that having whitespace around the builtin statements, and
having whitespace around everything is pretty different.

There would be no downside whatsoever to enforcing this, except for
backwards incompatibility (which is a rather huge downside but well...
py3k is gonna break everything anyways). There obviously shouldnt be
any limit to the maximum amount of whitespace used around statements
(due to formatting and so on), but allowing stuff like print"hello" is
just horrible.

If you don't like it then don't write it. I've been reading this group
on and off for about ten years and I believe your email is the first to
point out that this is possible. Clearly it isn't something that happens
a lot, and I don't know why you have a bug up your ass about it, as the
Americans say.

The Python philosophy is to be permissive, and to expect individual
users to write readable Python. Since they obviously do (one message in
ten years providing a counter-example) I think you are wasting your time
and energy on this.

regards
Steve
--
Steve Holden +1 571 484 6266 +1 800 494 3119
Holden Web LLC/Ltd http://www.holdenweb.com
Skype: holdenweb http://del.icio.us/steve.holden

Sorry, the dog ate my .sigline

I actually found out about this myself while grading student labs. I
myself didn't even know that you could write statements like this
until then, but since some students does it that means that there
should be other people out there as well that does it.

And I can't say that I agree about "The Python philosophy being
permissive, and to expect individual users to write readable Python".
Python enforces proper indentation which I think is a great idea since
I'm used to reading horribly indented code by others. I would love to
see this extended to enforce proper whitespacing for statements.

"There should be one-and preferably only one-obvious way to do it." is
a phrase that is usually considered pythonic, and I think that it
should also apply a bit when it comes to coding conventions.

- Björn Kempén

 

[James Stroud]

I don't know why you have a bug up your ass about it, as the
Americans say.

I think most Americans say "wild hare up your ass". We do not, in fact,
say "wild hair up your ass". Many of us can testify that a hair up one's
ass would be nothing terribly unusual and would go completely unnoticed
under most circumstances.

Also, some Americans erroneously say "hair's breath", and others think
they mean "hare's breath" (which might be tiny, but diffuses quickly to
theoretically infinite volume). In reality, however, they mean "hair's
breadth"--which is quite small indeed! For instance, a hair's breadth is
far smaller than a hare's breath (even at the exact moment of respiration).

James

 

[John Machin]

I think most Americans say "wild hare up your ass".

The essence of Steve's point appears to be that the OP has ridden into
town to preach a misguided crusade against the heretofore-unknown
non-spacing heretics. It also seems to be alleged that at some stage,
the OP's donkey has been severely molested by some malevolent fauna; I
am having difficulty understanding the connection between the two
themes, and which is cause and which is effect. Enlightenment, please.

 

[Ryan Ginstrom]

On Behalf Of J. Cliff Dyer

On the other hand, this is just as bad:

[ ( y ) for ( x , y ) in [ ( "foo" , 2 ) , ( "bar" , 4 ) ] if
"foo" in ( x ) ]

I think that's allowed in order to recruit C/C++ programmers.

Regards,
Ryan Ginstrom

 

[Steven D'Aprano]

On Behalf Of J. Cliff Dyer
On the other hand, this is just as bad:

[ ( y ) for ( x , y ) in [ ( "foo" , 2 ) , ( "bar" , 4 ) ] if "foo" in
( x ) ]

I think that's allowed in order to recruit C/C++ programmers.

Heh

In all seriousness, sometimes, in an extremely crowded and busy
expression, adding a little extra whitespace to emphasize the boundaries
between sub-expressions is a good thing. And let's not forget that we can
do this:
.... 2*x + # double the whatzit
.... 1.78**(c*3-1) + # see chapter 2 of Martelli, 2008
.... sin(radians(80)) # angle between the foo and the bar
.... )

 

[Steve Holden]

The essence of Steve's point appears to be that the OP has ridden into
town to preach a misguided crusade against the heretofore-unknown
non-spacing heretics. It also seems to be alleged that at some stage,
the OP's donkey has been severely molested by some malevolent fauna; I
am having difficulty understanding the connection between the two
themes, and which is cause and which is effect. Enlightenment, please.

I guess I got the metaphor wrong?

Eradicate the ten fetters of Buddhism and you will attain enlightenment.

regards
Steve
--
Steve Holden +1 571 484 6266 +1 800 494 3119
Holden Web LLC/Ltd http://www.holdenweb.com
Skype: holdenweb http://del.icio.us/steve.holden

Sorry, the dog ate my .sigline

 

[Dustan]

I think most Americans say "wild hare up your ass". We do not, in fact,
say "wild hair up your ass". Many of us can testify that a hair up one's
ass would be nothing terribly unusual and would go completely unnoticed
under most circumstances.

Also, some Americans erroneously say "hair's breath", and others think
they mean "hare's breath" (which might be tiny, but diffuses quickly to
theoretically infinite volume). In reality, however, they mean "hair's
breadth"--which is quite small indeed! For instance, a hair's breadth is
far smaller than a hare's breath (even at the exact moment of respiration).

James

Funny... I have never heard any of those expressions. I guess I need
to get out more.

 

[Peter Decker]

I guess I got the metaphor wrong?

Maybe it's a Southern US thing. I've always heard "bug" used; somehow
it doesn't seem that a wild hare would fit!

 

[James Stroud]

Maybe it's a Southern US thing. I've always heard "bug" used; somehow
it doesn't seem that a wild hare would fit!

We say "wild hare" down in Texas. I think I've heard "bug" before, but I
wanted an excuse to vent about the hair v. hare issue in some of these
American idioms. I guess I have a <insert idiom here> about it.

James