How To SOLVE Indentation HELL In Python

How to solve indentation hell in Python. #Python #Shorts

[neocodes_]

If you're checking if all conditions are true, you can use the all() function as well like so:

if all([has_money, has_time, has_friends, has_internet]): 
print("yay!")
else:
print("sadge")

[usrnm]

this has to be one of the worst programming shorts I've seen. A terrible example of an over-discussed topic. the "log" function to save 2 characters of typing is the cherry on top.

[lhpl]

The worst about videos like this is that they present something secondary, such as deep indentation or other visual things as a problem, instead of talking about the underlying logic, which is what _really_ matters. This is not an aesthetic matter of readable style, but a hard objective matter of correct logic. Sometimes you just need complicated logic, and making it pretty does no good if it isn't correct.

[Dev-Siri]

Is no one going to talk about the log function implementation?

[techiza]

or.... You could just use simple if/elif/else

if not has_money:
log('No money ...')
elif not has_time:
log('No time...')
elif not has_friends:
log('No friends...')
elif not has_internet:
log('No internet ...')
else:
print('Yay!!')

[UnkownUnkown]

The AND operator in the corner crying:

[yourbigfan]

It's easier for experienced python coders, but not for beginners. P.s they'd just use the "and" operator

[k_gold]

I don't like to keep a lot of guard clauses, although I've done this a lot in my own code, once I wrote at my job I realised a lot of code actually doesn't depend on the occasional conditional branching. For example,


if has_camera():
print("Taking pictures")
else:
print("Connect camera")

# some code....


To execute some code you need to ensure you don't have an early return or something, and even if there's some code that shouldn't run for now, in the future it might need to run for that function, regardless of the condition

So this kind of nesting is acceptable, in some scenarios

[Tobias]

“But we’ve already shipped this code it’s implemented in everything from cameras to weapon guiding systems. Recalling it all will cost millions, if not billions, is that really worth it for two lines of code?”

“YES HE SAID AT ALL COST!”

[deemon]

I like your lambda. Before I got comfortable with logging, I used to do something similar, just not as elegant.

[pi_xi]

You don't even need return

log = lambda *args: print(*args)
class i:
has_money = True
has_time = True
has_friends = False
has_internet = True

match False:
case i.has_money:
log('no_money')
case i.has_time:
log('no time')
case i.has_friends:
log('no friends')
case i.has_internet:
log('no internet')
case _:
log('Yay!')

[closetothee]

Sometimes changing to negative condition makes code less readable.

[sagshah]

Why don't you use if, elif and else statements instead of using multiple ifs and return statements?

Also for this example it was much easier to use the and operator, i.e. If a and b and c and d

[Madhava_P]

Defining log

He: log = lambda *args: print(*args)
Me: log = print

[JesseSteinfort]

If you need to do things in each level then you have a candidate for splitting the method into multiple procedures. Consider the responsibility of the unit of code. You want to reduce it. Increases comprehension and the ability to unit test.

[adam_fakes]

Early return pattern is great, even better if you only import a module after all of them are True.

[ngkien]

So this is how learning to code in Short videos look like ?

[jolynele]

satirical content like this shows that developers have no sense of humour

[brthhule]

Idk python, but in C++, you can make bool and string arrays and just run through them— this way, you don’t have to keep writing it out

[ytlongbeach]

i'd prefer using if-else with no returns. if you had many such checks, you could build a dict and some pythonic logic for some clean code.