mirror of
https://github.com/satwikkansal/wtfpython.git
synced 2024-08-17 16:10:42 +03:00
Minor README fixups
This commit is contained in:
parent
2e2d65a9ec
commit
043b83a722
10
README.md
vendored
10
README.md
vendored
@ -449,7 +449,7 @@ True
|
||||
|
||||
```py
|
||||
>>> a, b = 257, 257
|
||||
>> a is b
|
||||
>>> a is b
|
||||
False
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
@ -917,7 +917,7 @@ array_4 = [400, 500, 600]
|
||||
- In a [generator](https://wiki.python.org/moin/Generators) expression, the `in` clause is evaluated at declaration time, but the conditional clause is evaluated at runtime.
|
||||
- So before runtime, `array` is re-assigned to the list `[2, 8, 22]`, and since out of `1`, `8` and `15`, only the count of `8` is greater than `0`, the generator only yields `8`.
|
||||
- The differences in the output of `g1` and `g2` in the second part is due the way variables `array_1` and `array_2` are re-assigned values.
|
||||
- In the first case, `array_1` is binded to the new object `[1,2,3,4,5]` and since the `in` clause is evaluated at the declaration time it still refers to the old object `[1,2,3,4]` (which is not destroyed).
|
||||
- In the first case, `array_1` is bound to the new object `[1,2,3,4,5]` and since the `in` clause is evaluated at the declaration time it still refers to the old object `[1,2,3,4]` (which is not destroyed).
|
||||
- In the second case, the slice assignment to `array_2` updates the same old object `[1,2,3,4]` to `[1,2,3,4,5]`. Hence both the `g2` and `array_2` still have reference to the same object (which has now been updated to `[1,2,3,4,5]`).
|
||||
- Okay, going by the logic discussed so far, shouldn't be the value of `list(gen)` in the third snippet be `[11, 21, 31, 12, 22, 32, 13, 23, 33]`? (because `array_3` and `array_4` are going to behave just like `array_1`). The reason why (only) `array_4` values got updated is explained in [PEP-289](https://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0289/#the-details)
|
||||
|
||||
@ -1841,9 +1841,9 @@ NameError: name 'e' is not defined
|
||||
|
||||
**Output:**
|
||||
```py
|
||||
>>>f(x)
|
||||
>>> f(x)
|
||||
UnboundLocalError: local variable 'x' referenced before assignment
|
||||
>>>f(y)
|
||||
>>> f(y)
|
||||
UnboundLocalError: local variable 'x' referenced before assignment
|
||||
>>> x
|
||||
5
|
||||
@ -2753,7 +2753,7 @@ def similar_recursive_func(a):
|
||||
|
||||
* As for the fifth snippet, most methods that modify the items of sequence/mapping objects like `list.append`, `dict.update`, `list.sort`, etc. modify the objects in-place and return `None`. The rationale behind this is to improve performance by avoiding making a copy of the object if the operation can be done in-place (Referred from [here](https://docs.python.org/3/faq/design.html#why-doesn-t-list-sort-return-the-sorted-list)).
|
||||
|
||||
* Last one should be fairly obvious, mutable object (like `list`) can be altered in the function, and the reassignation of an immutable (`a -= 1`) is not an alteration of the value.
|
||||
* Last one should be fairly obvious, mutable object (like `list`) can be altered in the function, and the reassignment of an immutable (`a -= 1`) is not an alteration of the value.
|
||||
|
||||
* Being aware of these nitpicks can save you hours of debugging effort in the long run.
|
||||
|
||||
|
Loading…
Reference in New Issue
Block a user