Python Ternary Operator Without else
.everyoneloves__top-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__mid-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__bot-mid-leaderboard:empty{ height:90px;width:728px;box-sizing:border-box;
}
Is it possible to do this on one line in Python?
if <condition>:
myList.append('myString')
I have tried the ternary operator:
myList.append('myString' if <condition>)
but my IDE (MyEclipse) didn't like it, without an else
.
python ternary
add a comment |
Is it possible to do this on one line in Python?
if <condition>:
myList.append('myString')
I have tried the ternary operator:
myList.append('myString' if <condition>)
but my IDE (MyEclipse) didn't like it, without an else
.
python ternary
add a comment |
Is it possible to do this on one line in Python?
if <condition>:
myList.append('myString')
I have tried the ternary operator:
myList.append('myString' if <condition>)
but my IDE (MyEclipse) didn't like it, without an else
.
python ternary
Is it possible to do this on one line in Python?
if <condition>:
myList.append('myString')
I have tried the ternary operator:
myList.append('myString' if <condition>)
but my IDE (MyEclipse) didn't like it, without an else
.
python ternary
python ternary
edited Jul 9 '18 at 8:22
Filipp W.
2,08511130
2,08511130
asked Aug 30 '12 at 14:56
JCBJCB
5174820
5174820
add a comment |
add a comment |
6 Answers
6
active
oldest
votes
Yes, you can do this:
<condition> and myList.append('myString')
If <condition>
is false, then short-circuiting will kick in and the right-hand side won't be evaluated. If <condition>
is true, then the right-hand side will be evaluated and the element will be appended.
I'll just point out that doing the above is quite non-pythonic, and it would probably be best to write this, regardless:
if <condition>: myList.append('myString')
Demonstration:
>>> myList =
>>> False and myList.append('myString')
False
>>> myList
>>> True and myList.append('myString')
>>> myList
['myString']
3
While this answer is technically correct, it's not a good programming practice. Since Python aims to be a language that's easily readable, this code would be considered non-Pythonic.
– L S
Oct 15 '13 at 9:44
4
@LS: I agree, that's why I said it would probably be best to just use an if statement. But I modified the answer a bit to make that clearer.
– Claudiu
Oct 15 '13 at 15:54
1
fyi the second example will fail pep8 checks:E701 multiple statements on one line
so also non-pythonic... ;)
– Cas
Feb 18 '17 at 17:59
Note that this and-shortcircuiting doesn't seem to work for assignments:<condition> and (strng = 'myString')
– oulenz
Mar 24 '18 at 10:45
This is not foolproof if you haveobjects/dictionaries
in the condition:x = object['attribute'] or None
will throw aKeyError
exception if there is noattribute
key in object. The correct way will still be:x = object['attribute'] if 'attribute' in object else None
– barry_allen
Sep 4 '18 at 8:10
add a comment |
The reason the language doesn't allow you to use the syntax
variable = "something" if a_condition
without else
is that, in the case where a_condition == False
, variable
is suddenly unknown. Maybe it could default to None
, but Python requires that all variable assignments actually result in explicit assignments. This also applies to cases such as your function call, as the value passed to the function is evaluated just as the RHS of an assignment statement would be.
Similarly, all return
s must actually return, even if they are conditional return
s. Eg:
return variable if a_condition
is not allowed, but
return variable if a_condition else None
is allowed, since the second example is guaranteed to explicitly return something.
1
It's ironic how Python doesn't allow us to use this so that variable is never none yetvariable=None
is perfectly legal. :D
– Guy
Feb 15 '14 at 15:51
1
But I wanted to use it like this:continue if i == 0
in a for loop.
– karantan
Sep 29 '15 at 12:53
1
Are you allowed to doelse pass?
– OldBunny2800
Jan 11 '17 at 0:51
4
else pass
doesn't work because the ternary expression should return a value that can be passed toreturn
.pass
is not a validreturn
value.
– Emmett Butler
Feb 9 '17 at 23:25
1
I don't agree that this motivation is the real reason, given thatif a_condition: variable = "something"
andif a_condition: return variable
are legal. So it is essentially an arbitrary syntactic choice of python.
– oulenz
Mar 24 '18 at 10:40
add a comment |
if <condition>: myList.append('myString')
Otherwise, no. Why the need to put it on one line?
Note that the "ternary operator" is an operator. Like any operator, it must return something, so how can you have a ternary operator without the else
clause? What is it supposed to return if the condition isn't true-like?
add a comment |
You are basically asking for do_thing() if <condition> else pass
construct (which will throw SyntaxError
, if ran). As I have discovered during research for (somewhat) similar question do_thing() if condition else None
is as close as you can get (which is just another way to do <condition> and do_thing()
). So, to summarize this idea and other answers, here are your options:
if <condition>: myList.append('myString')
— seems to be the least 'hacky' (and thus preferred) way<condition> and myList.append('myString')
myList.append('myString') if <condition> else None
add a comment |
myList.extend(['myString'] if condition else )
would also work, though it's more work than the other solutions.
add a comment |
You can do something like this:
myList.append('myString') if <condition> else False
or
myList.append('myString') if <condition> else 0
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function () {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function () {
StackExchange.snippets.init();
});
});
}, "code-snippets");
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "1"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: true,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: 10,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fstackoverflow.com%2fquestions%2f12199757%2fpython-ternary-operator-without-else%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
6 Answers
6
active
oldest
votes
6 Answers
6
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
Yes, you can do this:
<condition> and myList.append('myString')
If <condition>
is false, then short-circuiting will kick in and the right-hand side won't be evaluated. If <condition>
is true, then the right-hand side will be evaluated and the element will be appended.
I'll just point out that doing the above is quite non-pythonic, and it would probably be best to write this, regardless:
if <condition>: myList.append('myString')
Demonstration:
>>> myList =
>>> False and myList.append('myString')
False
>>> myList
>>> True and myList.append('myString')
>>> myList
['myString']
3
While this answer is technically correct, it's not a good programming practice. Since Python aims to be a language that's easily readable, this code would be considered non-Pythonic.
– L S
Oct 15 '13 at 9:44
4
@LS: I agree, that's why I said it would probably be best to just use an if statement. But I modified the answer a bit to make that clearer.
– Claudiu
Oct 15 '13 at 15:54
1
fyi the second example will fail pep8 checks:E701 multiple statements on one line
so also non-pythonic... ;)
– Cas
Feb 18 '17 at 17:59
Note that this and-shortcircuiting doesn't seem to work for assignments:<condition> and (strng = 'myString')
– oulenz
Mar 24 '18 at 10:45
This is not foolproof if you haveobjects/dictionaries
in the condition:x = object['attribute'] or None
will throw aKeyError
exception if there is noattribute
key in object. The correct way will still be:x = object['attribute'] if 'attribute' in object else None
– barry_allen
Sep 4 '18 at 8:10
add a comment |
Yes, you can do this:
<condition> and myList.append('myString')
If <condition>
is false, then short-circuiting will kick in and the right-hand side won't be evaluated. If <condition>
is true, then the right-hand side will be evaluated and the element will be appended.
I'll just point out that doing the above is quite non-pythonic, and it would probably be best to write this, regardless:
if <condition>: myList.append('myString')
Demonstration:
>>> myList =
>>> False and myList.append('myString')
False
>>> myList
>>> True and myList.append('myString')
>>> myList
['myString']
3
While this answer is technically correct, it's not a good programming practice. Since Python aims to be a language that's easily readable, this code would be considered non-Pythonic.
– L S
Oct 15 '13 at 9:44
4
@LS: I agree, that's why I said it would probably be best to just use an if statement. But I modified the answer a bit to make that clearer.
– Claudiu
Oct 15 '13 at 15:54
1
fyi the second example will fail pep8 checks:E701 multiple statements on one line
so also non-pythonic... ;)
– Cas
Feb 18 '17 at 17:59
Note that this and-shortcircuiting doesn't seem to work for assignments:<condition> and (strng = 'myString')
– oulenz
Mar 24 '18 at 10:45
This is not foolproof if you haveobjects/dictionaries
in the condition:x = object['attribute'] or None
will throw aKeyError
exception if there is noattribute
key in object. The correct way will still be:x = object['attribute'] if 'attribute' in object else None
– barry_allen
Sep 4 '18 at 8:10
add a comment |
Yes, you can do this:
<condition> and myList.append('myString')
If <condition>
is false, then short-circuiting will kick in and the right-hand side won't be evaluated. If <condition>
is true, then the right-hand side will be evaluated and the element will be appended.
I'll just point out that doing the above is quite non-pythonic, and it would probably be best to write this, regardless:
if <condition>: myList.append('myString')
Demonstration:
>>> myList =
>>> False and myList.append('myString')
False
>>> myList
>>> True and myList.append('myString')
>>> myList
['myString']
Yes, you can do this:
<condition> and myList.append('myString')
If <condition>
is false, then short-circuiting will kick in and the right-hand side won't be evaluated. If <condition>
is true, then the right-hand side will be evaluated and the element will be appended.
I'll just point out that doing the above is quite non-pythonic, and it would probably be best to write this, regardless:
if <condition>: myList.append('myString')
Demonstration:
>>> myList =
>>> False and myList.append('myString')
False
>>> myList
>>> True and myList.append('myString')
>>> myList
['myString']
edited Oct 15 '13 at 15:54
answered Aug 30 '12 at 15:05
ClaudiuClaudiu
129k127399594
129k127399594
3
While this answer is technically correct, it's not a good programming practice. Since Python aims to be a language that's easily readable, this code would be considered non-Pythonic.
– L S
Oct 15 '13 at 9:44
4
@LS: I agree, that's why I said it would probably be best to just use an if statement. But I modified the answer a bit to make that clearer.
– Claudiu
Oct 15 '13 at 15:54
1
fyi the second example will fail pep8 checks:E701 multiple statements on one line
so also non-pythonic... ;)
– Cas
Feb 18 '17 at 17:59
Note that this and-shortcircuiting doesn't seem to work for assignments:<condition> and (strng = 'myString')
– oulenz
Mar 24 '18 at 10:45
This is not foolproof if you haveobjects/dictionaries
in the condition:x = object['attribute'] or None
will throw aKeyError
exception if there is noattribute
key in object. The correct way will still be:x = object['attribute'] if 'attribute' in object else None
– barry_allen
Sep 4 '18 at 8:10
add a comment |
3
While this answer is technically correct, it's not a good programming practice. Since Python aims to be a language that's easily readable, this code would be considered non-Pythonic.
– L S
Oct 15 '13 at 9:44
4
@LS: I agree, that's why I said it would probably be best to just use an if statement. But I modified the answer a bit to make that clearer.
– Claudiu
Oct 15 '13 at 15:54
1
fyi the second example will fail pep8 checks:E701 multiple statements on one line
so also non-pythonic... ;)
– Cas
Feb 18 '17 at 17:59
Note that this and-shortcircuiting doesn't seem to work for assignments:<condition> and (strng = 'myString')
– oulenz
Mar 24 '18 at 10:45
This is not foolproof if you haveobjects/dictionaries
in the condition:x = object['attribute'] or None
will throw aKeyError
exception if there is noattribute
key in object. The correct way will still be:x = object['attribute'] if 'attribute' in object else None
– barry_allen
Sep 4 '18 at 8:10
3
3
While this answer is technically correct, it's not a good programming practice. Since Python aims to be a language that's easily readable, this code would be considered non-Pythonic.
– L S
Oct 15 '13 at 9:44
While this answer is technically correct, it's not a good programming practice. Since Python aims to be a language that's easily readable, this code would be considered non-Pythonic.
– L S
Oct 15 '13 at 9:44
4
4
@LS: I agree, that's why I said it would probably be best to just use an if statement. But I modified the answer a bit to make that clearer.
– Claudiu
Oct 15 '13 at 15:54
@LS: I agree, that's why I said it would probably be best to just use an if statement. But I modified the answer a bit to make that clearer.
– Claudiu
Oct 15 '13 at 15:54
1
1
fyi the second example will fail pep8 checks:
E701 multiple statements on one line
so also non-pythonic... ;)– Cas
Feb 18 '17 at 17:59
fyi the second example will fail pep8 checks:
E701 multiple statements on one line
so also non-pythonic... ;)– Cas
Feb 18 '17 at 17:59
Note that this and-shortcircuiting doesn't seem to work for assignments:
<condition> and (strng = 'myString')
– oulenz
Mar 24 '18 at 10:45
Note that this and-shortcircuiting doesn't seem to work for assignments:
<condition> and (strng = 'myString')
– oulenz
Mar 24 '18 at 10:45
This is not foolproof if you have
objects/dictionaries
in the condition: x = object['attribute'] or None
will throw a KeyError
exception if there is no attribute
key in object. The correct way will still be: x = object['attribute'] if 'attribute' in object else None
– barry_allen
Sep 4 '18 at 8:10
This is not foolproof if you have
objects/dictionaries
in the condition: x = object['attribute'] or None
will throw a KeyError
exception if there is no attribute
key in object. The correct way will still be: x = object['attribute'] if 'attribute' in object else None
– barry_allen
Sep 4 '18 at 8:10
add a comment |
The reason the language doesn't allow you to use the syntax
variable = "something" if a_condition
without else
is that, in the case where a_condition == False
, variable
is suddenly unknown. Maybe it could default to None
, but Python requires that all variable assignments actually result in explicit assignments. This also applies to cases such as your function call, as the value passed to the function is evaluated just as the RHS of an assignment statement would be.
Similarly, all return
s must actually return, even if they are conditional return
s. Eg:
return variable if a_condition
is not allowed, but
return variable if a_condition else None
is allowed, since the second example is guaranteed to explicitly return something.
1
It's ironic how Python doesn't allow us to use this so that variable is never none yetvariable=None
is perfectly legal. :D
– Guy
Feb 15 '14 at 15:51
1
But I wanted to use it like this:continue if i == 0
in a for loop.
– karantan
Sep 29 '15 at 12:53
1
Are you allowed to doelse pass?
– OldBunny2800
Jan 11 '17 at 0:51
4
else pass
doesn't work because the ternary expression should return a value that can be passed toreturn
.pass
is not a validreturn
value.
– Emmett Butler
Feb 9 '17 at 23:25
1
I don't agree that this motivation is the real reason, given thatif a_condition: variable = "something"
andif a_condition: return variable
are legal. So it is essentially an arbitrary syntactic choice of python.
– oulenz
Mar 24 '18 at 10:40
add a comment |
The reason the language doesn't allow you to use the syntax
variable = "something" if a_condition
without else
is that, in the case where a_condition == False
, variable
is suddenly unknown. Maybe it could default to None
, but Python requires that all variable assignments actually result in explicit assignments. This also applies to cases such as your function call, as the value passed to the function is evaluated just as the RHS of an assignment statement would be.
Similarly, all return
s must actually return, even if they are conditional return
s. Eg:
return variable if a_condition
is not allowed, but
return variable if a_condition else None
is allowed, since the second example is guaranteed to explicitly return something.
1
It's ironic how Python doesn't allow us to use this so that variable is never none yetvariable=None
is perfectly legal. :D
– Guy
Feb 15 '14 at 15:51
1
But I wanted to use it like this:continue if i == 0
in a for loop.
– karantan
Sep 29 '15 at 12:53
1
Are you allowed to doelse pass?
– OldBunny2800
Jan 11 '17 at 0:51
4
else pass
doesn't work because the ternary expression should return a value that can be passed toreturn
.pass
is not a validreturn
value.
– Emmett Butler
Feb 9 '17 at 23:25
1
I don't agree that this motivation is the real reason, given thatif a_condition: variable = "something"
andif a_condition: return variable
are legal. So it is essentially an arbitrary syntactic choice of python.
– oulenz
Mar 24 '18 at 10:40
add a comment |
The reason the language doesn't allow you to use the syntax
variable = "something" if a_condition
without else
is that, in the case where a_condition == False
, variable
is suddenly unknown. Maybe it could default to None
, but Python requires that all variable assignments actually result in explicit assignments. This also applies to cases such as your function call, as the value passed to the function is evaluated just as the RHS of an assignment statement would be.
Similarly, all return
s must actually return, even if they are conditional return
s. Eg:
return variable if a_condition
is not allowed, but
return variable if a_condition else None
is allowed, since the second example is guaranteed to explicitly return something.
The reason the language doesn't allow you to use the syntax
variable = "something" if a_condition
without else
is that, in the case where a_condition == False
, variable
is suddenly unknown. Maybe it could default to None
, but Python requires that all variable assignments actually result in explicit assignments. This also applies to cases such as your function call, as the value passed to the function is evaluated just as the RHS of an assignment statement would be.
Similarly, all return
s must actually return, even if they are conditional return
s. Eg:
return variable if a_condition
is not allowed, but
return variable if a_condition else None
is allowed, since the second example is guaranteed to explicitly return something.
edited Jul 9 '18 at 10:08
Filipp W.
2,08511130
2,08511130
answered Aug 30 '12 at 14:59
Emmett ButlerEmmett Butler
3,64422034
3,64422034
1
It's ironic how Python doesn't allow us to use this so that variable is never none yetvariable=None
is perfectly legal. :D
– Guy
Feb 15 '14 at 15:51
1
But I wanted to use it like this:continue if i == 0
in a for loop.
– karantan
Sep 29 '15 at 12:53
1
Are you allowed to doelse pass?
– OldBunny2800
Jan 11 '17 at 0:51
4
else pass
doesn't work because the ternary expression should return a value that can be passed toreturn
.pass
is not a validreturn
value.
– Emmett Butler
Feb 9 '17 at 23:25
1
I don't agree that this motivation is the real reason, given thatif a_condition: variable = "something"
andif a_condition: return variable
are legal. So it is essentially an arbitrary syntactic choice of python.
– oulenz
Mar 24 '18 at 10:40
add a comment |
1
It's ironic how Python doesn't allow us to use this so that variable is never none yetvariable=None
is perfectly legal. :D
– Guy
Feb 15 '14 at 15:51
1
But I wanted to use it like this:continue if i == 0
in a for loop.
– karantan
Sep 29 '15 at 12:53
1
Are you allowed to doelse pass?
– OldBunny2800
Jan 11 '17 at 0:51
4
else pass
doesn't work because the ternary expression should return a value that can be passed toreturn
.pass
is not a validreturn
value.
– Emmett Butler
Feb 9 '17 at 23:25
1
I don't agree that this motivation is the real reason, given thatif a_condition: variable = "something"
andif a_condition: return variable
are legal. So it is essentially an arbitrary syntactic choice of python.
– oulenz
Mar 24 '18 at 10:40
1
1
It's ironic how Python doesn't allow us to use this so that variable is never none yet
variable=None
is perfectly legal. :D– Guy
Feb 15 '14 at 15:51
It's ironic how Python doesn't allow us to use this so that variable is never none yet
variable=None
is perfectly legal. :D– Guy
Feb 15 '14 at 15:51
1
1
But I wanted to use it like this:
continue if i == 0
in a for loop.– karantan
Sep 29 '15 at 12:53
But I wanted to use it like this:
continue if i == 0
in a for loop.– karantan
Sep 29 '15 at 12:53
1
1
Are you allowed to do
else pass?
– OldBunny2800
Jan 11 '17 at 0:51
Are you allowed to do
else pass?
– OldBunny2800
Jan 11 '17 at 0:51
4
4
else pass
doesn't work because the ternary expression should return a value that can be passed to return
. pass
is not a valid return
value.– Emmett Butler
Feb 9 '17 at 23:25
else pass
doesn't work because the ternary expression should return a value that can be passed to return
. pass
is not a valid return
value.– Emmett Butler
Feb 9 '17 at 23:25
1
1
I don't agree that this motivation is the real reason, given that
if a_condition: variable = "something"
and if a_condition: return variable
are legal. So it is essentially an arbitrary syntactic choice of python.– oulenz
Mar 24 '18 at 10:40
I don't agree that this motivation is the real reason, given that
if a_condition: variable = "something"
and if a_condition: return variable
are legal. So it is essentially an arbitrary syntactic choice of python.– oulenz
Mar 24 '18 at 10:40
add a comment |
if <condition>: myList.append('myString')
Otherwise, no. Why the need to put it on one line?
Note that the "ternary operator" is an operator. Like any operator, it must return something, so how can you have a ternary operator without the else
clause? What is it supposed to return if the condition isn't true-like?
add a comment |
if <condition>: myList.append('myString')
Otherwise, no. Why the need to put it on one line?
Note that the "ternary operator" is an operator. Like any operator, it must return something, so how can you have a ternary operator without the else
clause? What is it supposed to return if the condition isn't true-like?
add a comment |
if <condition>: myList.append('myString')
Otherwise, no. Why the need to put it on one line?
Note that the "ternary operator" is an operator. Like any operator, it must return something, so how can you have a ternary operator without the else
clause? What is it supposed to return if the condition isn't true-like?
if <condition>: myList.append('myString')
Otherwise, no. Why the need to put it on one line?
Note that the "ternary operator" is an operator. Like any operator, it must return something, so how can you have a ternary operator without the else
clause? What is it supposed to return if the condition isn't true-like?
answered Aug 30 '12 at 14:57
mgilsonmgilson
215k40425537
215k40425537
add a comment |
add a comment |
You are basically asking for do_thing() if <condition> else pass
construct (which will throw SyntaxError
, if ran). As I have discovered during research for (somewhat) similar question do_thing() if condition else None
is as close as you can get (which is just another way to do <condition> and do_thing()
). So, to summarize this idea and other answers, here are your options:
if <condition>: myList.append('myString')
— seems to be the least 'hacky' (and thus preferred) way<condition> and myList.append('myString')
myList.append('myString') if <condition> else None
add a comment |
You are basically asking for do_thing() if <condition> else pass
construct (which will throw SyntaxError
, if ran). As I have discovered during research for (somewhat) similar question do_thing() if condition else None
is as close as you can get (which is just another way to do <condition> and do_thing()
). So, to summarize this idea and other answers, here are your options:
if <condition>: myList.append('myString')
— seems to be the least 'hacky' (and thus preferred) way<condition> and myList.append('myString')
myList.append('myString') if <condition> else None
add a comment |
You are basically asking for do_thing() if <condition> else pass
construct (which will throw SyntaxError
, if ran). As I have discovered during research for (somewhat) similar question do_thing() if condition else None
is as close as you can get (which is just another way to do <condition> and do_thing()
). So, to summarize this idea and other answers, here are your options:
if <condition>: myList.append('myString')
— seems to be the least 'hacky' (and thus preferred) way<condition> and myList.append('myString')
myList.append('myString') if <condition> else None
You are basically asking for do_thing() if <condition> else pass
construct (which will throw SyntaxError
, if ran). As I have discovered during research for (somewhat) similar question do_thing() if condition else None
is as close as you can get (which is just another way to do <condition> and do_thing()
). So, to summarize this idea and other answers, here are your options:
if <condition>: myList.append('myString')
— seems to be the least 'hacky' (and thus preferred) way<condition> and myList.append('myString')
myList.append('myString') if <condition> else None
answered Jul 10 '18 at 9:30
Filipp W.Filipp W.
2,08511130
2,08511130
add a comment |
add a comment |
myList.extend(['myString'] if condition else )
would also work, though it's more work than the other solutions.
add a comment |
myList.extend(['myString'] if condition else )
would also work, though it's more work than the other solutions.
add a comment |
myList.extend(['myString'] if condition else )
would also work, though it's more work than the other solutions.
myList.extend(['myString'] if condition else )
would also work, though it's more work than the other solutions.
answered Aug 30 '12 at 15:21
Jake BiesingerJake Biesinger
3,29611719
3,29611719
add a comment |
add a comment |
You can do something like this:
myList.append('myString') if <condition> else False
or
myList.append('myString') if <condition> else 0
add a comment |
You can do something like this:
myList.append('myString') if <condition> else False
or
myList.append('myString') if <condition> else 0
add a comment |
You can do something like this:
myList.append('myString') if <condition> else False
or
myList.append('myString') if <condition> else 0
You can do something like this:
myList.append('myString') if <condition> else False
or
myList.append('myString') if <condition> else 0
answered Nov 17 '18 at 4:54
Zachary ChiodiniZachary Chiodini
1
1
add a comment |
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to Stack Overflow!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fstackoverflow.com%2fquestions%2f12199757%2fpython-ternary-operator-without-else%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown