My recommendation is to just write a + b == cor a + c == bor b + c == a .
That code is short, but it is not a pythonic code. If you look at python zen (it is in this module)
Beautiful is better than ugly.
Explicit is better than implicit.
Simple is better than complex.
Complex is better than complicated.
Flat is better than nested.
Sparse is better than dense.
Readability counts.
Special cases aren't special enough to break the rules.
Although practicality beats purity.
Errors should never pass silently.
Unless explicitly silenced.
In the face of ambiguity, refuse the temptation to guess.
There should be one-- and preferably only one --obvious way to do it.
Although that way may not be obvious at first unless you're Dutch.
Now is better than never.
Although never is often better than right now.
If the implementation is hard to explain, it's a bad idea.
If the implementation is easy to explain, it may be a good idea.
Namespaces are one honking great idea -- let's do more of those!
$ Python code should be simple, concise, and easy to explain.
I haven't checked if a + b + c in (2*a, 2*b, 2*c) is correct, but even if it is, can I understand what someone else is doing by looking at this code?
Short code is an advantage for Python, but you don't have to be too obsessed with length.
© 2024 OneMinuteCode. All rights reserved.