A way to shorten range syntax?

:information_source: Attention Topic was automatically imported from the old Question2Answer platform.
:bust_in_silhouette: Asked By Syl


Meaning, is there a better way to write:

if var > 0 and var < 11:


if var 1-10:


:bust_in_silhouette: Reply From: jgodfrey

You can use && instead of and to save a single character… ;^)

Otherwise, you could write a function that, with a short name, might be less code. Personally, I’d just stick the standard syntax (though, I do prefer &&).

Ok for && then. Thxs!

Syl | 2020-02-25 00:30

:bust_in_silhouette: Reply From: Zylann

If you have integers I guess var in range(1, 10) would work but it’s pretty inefficient under the hood because it creates an array of that lenght.
What you wrote remains the best way.

You mean what jgodfrey wrote?

Syl | 2020-02-25 01:19

It’s just the same with one less character^^ I prefer and for readability

Zylann | 2020-02-25 01:32

Yes, strange that there’s nothing better.

Syl | 2020-02-25 01:45