About the planned formatting implementations

[mariogarcc]

About the planned formatting implementations

[mtshrmn]

Currently, this is the implementation:

def generate_episode_filter(episodes):
    """
    parse the episode specification string to generate a filter function.
    read the docs for understanding the syntax.
    :param episodes: the episode specification string
    :return: filter function for the episodes
    """
    # if no episodes where specified - the generated filter should return false.
    if not episodes:
        def default_filter():
            return False
        return default_filter

    parsed = []
    for token in episodes.split(","):
        sub = token.split("-")
        bounds = float(sub[0]), float(sub[int(len(sub) is 2)])
        parsed.append(bounds)

    def generated_filter(episode):
        return any(map(lambda bound: bound[0] <= float(episode["episode"]) <= bound[1], parsed))

    return generated_filter

I believe that introducing regex solely for this would be over engineering the solution.

[mariogarcc]

I understand writing that whole thing into that small code that actually works for the current state of the program may be a bit ugly, but here's my honest opinion. Although I'm not very good nor experienced at Python, after reading through the whole code, that part of it that you just showed me with lines 108 and 109 are the ones I understand the least (all those filters seem to me that are just a short way to make some exclusive comparisons, but to me are still non-inmediate). I see you know what you're doing, but maybe you're also trying too hard there to keep code extremely short at the cost of readability (and possibly functionality as well, about what we're mentioning).

I repeat, I really don't understand exactly everything that code is doing, but I kind of can see what you're going for and I think adding some lines of code to make everything more readable and even add more functionality would be a good idea. I'm not saying my implementation is the best - I'm sure you can find a better way to put it there in less or more organized lines - but it doesn't look like over engineering to me, even less when there's no current solution to compare it to.