It appears that this is to avoid IndexError
being raised if the sequence result
(e.g. list, tuple) contains fewer than 1 item. But, if this is the intention, it is flawed because Python sequences are 0-based and result[1]
accesses the second item in the sequence. Checking that the list is not empty does not guarantee that a second item exists. Probably the intention is to check that there is at least one item in the sequence and to get the first item in the sequence, not the second.
And, due to short-circuiting, the or False
is actually superfluous anyway.
It is a shorthand way of doing this if
statement:
if result:
id = result[1]
else:
id = False
but as I said it seems flawed. This would be better:
try:
id = result[1]
except IndexError:
id = False
or perform a length check:
if len(result) > 1:
id = result[1]
else:
id = False
or:
id = result[1] if len(result) > 1 else False
or to continue the horrible inline method in the question:
id = (len(result) > 1) and result[1]
Which just highlights that code should not be written in the manner shown the question: it is not immediately clear what the intention and outcome of the code is, and some thought is required to understand it. An if statement is much more readable so it should be used.