> >> c[:] holds many behaviors that change dynamically.
> >
> > I've absolutely no clue what that sentence means. If c[:] does
> > behave differently than c, then somebody's done something
> > seriously weird and probably needs to be slapped around for
> > felonious overriding.
I'm still a bit new at this, was wondering why c[:]() doesn't work, and
implicitly wondering why it *shouldn't* work.
> >> So c[:]() -- or the more recent go(c)() -- executes all those
> >> behaviors.
Oops meant to say do(c)(), not "go", which matches a prior post.
> > Still no clue.
> >
> >> This is very useful for many performers.
> >
> > What are "performers"?
Real people, like musicians, and their proxies in code that passes around
real-time events that may be rendered, recorded, and played back.
> >> The real world example that I'm working one is a collaborative
> >> visual music performance. So c can contain wrapped MIDI events
> >> or sequencer behaviors. c may get passed to a scheduler to
> >> execute those events, or c may get passed to a pickler to
> >> persist the performance.
> >
> > I still don't see how c[:] is any different from c.
> >
> It isn't. The OP is projecting a wish for a function call on a list to
> be interpreted as a call on each member of the list with the same
> arguments. The all-members slice notation is a complete red herring.
Just looked up "red herring wiki" hope I wasn't being misleading -- at least
not intentionally. c[:] is the simplest case for a broad range of behaviors.
Perhaps, I should have said c[selector()]() ??? but, no, that makes the
question more complex ... still
> It would require a pretty fundamental re-think to give such a construct
> sensible and consistent semantics, I think.
What do you mean?
If c[:]() works, the so does this, using real world names
orchestra[:].pickle()
orchestra[conductor()].sequence()
Though, I'm already starting to prefer:
do(orchestra).pickle()
do(orchestra(conductor)).sequence()
Perhaps, this is what you mean by "sensible and consistent semantics"
I just read Alex Martelli's post in the "rats! Varargs" thread about how
list and tupples are implemented. I want to understand implementation before
suggesting changes. Maybe c[:]() isn't so simple to fix, after all?
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
