Wildemar Wildenburger a écrit : > Bjoern Schliessmann wrote: > >>> No, but the point being made is that it would be better IN >>> THIS CASE. >> >> >> It wouldn't. IMHO, rewriting the code to two or three lines would be >> better. >> > > Well I think Charles' Point about making the equations look like the > ones in the paper(s) is a pretty good one. That is a special case in > that the code becomes clearer when it conformes to the standards of the > domain it is referring to; it is not meant to be understood by itself > but rather in conjunction with documents that motivate it. > > Or in short: Breaking it into n>1 lines would make it more readable but > would break the connection with the form given in the papers. (Yes, of > course you can refer to the eq. in a comment but believe me: if you're > used to seeing a certain (form of) equation, your mind will trip over > any variation. That is best avoided.)
OTHO, simple math-illeterate programmers like me will have hard time maintaining such a code. Also and FWIW, it's not always possible to make a direct translation of a mathematic formula|algorithm in Python, and even when it is, it's not always the best thing to do wrt/ perfs (I recently had such a case, and after a pythonic rewrite the code was about 75% shorter, 50% faster, and 200% more readable for average joe programmer). > ... my 2 sents, anyway ... May I add my 2 cents - or should I send them ?-) -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
