Just tell him that "functions are like all other variables and can therefore be passed by other functions or returned by other functions. "
If your friend understands variables and functions and he can't make the "leap" (and assuming you're right, of course) then your friend doesn't understand variables and functions. Happy Friday. Sean On 9/21/07, Cristian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Sep 21, 3:44 pm, Ron Adam <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > I think key may be to discuss names and name binding with your friend. How > > a name is not the object it self, like a variable is in other languages. > > For example show him how an object can have more than one name. And discus > > how names can be bound to nearly anything, including classes and functions. > > I could discuss name binding but it would be great if Python said this > itself. After all, you can even bind a module with the foo = bar > syntax by using __import__ function. If function definitions followed > the same pattern, I think a beginner would subconsciously (maybe even > consciously) realize that function names are just like everything > else. Actually, this would be helpful for many people. If you come > from a language like Java you're used to thinking of attributes and > methods as living in different namespaces. I think a new syntax will > encourage seasoned programmers think in a more Pythonic way. > > Python has done a very good job in easing people into programming. My > friend doesn't come to me very often because the syntax is clear and > simple and the builtin datatypes allow you to do so much. My goal is > that I would never have to explain to him about name binding; that > he'd pick it up by learning the language on his own. He's learned > lists, dictionaries and even some OOP without me. I don't think name > binding would be a stretch. > > > You could also discus factory functions with him. Once he gets that a > > function can return another function, then it won't be so much of a leap > > for a function to take a function as an argument. > > I think this isn't the most intuitive way of approaching first order > functions. It's true that if a function can return another function > then a function must be first order (i.e., it's just like any other > variable), but that seems almost backwards to me. I think it would > make more sense to have beginners _know_ that functions are like all > other variables and can therefore be passed by other functions or > returned by other functions. That I think would be better accomplished > if they define functions the same way you would define other variables > that you know can be passed and returned. > > > -- > http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list > -- Sean Tierney -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
