Frank Samuelson a écrit : > I love Python, and it is one of my 2 favorite > languages. I would suggest that Python steal some > aspects of the S language. > > ------------------------------------------------------- > 1. Currently in Python > def foo(x,y): ... > assigns the name foo to a function object. Is this pythonic?
Yes. Python deliberately choosed to be a statement-based language. > Why not use the = operator like most other assignments? This dead horse has been beaten to hell and back. Note that as far as I'm concerned, I may like an expression-based Python-inspired language. But this is another story. > > ------------------------------------------------------- > 2. Allow sequences to be indices: > >>> s=["hello", 6, 33, "none"] > >>> x= [1,3] > >>> [ s[y] for y in x] # Current verbose version Verbose ??? > [6, 'none'] > >>> s[x] # Simpler, clearer, more productive > > To quote a poster at http://www.thescripts.com/forum/thread22741.html, > "While we are at it, I also don't understand why sequences can't be > used as indices. Why not, say, l[[2,3]] or l[(2, 3)]? Why a special > slice concept? slices are very powerful. >" Isn't that unpythonic? Not IMHO. But extending slices to support might not be totally stupid. Do you volunteer to write the PEP and the patch ? > -------------------------------------------------------- > 3. When I first started using python, I frequently used > map, because I didn't want to have to learn the > additional syntax of list comprehensions, which > appeared very nonstructured. > > # Is this readable? > b= [x+y for x in vec1 if x>0 for y in vec2 if y>x ] Yes. > Perhaps a list comprehension syntax more like the rest > of python. "for" could return a list given by continue > arguments: > > b= for x in vec1 : > if (x>0): continue # "returns" nothing > continue for y in vec2: > if (x>y): continue(x+y) Now *this* is a mess. And FWIW, you inverted the second test... > Note that my code would actually return a list of lists > rather than a single list like the list comprehension. > More structured syntax opens the door to having much > more complicated, yet still comprehensible (thus more > pythonic), list comprehensions. The Pythonic way to write "more complicated yet still comprehensible list comprehensions" is to not use list comprehensions. b = [] for x in vec1: if x > 0: for y in vec2: if y > x: b.append(x + y) Or if you really want a more functional approach: def do_stuff(vec1, vec2): for x in vec1: if x > 0: for y in vec2: if y > x: yield x + y b = list(do_stuff(vec1, vec2)) -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
