On Thu, Aug 17, 2017 at 11:05 PM, Steve D'Aprano <steve+pyt...@pearwood.info> wrote: > On Fri, 18 Aug 2017 06:28 am, Ian Kelly wrote: >> "while" implies a condition that is currently true and may at some >> point stop being true. To me, that sequentiality does imply >> proceduralness. > > For loops and comprehensions (in Python) are inherently procedural, so it's a > good match. If you want to ignore the documented semantics of Python > comprehensions, their fundamental similarities to generator expressions, and > their actual behaviour, in order to say that they aren't procedural, that's > okay, it a free planet. (Sometimes.) > > But if you do that, then logically you must also allow that "while" is > likewise > not procedural. Otherwise you're just showing a double-standard.
I explained my logic here. You say that logically "while" is likewise not procedural, but you didn't explain what that logic is, so I have no idea what you're referring to. >> "for", to quote from Merriam-Webster, indicates "equivalence in >> exchange". A precise definition seems hard to nail down, but there's >> no such implication there. > > > Webster 1913 includes well over a dozen definitions for the word "for", so I'm > sure that Merrian-Webster would be similar. I don't know why you cherry picked > that one definition out of so many. "For" in the loop sense takes the meaning that it has in "for each" (hence why we sometimes call it a for-each loop). This is the only one that makes sense to me in that context. > I think this is more appropriate: > > 8. Indicating the space or time through which an action or > state extends; hence, during; in or through the space or > time of. The example phrase for that one is "gone for two days". I don't see how you can possibly interpret this in the sense of a for-each loop. > "for x in seq" indicates that x extends through the space of seq, in a manner > of > speaking. No, given the definition above, it would indicate that something extends through the space of x. Again, this makes zero sense to me. > Or for something more recent, and more relevant, how about foldoc, the Free > On-line Dictionary of Computing? Completely misses the point of consulting the dictionary in the first place. We were discussing the implications of the use of the English definition. A technical computing definition is irrelevant. > But if we can do that, we can likewise do the same for "while". Okay, I'm waiting. What is your proposed "non-procedural" definition of "while"? > You can't have it both ways: > > (1) if we can ignore the proceduralness of "for", then we can ignore the > proceduralness of "while" and put it in a comprehension; > > (2) if we *cannot* ignore the proceduralness of "while", then we likewise > cannot > ignore the proceduralness of "for", therefore comprehensions are fundamentally > procedural and that objection against "while" is neutered. This claim is absurd. They're *different words* with different definitions and entirely different connotations. They're not even the same part of speech. You might as well be saying that if we can ignore that "swim" is a color, then we can also ignore that "red" is a color. -- https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
