Paul Moore wrote: [...] > Ignoring stylistic choices (variable naming, map vs > generator) then for me the key distinction here is "lambda > f: int(f)" vs just "int". Python's callables (of which the > integer constructor int is one) are first class objects, so > you should just pass them directly. Creating an anonymous > function using lambda that just calls int is slower, harder > to read, and less natural. The lambda is a direct > translation of the Ruby "|f| f.to_i()" - I don't know if > Ruby lacks a built in "convert to integer" function - maybe > it does because it takes the "everything is an object" > philosophy much further than Python does, but that's where > "this code was translated from another language" shows.
I was wondering why i put that lambda in there, and that's probably why i did it, superficially, to more accurately compare the syntax of both languages, at the expense of writing concise Python code. In any event, i believe my point -- that complex statements in Ruby follow a more intuitive left-to-right comprehension flow, whereas Python, which due to a reliance on built-in functions as opposed to Object methods is directly responsible for our code being littered with these less intuitive nested function calls -- remains a valid point. > Using map vs comprehensions is mostly a stylistic choice. > Python programmers will typically choose a comprehension, > so that style looks more idiomatic, but the map is not > wrong. I haven't tested which is faster - I can't imagine > it would make much practical difference in a real program. > Readability is certainly a personal choice - but writing > code that looks natural to other users of the language is > an element of readability (not the only one, but it is > one). I would agree on all points. -- https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
