A. Pagaltzis writes:
> Hi all,
>
> so Guido is talking about his reasoning behind dropping lambda,
> reduce(), filter() and map() in the next generation of Python:
>
> http://www.artima.com/weblogs/viewpost.jsp?thread=98196
>
> [Prime quote: "I think having the
> "AP" == A Pagaltzis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
AP> [Prime quote: "I think having the two choices side-by-side just
AP> requires programmers to think about making a choice that's
AP> irrelevant for their program; not having the choice streamlines
AP> the thought process."]
it just p
A. Pagaltzis skribis 2005-03-13 23:40 (+0100):
> [Prime quote: "I think having the two choices side-by-side just
> requires programmers to think about making a choice that's
> irrelevant for their program; not having the choice streamlines
> the thought process."]
> But, philosophical point of view
Hi all,
so Guido is talking about his reasoning behind dropping lambda,
reduce(), filter() and map() in the next generation of Python:
http://www.artima.com/weblogs/viewpost.jsp?thread=98196
[Prime quote: "I think having the two choices side-by-side just
requires programmers to think
On Fri, Dec 03, 2004 at 02:05:16PM -0500, John Siracusa wrote:
> >From http://dirtsimple.org/2004/12/python-is-not-java.html
>
> "In Java, you have to use getters and setters because using public fields
> gives you no opportunity to go back and change your mind later to
On 2004-12-03 at 14:46:16, John Siracusa wrote:
> Anyway, I thought it was interesting to see the ease of "forward
> compatibility" for simple attributes touted as a feature of Python. I'd
> like to tout it as a feature of Perl 6 too, because I also hate writing
> gett
John Siracusa writes:
> I guess I wasn't asking if it would be "possible" (I think that's been
> established), but if it would be "easy", "reasonable", or "clean" (as
> it appears to be in Python, although I'm just going by what t
On Fri, Dec 03, 2004 at 04:13:01PM -0500, John Siracusa wrote:
: On Fri, 3 Dec 2004 22:06:43 +0100, Paul Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: > http://www.nntp.perl.org/group/perl.perl6.language/9576
:
: Wow, that's a blast from the past. I wonder how much of it is still
: valid... :)
Almost all
On Fri, 3 Dec 2004 22:06:43 +0100, Paul Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> http://www.nntp.perl.org/group/perl.perl6.language/9576
Wow, that's a blast from the past. I wonder how much of it is still
valid... :)
-John
Juerd skribis 2004-12-03 21:09 (+0100):
> $foo.bar .= "foo"
Meant ~= there.
Juerd
John Siracusa skribis 2004-12-03 14:46 (-0500):
> Anyway, I thought it was interesting to see the ease of "forward
> compatibility" for simple attributes touted as a feature of Python. I'd
> like to tout it as a feature of Perl 6 too, because I also hate writing
> ge
On Fri, 3 Dec 2004 20:37:40 +0100, Juerd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> John Siracusa skribis 2004-12-03 14:05 (-0500):
>> From http://dirtsimple.org/2004/12/python-is-not-java.html
>>
>> "In Java, you have to use getters and setters because using public fields
&
John Siracusa skribis 2004-12-03 14:05 (-0500):
> I'd like to be able to s/Python/Perl 6/ above, but after many discussions on
> this topic, I'm still not sure if I can.
Anything can be anything. I'm sure that despite the ability to run all
the code you want upon reading
>From http://dirtsimple.org/2004/12/python-is-not-java.html
"In Java, you have to use getters and setters because using public fields
gives you no opportunity to go back and change your mind later to using
getters and setters. So in Java, you might as well get the chore out of the
way
David Grove <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> Perl is far more practical than experimental.
> Not at the moment. That's the problem.
Pretty much everything proposed, even in the wildest RFCs during the
brainstorming phase, was still stuff that's been done elsewhere by other
languages. That's the
> Perl is far more practical than experimental.
Not at the moment. That's the problem.
(Note the subtle subject change back to its original intent.)
p
ppeared elsewhere earlier. Perl makes a lot of already
developed ideas practical, but breaking new ground isn't really its forte.
If you want to look at languages that are breaking new ground, I recommend
Objective Caml, or Haskell, or Mercury, or even Eiffel. Languages like
Perl and P
> Perl is looking a bit shaky at the moment.
Yeah. I think I understand what you mean by "shaky".
I always expected Perl to be leading the way, *the* language
that broke new ground..."where only camels dared to tread..."
Now we find that Perl6 is just huffin' and puffin' its way
to *catch up*
> -Original Message-
> From: Vijay Singh [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Saturday, June 02, 2001 10:02 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: Python...
>
>
>
> Python? Didn't know you were so into tuples...
>
> I thought you
On Sun, Jun 03, 2001 at 10:48:11PM +0100, Piers Cawley wrote:
> > Oh, hrm. I wonder if I could use the functions from the Ruby runtime
> > as custom ops.
>
> You are a very bad man. Go to it.
I would do, but I'm getting segfaults when I reimplement op.c in Perl.
Unfortunately, I'm not joking.
-
Simon Cozens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Sun, Jun 03, 2001 at 09:42:37PM +0100, Piers Cawley wrote:
> > Apart from the minor issue of Leon not having ported all the runtime
> > libraries (in annoying C) yet.
>
> Because I'm hacking at the bytecode level, I can replace the relevant
> subrout
On Sun, Jun 03, 2001 at 09:42:37PM +0100, Piers Cawley wrote:
> Apart from the minor issue of Leon not having ported all the runtime
> libraries (in annoying C) yet.
Because I'm hacking at the bytecode level, I can replace the relevant
subroutine calls to Perl builtins.
Oh, hrm. I wonder if I co
Simon Cozens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Sun, Jun 03, 2001 at 02:02:03AM +, Vijay Singh wrote:
> > I thought your head would be turned by Ruby ;-)
> >
> > BTW - There's a Ruby "Inline::Perl" module in alpha testing
> > now...this
On Sun, Jun 03, 2001 at 02:02:03AM +, Vijay Singh wrote:
> I thought your head would be turned by Ruby ;-)
>
> BTW - There's a Ruby "Inline::Perl" module in alpha
> testing now...this will be a nice complement to the
> "Inline::Python" module a
Python? Didn't know you were so into tuples...
I thought your head would be turned by Ruby ;-)
BTW - There's a Ruby "Inline::Perl" module in alpha
testing now...this will be a nice complement to the
"Inline::Python" module already av
"raptor" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| hi,
| I haven't used Python... but last days I read some stuff, wanted to compare
| both languages for myself and found something interesting.
| They are proposing extentinon to Pyhon 2
It's already in Python 2.0.
--
http://www.dfan.org
Simon Cozens wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 08, 2000 at 01:12:13PM +0100, raptor wrote:
> > [ for in ]
> > Can this be done easly at the moment OR via some of the new proposals
?!!!?
>
> map { expression } sequence
>
See also RFC 81.
On Sun, Oct 08, 2000 at 01:12:13PM +0100, raptor wrote:
> [ for in ]
> Can this be done easly at the moment OR via some of the new proposals ?!!!?
map { expression } sequence
--
I used to be disgusted, now I find I'm just amused.
-- Elvis Costello
hi,
I haven't used Python... but last days I read some stuff, wanted to compare
both languages for myself and found something interesting.
They are proposing extentinon to Pyhon 2 (with their so called PEP
documents, this also is good idea i.e. using current or some modified
version of RFC&
It's probably worth reading through the Python Enhancement Proposals
(PEPs) to see if there's anything that makes sense to steal:
http://python.sourceforge.net/peps/
Nat
30 matches
Mail list logo
