Chris Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> No what happens if right here you code
>>b := 16;
>>
>> Does that again change the type of "b"? Or is that an illegal
>> instruction, because "b" has the "local type" of (18..22)?
>
> It arranges that the expression "b" after that line (barring furt
Alexander Schmolck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I'd like to see a demonstration that using the same binding syntax
> for special and lexical variables buys you something apart from bugs.
There are 3 fundamental operations related to plain mutable variables:
A1. Making a new mutable variable wit
Ken Tilton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I think the point is that, with the variable actually being just
> a string and with dedicated new explicit functions required as
> "accessors", well, you could hack that up in any language with
> dictionaries. It is the beginnings of an interpreter, not Py
Followup-To: comp.lang.lisp
Bill Atkins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> The cool thing about ITERATE is that it lets you express looping
> concepts in a language designed explicitly for such a purpose, e.g.
>
> (iter (for x in '(1 3 3))
> (summing x)) => 7
>
> (iter (for x in '(1 -3 2)
"[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> The python code below generates a cartesian product subject to any
> logical combination of wildcard exclusions. For example, suppose I want
> to generate a cartesian product S^n, n>=3, of [a,b,c,d] that excludes
> '*a*b*' and '*c*d*a*'. See below
Abdulaziz Ghuloum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Python FAQs contain an entry to the schwartzian transform.
>
> http://www.python.org/doc/faq/programming.html#i-want-to-do-a-complicated-sort-can-you-do-a-schwartzian-transform-in-python
This entry is obsolete: it should mention the 'key' option of
Followup-To: comp.lang.scheme
"Xah Lee" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Since this is frequently used, Python provides a somewhat shorter
> syntax for it, by specifying the column used as the ordering “key”.
[...]
> Because Python's implementation is not very refined , this specialized
> syntax is
"Carl Banks" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> BTW, the fact that a closure refers to a variable itself rather to
>> its current value can be used to check the true attitude of
>> languages with respect to functional programming, by observing how
>> they understand their basic loops :-)
> Closing on
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Thomas A. Russ) writes:
>> >(defun addn (n)
>> > #'(lambda (x)
>> > (+ x n)))
>>
>> The same as
>> def addn(n):
>> def fn(x):
>> return n + x
>> return fn
>
> Is this really equivalent?
>
> What happens if you call addn more than once with
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Thomas A. Russ) writes:
>> >(defun addn (n)
>> > #'(lambda (x)
>> > (+ x n)))
>>
>> The same as
>> def addn(n):
>> def fn(x):
>> return n + x
>> return fn
>
> Is this really equivalent?
>
> What happens if you call addn more than once with
10 matches
Mail list logo
