On 11/05/2015 07:15, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
On Monday 11 May 2015 11:46, zipher wrote:
By having methods like len() in your built-in namespace when it's really
only relevant to objects that are types of containers, you blur one
primary component of OOP: encapsulation.
Gosh, one would almost
On Monday 11 May 2015 11:46, zipher wrote:
> By having methods like len() in your built-in namespace when it's really
> only relevant to objects that are types of containers, you blur one
> primary component of OOP: encapsulation.
Gosh, one would almost think that Python's concept of OOP wasn't
zipher writes:
> On Sunday, May 10, 2015 at 9:18:55 PM UTC-5, Chris Angelico wrote:
> > That actually has nothing to do with it. You're still quoting
> > without citation.
>
> Well, I replied right at the point of my correspondent (Alex23).
That's not the issue :-)
The omission Chris is referri
On Sunday, May 10, 2015 at 9:18:55 PM UTC-5, Chris Angelico wrote:
> On Mon, May 11, 2015 at 12:11 PM, zipher wrote:
> >> Please take care of your quoting. You just quoted two other posts, and
> >> I have no idea who said things without going and digging in the
> >> archive.
> >
> > I'm sorry. I'
On Mon, May 11, 2015 at 12:11 PM, zipher wrote:
>> Please take care of your quoting. You just quoted two other posts, and
>> I have no idea who said things without going and digging in the
>> archive.
>
> I'm sorry. I've been sleeping on the beach, away from civilization, a little
> too long, an
> Please take care of your quoting. You just quoted two other posts, and
> I have no idea who said things without going and digging in the
> archive.
I'm sorry. I've been sleeping on the beach, away from civilization, a little
too long, and didn't see that this was a post from 6 years ago.
Feel
On Mon, May 11, 2015 at 11:46 AM, zipher wrote:
>> > 3.) true OOP
>> > Now before you go and get all "huffy" over this statement, hear me
>> > out. Python is the best language in the world. But it damn sure has
>> > some warts! "len(this)" instead of "obj.length" max(that) instead of
>> > [1,2,3,4
> > 3.) true OOP
> > Now before you go and get all "huffy" over this statement, hear me
> > out. Python is the best language in the world. But it damn sure has
> > some warts! "len(this)" instead of "obj.length" max(that) instead of
> > [1,2,3,4,5].max().
>
> As the Zen says: '[P]racticality beats
On Friday 31 July 2009 04:08:33 am Masklinn wrote:
> On 30 Jul 2009, at 23:57 , Luis Zarrabeitia wrote:
> > I'd like to ask, what "container.each" is, exactly? It looks like a
> > function
> > call (as I've learned a few posts ago), but, what are its arguments?
> > How the
> > looping "works"? Does
"Steven D'Aprano" wrote in message
news:pan.2009.08.04.09.28...@remove.this.cybersource.com.au...
> On Tue, 04 Aug 2009 10:03:53 +0200, Bruno Desthuilliers wrote:
>
>>> Disadvantages: your code is filled with line noise. It's an arbitrary
>>> choice between @@ meaning instance attribute and @@ m
On 4 Aug 2009, at 11:28 , Steven D'Aprano wrote:
So I'd ask, does Smalltalk's message passing model match the way human
beings think?
Yes.
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Steven D'Aprano a écrit :
> On Tue, 04 Aug 2009 10:03:53 +0200, Bruno Desthuilliers wrote:
>
>>> Disadvantages: your code is filled with line noise. It's an arbitrary
>>> choice between @@ meaning instance attribute and @@ meaning class
>>> attribute -- there's no logical reason for choosing one o
On Tue, 04 Aug 2009 10:03:53 +0200, Bruno Desthuilliers wrote:
>> Disadvantages: your code is filled with line noise. It's an arbitrary
>> choice between @@ meaning instance attribute and @@ meaning class
>> attribute -- there's no logical reason for choosing one over the other,
>> so you have to
Steven D'Aprano a écrit :
On Fri, 31 Jul 2009 13:38:56 +0200, Bruno Desthuilliers wrote:
On the other hand, we don't have to prefix names with @ and @@,
Nope, we have to prefix them with 'self' or 'cls' (or even
'self.__class__').
Incorrect.
Correct for all relevant cases, except this one:
On Saturday 01 August 2009 03:46:12 Steven D'Aprano wrote:
> On Fri, 31 Jul 2009 20:41:12 +0200, Emmanuel Surleau wrote:
> >> We don't actually *declare* that something is constant and then have
> >> that declaration ignored. Python doesn't lie to us, although (as in any
> >> language) a programmer
On Fri, 31 Jul 2009 20:41:12 +0200, Emmanuel Surleau wrote:
>> We don't actually *declare* that something is constant and then have
>> that declaration ignored. Python doesn't lie to us, although (as in any
>> language) a programmer might.
>
> You could say that Ruby doesn't either,
Well you co
On 31 Jul 2009, at 20:17 , Steven D'Aprano wrote:
On Fri, 31 Jul 2009 18:15:15 +0200, Masklinn wrote:
I know, I know, Ruby people swear by
anonymous code blocks, and I've read Paul Graham too. But I'm really
not so sure that the benefits of anonymous code blocks are great
enough to overcome the
On Friday 31 July 2009 18:54:23 Tim Rowe wrote:
> 2009/7/31 Steven D'Aprano :
> > On Thu, 30 Jul 2009 18:47:04 +0100, Tim Rowe wrote:
> >> That and the fact that I couldn't stop laughing for long enough to learn
> >> any more when I read in the Pragmatic Programmer's Guide that "Ruby,
> >> unlike l
On Fri, 31 Jul 2009 18:15:15 +0200, Masklinn wrote:
> > I know, I know, Ruby people swear by
> > anonymous code blocks, and I've read Paul Graham too. But I'm really
> > not so sure that the benefits of anonymous code blocks are great
> > enough to overcome the disadvantages of anonymous code bloc
On 31 Jul 2009, at 18:24 , Terry Reedy wrote:
Masklinn wrote:
#each is simply a method that takes a function (called blocks in
ruby). One could call it a higher-order method I guess.
It's an implementation of the concept of internal iteration:
instead of collections yielding iterator objects
On Jul 31, 3:49 am, Masklinn wrote:
> On 31 Jul 2009, at 10:25 , Chris Rebert wrote:> On Fri, Jul 31, 2009 at 1:21
> AM, Xavier Ho
> > wrote:
> >> On Fri, Jul 31, 2009 at 6:08 PM, Masklinn
> >> wrote:
>
> >>> ... but since Python doesn't have anonymous functions that
> >>> usage
> >>> tend
2009/7/31 Steven D'Aprano :
> On Thu, 30 Jul 2009 18:47:04 +0100, Tim Rowe wrote:
>
>> That and the fact that I couldn't stop laughing for long enough to learn
>> any more when I read in the Pragmatic Programmer's Guide that "Ruby,
>> unlike less flexible languages, lets you alter the value of a co
Masklinn wrote:
#each is simply a method that takes a function (called blocks in ruby).
One could call it a higher-order method I guess.
It's an implementation of the concept of internal iteration: instead of
collections yielding iterator objects, and programmers using those
through speciall
On 31 Jul 2009, at 17:55 , Steven D'Aprano wrote:
But seriously, while I admit that I have very little Ruby
experience, and
so aren't in a great position to judge, it seems to me that Ruby
doesn't
have anything like Python's over-riding design principles (the Zen).
If
there is a design prin
On Fri, 31 Jul 2009 13:38:56 +0200, Bruno Desthuilliers wrote:
>> On the other hand, we don't have to prefix names with @ and @@,
>
> Nope, we have to prefix them with 'self' or 'cls' (or even
> 'self.__class__').
Incorrect.
>>> class K:
... class_attribute = 'No @@ required.'
...
>>> K().c
On Fri, Jul 31, 2009 at 11:35 AM, Iain King wrote:
> On Jul 31, 4:08 pm, Ethan Furman wrote:
>> Steven D'Aprano wrote:
>> > On Thu, 30 Jul 2009 18:47:04 +0100, Tim Rowe wrote:
>>
>> >>That and the fact that I couldn't stop laughing for long enough to learn
>> >>any more when I read in the Pragmati
On Jul 31, 4:08 pm, Ethan Furman wrote:
> Steven D'Aprano wrote:
> > On Thu, 30 Jul 2009 18:47:04 +0100, Tim Rowe wrote:
>
> >>That and the fact that I couldn't stop laughing for long enough to learn
> >>any more when I read in the Pragmatic Programmer's Guide that "Ruby,
> >>unlike less flexible
Steven D'Aprano wrote:
On Thu, 30 Jul 2009 18:47:04 +0100, Tim Rowe wrote:
That and the fact that I couldn't stop laughing for long enough to learn
any more when I read in the Pragmatic Programmer's Guide that "Ruby,
unlike less flexible languages, lets you alter the value of a constant."
Yep,
On 31 Jul 2009, at 15:12 , Bruno Desthuilliers wrote:
Masklinn a écrit :
On 31 Jul 2009, at 13:38 , Bruno Desthuilliers wrote:
Steven D'Aprano a écrit :
On Thu, 30 Jul 2009 18:47:04 +0100, Tim Rowe wrote:
That and the fact that I couldn't stop laughing for long enough
to learn
any more when
Masklinn a écrit :
On 31 Jul 2009, at 13:38 , Bruno Desthuilliers wrote:
Steven D'Aprano a écrit :
On Thu, 30 Jul 2009 18:47:04 +0100, Tim Rowe wrote:
That and the fact that I couldn't stop laughing for long enough to
learn
any more when I read in the Pragmatic Programmer's Guide that "Ruby,
On 31 Jul 2009, at 13:38 , Bruno Desthuilliers wrote:
Steven D'Aprano a écrit :
On Thu, 30 Jul 2009 18:47:04 +0100, Tim Rowe wrote:
That and the fact that I couldn't stop laughing for long enough to
learn
any more when I read in the Pragmatic Programmer's Guide that "Ruby,
unlike less flexibl
Steven D'Aprano a écrit :
On Thu, 30 Jul 2009 18:47:04 +0100, Tim Rowe wrote:
That and the fact that I couldn't stop laughing for long enough to learn
any more when I read in the Pragmatic Programmer's Guide that "Ruby,
unlike less flexible languages, lets you alter the value of a constant."
Ye
On 31 Jul 2009, at 11:54 , Iain King wrote:
On Jul 31, 8:28 am, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
On Thu, 30 Jul 2009 18:06:31 -0500, Robert Kern wrote:
On 2009-07-30 16:44, r wrote:
On Jul 30, 4:29 pm, Emmanuel Surleau
wrote:
1.) No need to use "()" to call a function with no arguments.
Python
-->
On Jul 31, 8:28 am, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
> On Thu, 30 Jul 2009 18:06:31 -0500, Robert Kern wrote:
> > On 2009-07-30 16:44, r wrote:
> >> On Jul 30, 4:29 pm, Emmanuel Surleau wrote:
> 1.) No need to use "()" to call a function with no arguments. Python
> --> "obj.m2().m3()" --ugly
> >>
On 31 Jul 2009, at 10:25 , Chris Rebert wrote:
On Fri, Jul 31, 2009 at 1:21 AM, Xavier Ho
wrote:
On Fri, Jul 31, 2009 at 6:08 PM, Masklinn
wrote:
... but since Python doesn't have anonymous functions that
usage
tends to be a bit too verbose ...
Sorry to interrupt, but wouldn't lambda
r wrote:
The purpose of his thread was to get feedback on how Python
and Ruby ideas could be cumulated into the best high level language.
And being that i am the BDFL of the "Confessions of a Python Fanboy"
thread, you have my personal permission to continue on with this
subj
On Fri, Jul 31, 2009 at 6:38 PM, Chris Rebert wrote:
> No, because it has a name, namely "goBig"; this obviously prevents it
> from being "anonymous".
>
> For comparison, note how the function in the following example is
> never given a name, and is thus anonymous:
> >>> (lambda x: x+5)(6)
> 11
>
On Fri, Jul 31, 2009 at 1:31 AM, Xavier Ho wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 31, 2009 at 6:25 PM, Chris Rebert wrote:
>>
>> I believe "full" anonymous functions was intended by the author.
>> lambdas are limited to a single expression. "Full" anonymous functions
>> would be allowed to contain multiple statemen
On Fri, Jul 31, 2009 at 6:25 PM, Chris Rebert wrote:
> I believe "full" anonymous functions was intended by the author.
> lambdas are limited to a single expression. "Full" anonymous functions
> would be allowed to contain multiple statements.
>
> Cheers, but what about this:
def goBig(x):
On Fri, Jul 31, 2009 at 1:21 AM, Xavier Ho wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 31, 2009 at 6:08 PM, Masklinn wrote:
>>
>> ... but since Python doesn't have anonymous functions that usage
>> tends to be a bit too verbose ...
>
> Sorry to interrupt, but wouldn't lambda in Python be considered as
> 'anonymous func
On Fri, Jul 31, 2009 at 6:08 PM, Masklinn wrote:
> ... but since Python doesn't have anonymous functions that usage
> tends to be a bit too verbose ...
>
Sorry to interrupt, but wouldn't lambda in Python be considered as
'anonymous functions'?
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-
On Thu, 30 Jul 2009 18:47:04 +0100, Tim Rowe wrote:
> That and the fact that I couldn't stop laughing for long enough to learn
> any more when I read in the Pragmatic Programmer's Guide that "Ruby,
> unlike less flexible languages, lets you alter the value of a constant."
> Yep, as they say "Bug"
On 30 Jul 2009, at 23:57 , Luis Zarrabeitia wrote:
I'd like to ask, what "container.each" is, exactly? It looks like a
function
call (as I've learned a few posts ago), but, what are its arguments?
How the
looping "works"? Does it receive a "code" object that it has to
execute?
Is .each some
On 30 Jul 2009, at 23:52 , Jan Kaliszewski wrote:
Dnia 30-07-2009 o 22:41:57 Masklinn
napisał(a):
On 30 Jul 2009, at 22:23 , Jan Kaliszewski wrote:
30-07-2009 o 13:36:49 Masklinn wrote:
On 30 Jul 2009, at 06:04 , alex23 wrote:
On Jul 30, 1:06 pm, r wrote:
2.) the .each method
container.e
On Thu, 30 Jul 2009 18:06:31 -0500, Robert Kern wrote:
> On 2009-07-30 16:44, r wrote:
>> On Jul 30, 4:29 pm, Emmanuel Surleau wrote:
1.) No need to use "()" to call a function with no arguments. Python
--> "obj.m2().m3()" --ugly
Ruby --> "obj.m1.m2.m3" -- sweeet!
Man, i
On Friday 31 July 2009 01:06:31 Robert Kern wrote:
> On 2009-07-30 16:44, r wrote:
> > On Jul 30, 4:29 pm, Emmanuel Surleau
> >
> > wrote:
> >>> 1.) No need to use "()" to call a function with no arguments.
> >>> Python --> "obj.m2().m3()" --ugly
> >>>Ruby --> "obj.m1.m2.m3" -- sweeet!
> >>>
On Thu, 30 Jul 2009 17:57:48 -0400, Luis Zarrabeitia wrote:
> As I understood the question, it was "was wrong in 'for var in
> container' in comparison with ruby's container.each?"
>
> What's the (semantic) difference between
>
> for localVar in container:
> block
>
> and
>
> container.each
r wrote:
On Jul 30, 3:55 pm, Terry Reedy wrote:
superpollo wrote:
r wrote:
how to reverse a string in python? must i usa a temp? like:
[snip]
Terry Jan Reedy
No "r" never wrote anything like that. reversing a string is RTFM
material, this is basic stuff here! Stop quoting me as saying thin
2009/7/30 superpollo :
> Tim Rowe wrote:
>> Any language that gets any sort of real use has to have. For instance,
>> I love Ada's numeric types (you can specify either the minimum number
>> of significant figures or the maximum delta for a real type, and it
>> will give you a type that satisfies
On 2009-07-30 16:44, r wrote:
On Jul 30, 4:29 pm, Emmanuel Surleau
wrote:
1.) No need to use "()" to call a function with no arguments.
Python --> "obj.m2().m3()" --ugly
Ruby --> "obj.m1.m2.m3" -- sweeet!
Man, i must admit i really like this, and your code will look so much
cleaner.
It ha
xt of this
thread. The purpose of his thread was to get feedback on how Python
and Ruby ideas could be cumulated into the best high level language.
And being that i am the BDFL of the "Confessions of a Python Fanboy"
thread, you have my personal permission to continue on with this
subject matter...,
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
On Thursday 30 July 2009 04:41:57 pm Masklinn wrote:
> On 30 Jul 2009, at 22:23 , Jan Kaliszewski wrote:
> > 30-07-2009 o 13:36:49 Masklinn wrote:
> >
> > I don't see any real limitation. What's wrong in:
> >
> > for localVar in container:
> >block
>
> Well what's wrong with using that rather
Dnia 30-07-2009 o 22:41:57 Masklinn napisał(a):
On 30 Jul 2009, at 22:23 , Jan Kaliszewski wrote:
30-07-2009 o 13:36:49 Masklinn wrote:
On 30 Jul 2009, at 06:04 , alex23 wrote:
On Jul 30, 1:06 pm, r wrote:
2.) the .each method
container.each{|localVar| block}
This method can really clean
On Jul 30, 4:29 pm, Emmanuel Surleau
wrote:
> > 1.) No need to use "()" to call a function with no arguments.
> > Python --> "obj.m2().m3()" --ugly
> > Ruby --> "obj.m1.m2.m3" -- sweeet!
> > Man, i must admit i really like this, and your code will look so much
> > cleaner.
>
> It has benefits -
> 1.) No need to use "()" to call a function with no arguments.
> Python --> "obj.m2().m3()" --ugly
> Ruby --> "obj.m1.m2.m3" -- sweeet!
> Man, i must admit i really like this, and your code will look so much
> cleaner.
It has benefits - code does look better. It has also significant cons - it
On Jul 30, 3:55 pm, Terry Reedy wrote:
> superpollo wrote:
> > r wrote:
> > how to reverse a string in python? must i usa a temp? like:
[snip]
> Terry Jan Reedy
No "r" never wrote anything like that. reversing a string is RTFM
material, this is basic stuff here! Stop quoting me as saying things i
superpollo wrote:
r wrote:
how to reverse a string in python? must i usa a temp? like:
>>> s = "ciccio"
>>> l = list(s)
>>> l.reverse()
>>> s = "".join(l)
>>> s
'oiccic'
>>>
???
No.
>>> ''.join(list(reversed('abc')))
'cba'
>>> 'abc'[2::-1]
'cba'
>>> 'abc'[10::-1]
'cba'
Any i
On 30 Jul 2009, at 22:23 , Jan Kaliszewski wrote:
30-07-2009 o 13:36:49 Masklinn wrote:
On 30 Jul 2009, at 06:04 , alex23 wrote:
On Jul 30, 1:06 pm, r wrote:
2.) the .each method
container.each{|localVar| block}
This method can really cleanup some ugly for loops, although i
really
like t
30-07-2009 o 13:36:49 Masklinn wrote:
On 30 Jul 2009, at 06:04 , alex23 wrote:
On Jul 30, 1:06 pm, r wrote:
2.) the .each method
container.each{|localVar| block}
This method can really cleanup some ugly for loops, although i really
like the readability of for loops.
map(lambda localVar: ,
MRAB wrote:
superpollo wrote:
...
how to reverse a string in python? must i usa a temp? like:
>>> s = "ciccio"
>>> l = list(s)
>>> l.reverse()
>>> s = "".join(l)
>>> s
'oiccic'
>>>
???
Use slicing with a step of -1:
>>> s = "ciccio"
>>> s[::-1]
'oiccic'
lol
bye
--
http://mail.py
superpollo wrote:
how to reverse a string in python? must i usa a temp? like:
>>> s = "ciccio"
>>> l = list(s)
>>> l.reverse()
>>> s = "".join(l)
>>> s
'oiccic'
>>>
???
bye
simply s = s[::-1]
DaveA
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
On 30 Jul 2009, at 20:06 , Falcolas wrote:
On Jul 30, 11:56 am, Masklinn wrote:
On 30 Jul 2009, at 19:37 , Jean-Michel Pichavant wrote:
r wrote:
How do I know if foo.value is an attribute or if it is a method that
returns the foo value ?
It cannot be an attribute. Ruby doesn't give acces
On 30 Jul 2009, at 20:05 , superpollo wrote:
r wrote:
On Jul 30, 12:15 pm, Masklinn wrote:
[snip]
Furthermore Ruby has a pretty nice convention (sadly not used
enough I think) taken from Scheme where it's possible to postfix
a method name with "!" (note: the "!" is part of the name,
the
superpollo wrote:
r wrote:
On Jul 30, 12:15 pm, Masklinn wrote:
[snip]
Furthermore Ruby has a pretty nice convention (sadly not used enough
I think) taken from Scheme where it's possible to postfix a method
name with "!" (note: the "!" is part of the name, there's no magic)
to indicate t
Tim Rowe wrote:
2009/7/30 r :
Like your
first lay, your first programing language can leave an indelible mark
on you
That's true. FOCAL scarred me for life.
but i now realize Ruby has some good
things going for it.
Any language that gets any sort of real use has to have. For instance,
On Jul 30, 11:56 am, Masklinn wrote:
> On 30 Jul 2009, at 19:37 , Jean-Michel Pichavant wrote:
>
> > r wrote:
> > How do I know if foo.value is an attribute or if it is a method that
> > returns the foo value ?
>
> It cannot be an attribute. Ruby doesn't give access to attributes,
> they're a
r wrote:
On Jul 30, 12:15 pm, Masklinn wrote:
[snip]
Furthermore Ruby has a pretty nice convention (sadly not used enough I
think) taken from Scheme where it's possible to postfix a method name
with "!" (note: the "!" is part of the name, there's no magic) to
indicate that this method mod
On 30 Jul 2009, at 19:42 , Carsten Haese wrote:
r wrote:
Of course in python you would do...
vector.reverse --> in-place
vector.reversed --> in-place
You do know that only one of those works in-place, right?
Well mostly because the other one doesn't exist (as python has
`lst.reverse()` bu
On 30 Jul 2009, at 19:37 , Jean-Michel Pichavant wrote:
r wrote:
On Jul 30, 11:31 am, Falcolas wrote:
On Jul 29, 9:06 pm, r wrote:
1.) No need to use "()" to call a function with no arguments.
Python --> "obj.m2().m3()" --ugly
Ruby --> "obj.m1.m2.m3" -- sweeet!
Man, i must admit i reall
2009/7/30 r :
>
> Like your
> first lay, your first programing language can leave an indelible mark
> on you
That's true. FOCAL scarred me for life.
> but i now realize Ruby has some good
> things going for it.
Any language that gets any sort of real use has to have. For instance,
I love Ada's n
r wrote:
> Of course in python you would do...
> vector.reverse --> in-place
> vector.reversed --> in-place
You do know that only one of those works in-place, right?
> The above example works pretty good, but this doesn't always "sound"
> good. Take for example this...
> point3d.offset -->
On Jul 30, 12:37 pm, Jean-Michel Pichavant
wrote:
> r wrote:
> > On Jul 30, 11:31 am, Falcolas wrote:
>
> >> On Jul 29, 9:06 pm, r wrote:
>
> >>> 1.) No need to use "()" to call a function with no arguments.
> >>> Python --> "obj.m2().m3()" --ugly
> >>> Ruby --> "obj.m1.m2.m3" -- sweeet!
> >>
r wrote:
On Jul 30, 11:31 am, Falcolas wrote:
On Jul 29, 9:06 pm, r wrote:
1.) No need to use "()" to call a function with no arguments.
Python --> "obj.m2().m3()" --ugly
Ruby --> "obj.m1.m2.m3" -- sweeet!
Man, i must admit i really like this, and your code will look so much
clean
Traceback (most recent post last):
File "", lines (13,14), in
vector.reverse --> in-place
vector.reversed --> in-place
DumbMistakeError:
Of course in python you would do...
vector.reverse --> in-place
vector.reversed --> new vector
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-
On Jul 30, 12:15 pm, Masklinn wrote:
[snip]
> Furthermore Ruby has a pretty nice convention (sadly not used enough I
> think) taken from Scheme where it's possible to postfix a method name
> with "!" (note: the "!" is part of the name, there's no magic) to
> indicate that this method modifie
On 30 Jul 2009, at 19:01 , Inky 788 wrote:
On Jul 30, 12:04 am, alex23 wrote:
On Jul 30, 1:06 pm, r wrote:
1.) No need to use "()" to call a function with no arguments.
Python --> "obj.m2().m3()" --ugly
Ruby --> "obj.m1.m2.m3" -- sweeet!
Man, i must admit i really like this, and your code
On 30 Jul 2009, at 18:31 , Falcolas wrote:
On Jul 29, 9:06 pm, r wrote:
1.) No need to use "()" to call a function with no arguments.
Python --> "obj.m2().m3()" --ugly
Ruby --> "obj.m1.m2.m3" -- sweeet!
Man, i must admit i really like this, and your code will look so much
cleaner.
I perso
On Jul 30, 11:31 am, Falcolas wrote:
> On Jul 29, 9:06 pm, r wrote:
>
> > 1.) No need to use "()" to call a function with no arguments.
> > Python --> "obj.m2().m3()" --ugly
> > Ruby --> "obj.m1.m2.m3" -- sweeet!
> > Man, i must admit i really like this, and your code will look so much
> > cle
On Jul 30, 12:04 am, alex23 wrote:
> On Jul 30, 1:06 pm, r wrote:
>
> > 1.) No need to use "()" to call a function with no arguments.
> > Python --> "obj.m2().m3()" --ugly
> > Ruby --> "obj.m1.m2.m3" -- sweeet!
> > Man, i must admit i really like this, and your code will look so much
> > clean
On Jul 29, 9:06 pm, r wrote:
> 1.) No need to use "()" to call a function with no arguments.
> Python --> "obj.m2().m3()" --ugly
> Ruby --> "obj.m1.m2.m3" -- sweeet!
> Man, i must admit i really like this, and your code will look so much
> cleaner.
I personally would not prefer this, and woul
Some have treated this as a troll. I don't.
r wrote:
[snip]
1.) No need to use "()" to call a function with no arguments.
Python --> "obj.m2().m3()" --ugly
Ruby --> "obj.m1.m2.m3" -- sweeet!
Man, i must admit i really like this, and your code will look so much
cleaner.
+1
2.) the .each me
On 30 Jul 2009, at 14:03 , superpollo wrote:
Masklinn wrote:
...
That's an interesting point, but not relevant at the end of the
day: `foo.length` and `length(foo)` have the same "practicality".
On the other hand Ruby can be praised for the coherence:
everything's a method period end of t
superpollo wrote:
Masklinn wrote:
...
That's an interesting point, but not relevant at the end of the day:
`foo.length` and `length(foo)` have the same "practicality". On the
other hand Ruby can be praised for the coherence: everything's a
method period end of the story; while Python does h
Masklinn wrote:
...
That's an interesting point, but not relevant at the end of the day:
`foo.length` and `length(foo)` have the same "practicality". On the
other hand Ruby can be praised for the coherence: everything's a method
period end of the story; while Python does have a dichotomy be
On 30 Jul 2009, at 06:04 , alex23 wrote:
On Jul 30, 1:06 pm, r wrote:
1.) No need to use "()" to call a function with no arguments.
Python --> "obj.m2().m3()" --ugly
Ruby --> "obj.m1.m2.m3" -- sweeet!
Man, i must admit i really like this, and your code will look so much
cleaner.
How do you
r wrote:
My adventures in Ruby.
Oh, it's you.
Good boy.
Now, why don't you have a look at javascript and come back in six months?
Or better yet, haskell and twelve months.
thanks
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
On Jul 29, 9:04 pm, alex23 wrote:
> On Jul 30, 1:06 pm, r wrote:
>
> > 1.) No need to use "()" to call a function with no arguments.
> > Python --> "obj.m2().m3()" --ugly
> > Ruby --> "obj.m1.m2.m3" -- sweeet!
> > Man, i must admit i really like this, and your code will look so much
> > cleane
On Wed, Jul 29, 2009 at 9:04 PM, alex23 wrote:
> On Jul 30, 1:06 pm, r wrote:
>> 1.) No need to use "()" to call a function with no arguments.
>> Python --> "obj.m2().m3()" --ugly
>> Ruby --> "obj.m1.m2.m3" -- sweeet!
>> Man, i must admit i really like this, and your code will look so much
>> c
On Jul 30, 1:06 pm, r wrote:
> 1.) No need to use "()" to call a function with no arguments.
> Python --> "obj.m2().m3()" --ugly
> Ruby --> "obj.m1.m2.m3" -- sweeet!
> Man, i must admit i really like this, and your code will look so much
> cleaner.
How do you distinguish between calling a meth
Hello fellow Pythonista's it's nice to be back after such a long
hiatus. I have recently realized my blind love affair with Python was
just that. I must admit there are better ways to program. Like your
first lay, your first programing language can leave an indelible mark
on you, but like all you
90 matches
Mail list logo
