On Aug 8, 8:15 pm, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
> On Sun, 08 Aug 2010 17:43:03 -0700, rantingrick wrote:
> > Ruby has what they
> > call a "Here Doc". Besides picking the most boneheaded name for such an
> > object
>
> It's standard terminology that has been around for a long time in many
> different l
On Aug 9, 8:19 am, Mike Kent wrote:
> On Aug 8, 8:43 pm, rantingrick wrote:
> Xah, this is really you, isn't it. Come on, confess.
*MOI*, How could *I* be xah. I really don't like Ruby however he
gushes over it all the time. And he does not like Python that much
either. We are total opposites,
On 8/9/10 4:43 PM, Stefan Schwarzer wrote:
Hi Robert,
On 2010-08-09 22:23, Robert Kern wrote:
On 2010-08-09 06:42 , Stefan Schwarzer wrote:
Unfortunatey, when I enter
In [2]: %paste
at the prompt it gives me (before I pasted anything)
In [2]: %paste
-
On 9 Aug, 10:21, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
> And that it's quite finicky about blank lines between methods and inside
> functions. Makes it hard to paste code directly into the interpreter.
The combination of editor, debugger and interpreter is what I miss
most from Matlab. In Matlab we can have a
On 2010-08-09 23:43, Stefan Schwarzer wrote:
> I got that traceback as soon as I typed in "%paste" and
> pressed enter, without pasting anything in the terminal.
> I had assumed it works like :paste in Vim, activating a
I meant ":set paste" of course.
Stefan
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/lis
Hi Robert,
On 2010-08-09 22:23, Robert Kern wrote:
> On 2010-08-09 06:42 , Stefan Schwarzer wrote:
>> Unfortunatey, when I enter
>>
>>In [2]: %paste
>>
>> at the prompt it gives me (before I pasted anything)
>>
>>In [2]: %paste
>>
On 2010-08-09 06:42 , Stefan Schwarzer wrote:
Hi Steven,
On 2010-08-09 10:21, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
And that it's quite finicky about blank lines between methods and inside
functions. Makes it hard to paste code directly into the interpreter.
And that pasting doesn't strip out any leading pro
On Aug 8, 8:43 pm, rantingrick wrote:
> Hello folks,
>
> You all know i been forced to use Ruby and i am not happy about that.
***Blablabla cut long rant***
Xah, this is really you, isn't it. Come on, confess.
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Hi Steven,
On 2010-08-09 10:21, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
> And that it's quite finicky about blank lines between methods and inside
> functions. Makes it hard to paste code directly into the interpreter.
>
> And that pasting doesn't strip out any leading prompts. It needs a good
> doctest mode.
On Mon, 09 Aug 2010 00:29:19 -0700, rantingrick wrote:
> On Aug 8, 8:15 pm, Steven D'Aprano cybersource.com.au> wrote:
>
>> In Ruby they decided to be more general, so you can define whatever
>> heredoc you need to quote whatever literal string you need. That's not
>> bone-headed.
>
> Devils Ad
On Aug 8, 8:15 pm, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
> In Ruby they decided to be more general, so you can define whatever
> heredoc you need to quote whatever literal string you need. That's not
> bone-headed.
Devils Advocate!
PS: Man you're irb main was so full of cobweb i could barley see the
code... h
On Sun, 08 Aug 2010 17:43:03 -0700, rantingrick wrote:
> Ha. Ruby does not really have multi line strings.
Except, of course, it does, as you go on to show.
> Ruby has what they
> call a "Here Doc". Besides picking the most boneheaded name for such an
> object
It's standard terminology that
rantingrick wrote:
Hello folks,
[snip]
-
Strings
-
Single line strings are exactly the same in both languages except in
Ruby double quoted strings are backslash interpreted and single quote
strings are basically raw. Except Ruby introduces more cruft (a
Hello folks,
You all know i been forced to use Ruby and i am not happy about that.
But i thought i would share more compelling evidence of the moronicity
of the Ruby language syntax from the perspective of regexp's.
I recently built myself a nice little Ruby script editor because i
hate everythin
On Feb 16, 10:41 pm, Andrej Mitrovic
wrote:
> On Feb 16, 7:38 pm, Casey Hawthorne
> wrote:
>
> > Interesting talk on Python vs. Ruby and how he would like Python to
> > have just a bit more syntactic flexibility.
>
> >http://blog.extracheese.org/2010/02/pyt
On Feb 23, 1:03 pm, "Alf P. Steinbach" wrote:
>
> Uhm, Paganini...
>
> As I understand it he invented the "destroy your instruments on stage". :-)
>
> Cheers,
>
> - Alf (off-topic)
You probably meant Franz Liszt, who regularly broke piano strings.
Paganini was also a "rock-star" virtuoso but he d
* Paul Rubin:
Steve Howell writes:
My gut instinct is that functional programming works well for lots of
medium sized problems and it is worth learning.
I think it's worth learning because it will make you a better programmer
even if you never use it for anything beyond academic exercises. I
On Feb 22, 9:06 pm, Paul Rubin wrote:
> Steve Howell writes:
> > My gut instinct is that functional programming works well for lots of
> > medium sized problems and it is worth learning.
>
> I think it's worth learning because it will make you a better programmer
> even if you never use it for an
On Feb 22, 9:11 pm, Steve Howell wrote:
> On Feb 22, 8:35 pm, Jonathan Gardner
> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Mon, Feb 22, 2010 at 12:31 PM, John Bokma wrote:
>
> > > In my class there where basically 2 groups of people: the ones who got
> > > functional programming and the ones who had a hard time with
Steve Howell writes:
> My gut instinct is that functional programming works well for lots of
> medium sized problems and it is worth learning.
I think it's worth learning because it will make you a better programmer
even if you never use it for anything beyond academic exercises. It's
just like
On Feb 22, 8:35 pm, Jonathan Gardner
wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 22, 2010 at 12:31 PM, John Bokma wrote:
>
> > In my class there where basically 2 groups of people: the ones who got
> > functional programming and the ones who had a hard time with it. The
> > latter group consisted mostly of people who h
On Mon, Feb 22, 2010 at 12:31 PM, John Bokma wrote:
>
> In my class there where basically 2 groups of people: the ones who got
> functional programming and the ones who had a hard time with it. The
> latter group consisted mostly of people who had been programming in
> languages like C and Pascal
In message
<3aa0205f-1e98-4376-92e4-607f96f13...@k19g2000yqc.googlegroups.com>, Michael
Sparks wrote:
> [1] This is perhaps more appropriate because '(a b c) is equivalent
> to (quote a b c), and quote a b c can be viewed as close to
> python's expression "lambda: a b c"
You got to be k
John Bokma writes:
> In my class there where basically 2 groups of people: the ones who got
> functional programming and the ones who had a hard time with it. The
> latter group consisted mostly of people who had been programming in
> languages like C and Pascal for years; they had a hard time thi
In message <1ecc71bf-54ab-45e6-a38a-d1861f092...@v25g2000yqk.googlegroups.com>,
sjdevn...@yahoo.com wrote:
> On Feb 20, 1:30 am, Lawrence D'Oliveiro
> wrote:
>
>> In message , Rhodri James wrote:
>>
>> > In classic Pascal, a procedure was distinct from a function in that it
>> > had no return v
Jonathan Gardner writes:
> On Sun, Feb 21, 2010 at 10:22 AM, John Bokma wrote:
>> Jonathan Gardner writes:
>>> On Fri, Feb 19, 2010 at 11:16 PM, Lie Ryan wrote:
Now, why don't we start a PEP to make python a fully-functional language
then?
>>>
>>> Because people don't think the
Jonathan Gardner writes:
> I won't deny that really smart people enjoy the challenge of
> programming in a functional style, and some even find it easier to
> work with. However, when it comes to readability and maintenance, I
> appreciate the statement-based programming style, simply because it's
On Sun, Feb 21, 2010 at 10:22 AM, John Bokma wrote:
> Jonathan Gardner writes:
>> On Fri, Feb 19, 2010 at 11:16 PM, Lie Ryan wrote:
>>>
>>> Now, why don't we start a PEP to make python a fully-functional language
>>> then?
>>
>> Because people don't think the same way that programs are written i
Jonathan Gardner writes:
> On Fri, Feb 19, 2010 at 11:16 PM, Lie Ryan wrote:
>>
>> Now, why don't we start a PEP to make python a fully-functional language
>> then?
>
> Because people don't think the same way that programs are written in
> functional languages.
Heh! When I learned Miranda it fe
On Feb 20, 6:13 am, Michael Sparks wrote:
> On Feb 18, 4:15 pm, Steve Howell wrote:
> ...
>
> > def print_numbers()
> > [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6].map { |n|
> > [n * n, n * n * n]
> > }.reject { |square, cube|
> > square == 25 || cube == 64
> > }.map {
On Feb 18, 4:15 pm, Steve Howell wrote:
...
> def print_numbers()
> [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6].map { |n|
> [n * n, n * n * n]
> }.reject { |square, cube|
> square == 25 || cube == 64
> }.map { |square, cube|
> cube
> }.each { |n|
>
On Fri, Feb 19, 2010 at 11:17 PM, sjdevn...@yahoo.com
wrote:
> On Feb 20, 1:30 am, Lawrence D'Oliveiro central.gen.new_zealand> wrote:
>> If Python doesn’t distinguish between procedures and functions, why should
>> it distinguish between statements and expressions?
>
> Because the latter are dif
On Fri, Feb 19, 2010 at 11:16 PM, Lie Ryan wrote:
>
> Now, why don't we start a PEP to make python a fully-functional language
> then?
>
Because people don't think the same way that programs are written in
functional languages.
--
Jonathan Gardner
jgard...@jonathangardner.net
--
http://mail.py
On Feb 19, 11:12 pm, Steve Holden wrote:
> Ben Finney wrote:
> > Lawrence D'Oliveiro writes:
>
> >> If Python doesn’t distinguish between procedures and functions, why
> >> should it distinguish between statements and expressions?
>
> > I don't see the connection between those two predicates. Why
On Feb 19, 10:30 pm, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
> In message , Rhodri James wrote:
>
> > In classic Pascal, a procedure was distinct from a function in that it had
> > no return value. The concept doesn't really apply in Python; there are no
> > procedures in that sense, since if a function termi
On 02/20/10 18:17, sjdevn...@yahoo.com wrote:
> On Feb 20, 1:30 am, Lawrence D'Oliveiro central.gen.new_zealand> wrote:
>> In message , Rhodri James wrote:
>>
>>> In classic Pascal, a procedure was distinct from a function in that it had
>>> no return value. The concept doesn't really apply in Py
On 02/20/10 17:30, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
> In message , Rhodri James wrote:
>
>> In classic Pascal, a procedure was distinct from a function in that it had
>> no return value. The concept doesn't really apply in Python; there are no
>> procedures in that sense, since if a function terminates
On Feb 20, 1:30 am, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
> In message , Rhodri James wrote:
>
> > In classic Pascal, a procedure was distinct from a function in that it had
> > no return value. The concept doesn't really apply in Python; there are no
> > procedures in that sense, since if a function termin
On Feb 20, 1:28 am, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
> In message <87eikjcuzk@benfinney.id.au>, Ben Finney wrote:
>
>
>
> > Lawrence D'Oliveiro writes:
>
> >> In message , cjw wrote:
>
> >> > Aren't lambda forms better described as function?
>
> >> Is this a function?
>
> >> lambda : None
>
> >
Ben Finney wrote:
> Lawrence D'Oliveiro writes:
>
>> If Python doesn’t distinguish between procedures and functions, why
>> should it distinguish between statements and expressions?
>
> I don't see the connection between those two predicates. Why does the
> former matter when determining the “sh
Lawrence D'Oliveiro writes:
> If Python doesn’t distinguish between procedures and functions, why
> should it distinguish between statements and expressions?
I don't see the connection between those two predicates. Why does the
former matter when determining the “should” of the latter?
--
\
Lawrence D'Oliveiro writes:
> So there is no distinction between functions and procedures, then?
In Python, no.
--
\ “When we pray to God we must be seeking nothing — nothing.” |
`\ —Saint Francis of Assisi |
_o__)
In message , Rhodri James wrote:
> In classic Pascal, a procedure was distinct from a function in that it had
> no return value. The concept doesn't really apply in Python; there are no
> procedures in that sense, since if a function terminates without supplying
> an explicit return value it retu
In message <84166541-c10a-47b5-ae5b-
b23202624...@q2g2000pre.googlegroups.com>, Steve Howell wrote:
> Some people make the definition of function more restrictive--"if it
> has side effects, it is not a function."
Does changing the contents of CPU cache count as a side-effect?
--
http://mail.pyt
In message <87eikjcuzk@benfinney.id.au>, Ben Finney wrote:
> Lawrence D'Oliveiro writes:
>
>> In message , cjw wrote:
>>
>> > Aren't lambda forms better described as function?
>>
>> Is this a function?
>>
>> lambda : None
>>
>> What about this?
>>
>> lambda : sys.stdout.write("hi the
On 02/19/10 14:57, Steve Howell wrote:
> In a more real world example, the intermediate results would be
> something like this:
>
>departments
>departments_in_new_york
>departments_in_new_york_not_on_bonus_cycle
>employees_in_departments_in_new_york_not_on_bonus_cycle
>names_of
On Feb 19, 9:30 am, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
> On Fri, 19 Feb 2010 08:32:53 -0800, Steve Howell wrote:
> > The extra expressiveness of Ruby comes from the fact that you can add
> > statements within the block, which I find useful sometimes just for
> > debugging purposes:
>
> > debug = true
> >
On Fri, 19 Feb 2010 08:32:53 -0800, Steve Howell wrote:
> The extra expressiveness of Ruby comes from the fact that you can add
> statements within the block, which I find useful sometimes just for
> debugging purposes:
>
> debug = true
> data = strange_dataset_from_third_party_code()
>
On Feb 19, 7:50 am, Roald de Vries wrote:
> > This pipeline idea has actually been implemented further, see > blog.onideas.ws/stream.py>.
>
> > from stream import map, filter, cut
> > range(10) >> map(lambda x: [x**2, x**3]) >> filter(lambda t: t[0]!
> > =25 and t[1]!=64) >> cut[1] >> list
> > [0
This pipeline idea has actually been implemented further, see .
from stream import map, filter, cut
range(10) >> map(lambda x: [x**2, x**3]) >> filter(lambda t: t[0]!
=25 and t[1]!=64) >> cut[1] >> list
[0, 1, 8, 27, 216, 343, 512, 729]
Wow, cool!
Just to show that you can easily add the itera
On Feb 19, 1:44 pm, Steve Howell wrote:
>
> > def coroutine(co):
> > def _inner(*args, **kwargs):
> > gen = co(*args, **kwargs)
> > gen.next()
> > return gen
> > return _inner
>
> > def squares_and_cubes(lst, target):
> > for n in lst:
> > target.send((n * n, n
On Feb 18, 9:52 pm, Gregory Ewing wrote:
> Steve Howell wrote:
> > Python may not support the broadest notion of anonymous functions, but
> > it definitely has anonymous blocks. You can write this in Python:
>
> > for i in range(10):
> > print i
> > print i * i
> > pri
On Feb 18, 9:37 pm, Kurt Smith wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 18, 2010 at 10:46 PM, Steve Howell wrote:
> > On Feb 18, 2:49 pm, Jonathan Gardner
> > wrote:
> >> On Feb 18, 8:15 am, Steve Howell wrote:
>
> >> > def print_numbers()
> >> > [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6].map { |n|
> >> > [n * n,
On Feb 18, 9:46 pm, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
> On Thu, 18 Feb 2010 19:57:35 -0800, Steve Howell wrote:
> > The names you give to the intermediate results here are terse--"tuples"
> > and "filtered"--so your code reads nicely.
>
> > In a more real world example, the intermediate results would be
> >
On Fri, 19 Feb 2010 18:52:20 +1300, Gregory Ewing wrote:
> The Ruby approach has the advantage of making it possible to implement
> user-defined control structures without requiring a macro facility. You
> can't do that in Python.
[...]
> Also, most people who advocate adding some form of block-p
On Feb 18, 9:41 pm, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
> On Thu, 18 Feb 2010 22:48:21 -0500, Steve Holden wrote:
> > Next week: Lesson 2 - Ad Hominem Attacks
>
> I wouldn't pay any attention to Steve, all Stevens are notorious liars.
>
> --
> Steven
Especially when their last name starts with H.
Cheers,
St
On Thu, 18 Feb 2010 19:57:35 -0800, Steve Howell wrote:
> The names you give to the intermediate results here are terse--"tuples"
> and "filtered"--so your code reads nicely.
>
> In a more real world example, the intermediate results would be
> something like this:
>
>departments
>depart
Steve Howell wrote:
Python may not support the broadest notion of anonymous functions, but
it definitely has anonymous blocks. You can write this in Python:
for i in range(10):
print i
print i * i
print i * i * i
There's a clear difference between this and a Ruby
On Thu, 18 Feb 2010 22:48:21 -0500, Steve Holden wrote:
> Next week: Lesson 2 - Ad Hominem Attacks
I wouldn't pay any attention to Steve, all Stevens are notorious liars.
--
Steven
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Steve Howell writes:
>> http://haskell.org/ghc/docs/6.10.4/html/users_guide/syntax-extns.html...
>> might be of interest. Maybe Ruby and/or Python could grow something similar.
> Can you elaborate?
List comprehensions are a Python feature you're probably familiar with,
and I think Ruby has somet
On Feb 18, 7:58 pm, Paul Rubin wrote:
> Steve Howell writes:
> >> But frankly, although there's no reason that you _have_ to name the
> >> content at each step, I find it a lot more readable if you do:
>
> >> def print_numbers():
> >> tuples = [(n*n, n*n*n) for n in (1,2,3,4,5,6)]
> >> fi
On Thu, Feb 18, 2010 at 10:46 PM, Steve Howell wrote:
> On Feb 18, 2:49 pm, Jonathan Gardner
> wrote:
>> On Feb 18, 8:15 am, Steve Howell wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> > def print_numbers()
>> > [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6].map { |n|
>> > [n * n, n * n * n]
>> > }.reject { |square, cu
On Feb 18, 8:27 pm, "sjdevn...@yahoo.com" wrote:
> On Feb 18, 10:58 pm, Paul Rubin wrote:
>
> Steve Howell writes:
> > >> But frankly, although there's no reason that you _have_ to name the
> > >> content at each step, I find it a lot more readable if you do:
>
> > >> def print_numbers():
> > >
On Feb 18, 7:58 pm, Paul Rubin wrote:
> Steve Howell writes:
> >> But frankly, although there's no reason that you _have_ to name the
> >> content at each step, I find it a lot more readable if you do:
>
> >> def print_numbers():
> >> tuples = [(n*n, n*n*n) for n in (1,2,3,4,5,6)]
> >> fi
On Feb 18, 2:49 pm, Jonathan Gardner
wrote:
> On Feb 18, 8:15 am, Steve Howell wrote:
>
>
>
> > def print_numbers()
> > [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6].map { |n|
> > [n * n, n * n * n]
> > }.reject { |square, cube|
> > square == 25 || cube == 64
> > }.map {
On Feb 18, 10:58 pm, Paul Rubin wrote:
> Steve Howell writes:
> >> But frankly, although there's no reason that you _have_ to name the
> >> content at each step, I find it a lot more readable if you do:
>
> >> def print_numbers():
> >> tuples = [(n*n, n*n*n) for n in (1,2,3,4,5,6)]
> >> f
Steve Howell writes:
>> But frankly, although there's no reason that you _have_ to name the
>> content at each step, I find it a lot more readable if you do:
>>
>> def print_numbers():
>> tuples = [(n*n, n*n*n) for n in (1,2,3,4,5,6)]
>> filtered = [ cube for (square, cube) in tuples if s
On Feb 18, 3:04 pm, "sjdevn...@yahoo.com" wrote:
> On Feb 18, 11:15 am, Steve Howell wrote:
>
> > def print_numbers()
> > [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6].map { |n|
> > [n * n, n * n * n]
> > }.reject { |square, cube|
> > square == 25 || cube == 64
> > }.map
Steven D'Aprano wrote:
> On Thu, 18 Feb 2010 06:15:20 -0800, Steve Howell wrote:
[...]
> There really ought to be a special level of Hell for people who misuse
> "strawman" to mean "a weak or invalid argument" instead of what it
> actually means, which is a weak or invalid argument NOT HELD by yo
On Feb 18, 3:00 pm, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
> [...]
> You wouldn't name your functions:
>
> f01, f02, f03, f04, ... f99
>
Exactly.
> (say), unless you were trying to deliberately obfuscate your code.
> Anonymous functions are even more obfuscated than that. You can get away
> with it so long as y
On Feb 18, 3:04 pm, "sjdevn...@yahoo.com" wrote:
>
> You could do it without intermediate names or lambdas in Python as:
> def print_numbers():
> for i in [ cube for (square, cube) in
> [(n*n, n*n*n) for n in [1,2,3,4,5,6]]
> if square!=25 and cube!=64 ]
John Bokma writes:
> Jonathan Gardner writes:
>
>> On Feb 18, 8:15 am, Steve Howell wrote:
>>>
>>> def print_numbers()
>>> [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6].map { |n|
>>> [n * n, n * n * n]
>>> }.reject { |square, cube|
>>> square == 25 || cube == 64
>>> }.m
Jonathan Gardner writes:
> On Feb 18, 8:15 am, Steve Howell wrote:
>>
>> def print_numbers()
>> [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6].map { |n|
>> [n * n, n * n * n]
>> }.reject { |square, cube|
>> square == 25 || cube == 64
>> }.map { |square, cube|
>>
On Feb 18, 11:15 am, Steve Howell wrote:
> def print_numbers()
> [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6].map { |n|
> [n * n, n * n * n]
> }.reject { |square, cube|
> square == 25 || cube == 64
> }.map { |square, cube|
> cube
> }.each { |n|
>
On Thu, 18 Feb 2010 08:15:46 -0800, Steve Howell wrote:
> Just to be clear, I'm not saying it's unforgivable to occasionally ship
> software with bugs. It happens.
"Occasionally"? Oh, if only.
I would say that there probably isn't a non-trivial application in the
world that is entirely bug-fre
On Feb 18, 8:15 am, Steve Howell wrote:
>
> def print_numbers()
> [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6].map { |n|
> [n * n, n * n * n]
> }.reject { |square, cube|
> square == 25 || cube == 64
> }.map { |square, cube|
> cube
> }.each { |n|
>
On Thu, 18 Feb 2010 06:15:20 -0800, Steve Howell wrote:
> On Feb 18, 1:23 am, Duncan Booth wrote:
>> Jonathan Gardner wrote:
>> > On Feb 17, 12:02 am, Lawrence D'Oliveiro > > central.gen.new_zealand> wrote:
>> >> In message
>> >> <8ca440b2-6094-4b35-80c5-81d000517...@v20g2000prb.googlegroups.com
On Feb 18, 7:50 am, Duncan Booth wrote:
> Steve Howell wrote:
> > If this is an argument against using anonymous functions, then it is a
> > quadruple strawman.
>
> > Shipping buggy code is a bad idea, even with named functions.
>
> I doubt very much whether I have ever shipped any bug-free code
Steve Howell wrote:
> If this is an argument against using anonymous functions, then it is a
> quadruple strawman.
>
> Shipping buggy code is a bad idea, even with named functions.
I doubt very much whether I have ever shipped any bug-free code but
even if it was fit for purpose when shipped it
On Feb 18, 1:23 am, Duncan Booth wrote:
> Jonathan Gardner wrote:
> > On Feb 17, 12:02 am, Lawrence D'Oliveiro > central.gen.new_zealand> wrote:
> >> In message
> >> <8ca440b2-6094-4b35-80c5-81d000517...@v20g2000prb.googlegroups.com>,
>
> >> Jonathan Gardner wrote:
> >> > I used to think anonymo
Jonathan Gardner wrote:
> On Feb 17, 12:02 am, Lawrence D'Oliveiro central.gen.new_zealand> wrote:
>> In message
>> <8ca440b2-6094-4b35-80c5-81d000517...@v20g2000prb.googlegroups.com>,
>>
>> Jonathan Gardner wrote:
>> > I used to think anonymous functions (AKA blocks, etc...) would be a
>> > nic
On Feb 17, 10:39 am, John Bokma wrote:
> Jonathan Gardner writes:
> > Then I looked at a stack trace from a different programming language
> > with lots of anonymous functions. (I believe it was perl.)
>
> > I became enlightened.
>
> If it was Perl [1], I doubt it. Because line numbers are report
On Feb 16, 4:19 pm, Jonathan Gardner
wrote:
> On Feb 16, 11:41 am, Andrej Mitrovic
> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Feb 16, 7:38 pm, Casey Hawthorne
> > wrote:
>
> > > Interesting talk on Python vs. Ruby and how he would like Python to
> > > have ju
On Feb 17, 5:39 pm, Steven D'Aprano
wrote:
> On Wed, 17 Feb 2010 17:04:00 -0800, Jonathan Gardner wrote:
> > (What the heck is a procedure, anyway? Is this different from a
> > subroutine, a method, or a block?)
>
> The name is used in Pascal, which probably means it originated from
> Fortran or A
Steven D'Aprano writes:
> On Wed, 17 Feb 2010 12:39:30 -0600, John Bokma wrote:
[..]
>> If it was Perl [1], I doubt it. Because line numbers are reported, and
>> if that doesn't help you, you can annotate anonymous functions with a
>> nick name using
>>
>> local *__ANON__ = 'nice name';
> [..
On Wed, 17 Feb 2010 17:04:00 -0800, Jonathan Gardner wrote:
> (What the heck is a procedure, anyway? Is this different from a
> subroutine, a method, or a block?)
The name is used in Pascal, which probably means it originated from
Fortran or Algol.
A subroutine is a generic piece of code which
On Thu, 18 Feb 2010 01:04:00 -, Jonathan Gardner
wrote:
On Feb 17, 12:02 am, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
In message <60b1abce-4381-46ab-91ed-
f2ab2154c...@g19g2000yqe.googlegroups.com>, Andrej Mitrovic wrote:
> Also, lambda's are expressions, not statements ...
Is such a distinction Py
On Wed, 17 Feb 2010 12:39:30 -0600, John Bokma wrote:
> Jonathan Gardner writes:
>
>> Then I looked at a stack trace from a different programming language
>> with lots of anonymous functions. (I believe it was perl.)
>>
>> I became enlightened.
>
> If it was Perl [1], I doubt it. Because line n
On Feb 17, 12:02 am, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
> In message <60b1abce-4381-46ab-91ed-
>
> f2ab2154c...@g19g2000yqe.googlegroups.com>, Andrej Mitrovic wrote:
> > Also, lambda's are expressions, not statements ...
>
> Is such a distinction Pythonic, or not? For example, does Python distinguish
> be
On Feb 17, 12:02 am, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
> In message
> <8ca440b2-6094-4b35-80c5-81d000517...@v20g2000prb.googlegroups.com>,
>
> Jonathan Gardner wrote:
> > I used to think anonymous functions (AKA blocks, etc...) would be a
> > nice feature for Python.
>
> > Then I looked at a stack trace
On Feb 17, 10:39 am, John Bokma wrote:
> Jonathan Gardner writes:
> > Then I looked at a stack trace from a different programming language
> > with lots of anonymous functions. (I believe it was perl.)
>
> > I became enlightened.
>
> If it was Perl [1], I doubt it. Because line numbers are report
On Thu, 18 Feb 2010 11:46:52 +1300, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
> In message , cjw wrote:
>
>> Aren't lambda forms better described as function?
>
> Is this a function?
>
> lambda : None
>
> What about this?
>
> lambda : sys.stdout.write("hi there!\n")
Of course they are; the first is
Lawrence D'Oliveiro writes:
> In message , cjw wrote:
>
> > Aren't lambda forms better described as function?
>
> Is this a function?
>
> lambda : None
>
> What about this?
>
> lambda : sys.stdout.write("hi there!\n")
They are both lambda forms in Python. As a Python expression, they
eva
On 2/17/2010 5:46 PM, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
In message, cjw wrote:
Aren't lambda forms better described as function?
Is this a function?
lambda : None
What about this?
lambda : sys.stdout.write("hi there!\n")
To repeat: Python lambda expressions evaluate to function object
In message , cjw wrote:
> Aren't lambda forms better described as function?
Is this a function?
lambda : None
What about this?
lambda : sys.stdout.write("hi there!\n")
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
On 2/17/2010 1:51 PM, cjw wrote:
On 17-Feb-10 05:48 AM, Bruno Desthuilliers wrote:
Lawrence D'Oliveiro a écrit :
In message <60b1abce-4381-46ab-91ed-
f2ab2154c...@g19g2000yqe.googlegroups.com>, Andrej Mitrovic wrote:
Also, lambda's are expressions, not statements ...
Is such a distinction P
On 17-Feb-10 05:48 AM, Bruno Desthuilliers wrote:
Lawrence D'Oliveiro a écrit :
In message <60b1abce-4381-46ab-91ed-
f2ab2154c...@g19g2000yqe.googlegroups.com>, Andrej Mitrovic wrote:
Also, lambda's are expressions, not statements ...
Is such a distinction Pythonic, or not?
Python is (by d
Jonathan Gardner writes:
> Then I looked at a stack trace from a different programming language
> with lots of anonymous functions. (I believe it was perl.)
>
> I became enlightened.
If it was Perl [1], I doubt it. Because line numbers are reported, and
if that doesn't help you, you can annotate
Lawrence D'Oliveiro a écrit :
In message <60b1abce-4381-46ab-91ed-
f2ab2154c...@g19g2000yqe.googlegroups.com>, Andrej Mitrovic wrote:
Also, lambda's are expressions, not statements ...
Is such a distinction Pythonic, or not?
Python is (by design) a statement-based language, so yes, this
d
Aahz a écrit :
In article <8ca440b2-6094-4b35-80c5-81d000517...@v20g2000prb.googlegroups.com>,
Jonathan Gardner wrote:
I used to think anonymous functions (AKA blocks, etc...) would be a
nice feature for Python.
Then I looked at a stack trace from a different programming language
with lots of
1 - 100 of 172 matches
Mail list logo
