Ron_Adam wrote:
> On Fri, 25 Mar 2005 18:58:27 +0100, Reinhold Birkenfeld
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>Ron_Adam wrote:
>>
>>> What if you could:
>>>
>>> x = lambda{ x, y: x+y}
>>> Hmm comma creates a problem here. so...
>>
> from __future__ import braces
>>SyntaxError: not a chance
On Fri, 25 Mar 2005 18:58:27 +0100, Reinhold Birkenfeld
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Ron_Adam wrote:
>
>> What if you could:
>>
>> x = lambda{ x, y: x+y}
>> Hmm comma creates a problem here. so...
>
from __future__ import braces
>SyntaxError: not a chance
>
>Reinhold ;)
LOL, :-)
Ron_Adam wrote:
> What if you could:
>
> x = lambda{ x, y: x+y}
> Hmm comma creates a problem here. so...
>>> from __future__ import braces
SyntaxError: not a chance
>>>
Reinhold ;)
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
On 24 Mar 2005 22:16:10 -0800, "Kay Schluehr" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>It's all developed during this discussion. Sometimes I'm a bit
>surprised were it goes.
I enjoy exploring ideas this way. Many times it leads to dead ends or
you just end up with a long way back to where you started, but
so
"Kay Schluehr" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> To make my intention clear for another time, also for George who
> mistrusts these exercises alltogether. I want to derive a syntax and
> semantics for anonymus functions ( called "tuple-actions" ) that are
> generalizations of rules that are already use
Ron_Adam wrote:
> On 24 Mar 2005 01:58:48 -0800, "Kay Schluehr" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
> >I personally don't like using exec and eval for stuff different from
> >evaluating user input.
>
> I lean the other way. I never want to use user impute for eval and
> exec. Way too risky.
Well a Py
On 24 Mar 2005 01:58:48 -0800, "Kay Schluehr" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>I personally don't like using exec and eval for stuff different from
>evaluating user input.
I lean the other way. I never want to use user impute for eval and
exec. Way too risky. But limited use, that is not user input,
On Thu, 24 Mar 2005 12:07:44 -0500, "George Sakkis"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>"Kay Schluehr" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> [snipped]
>>
>> Wouldn't it be fun to use in Python?
>>
>> Only drawback: does not look like executable pseudo-code anymore :(
>>
>>
>> Regards Kay
>
>I don't know if it wou
"Kay Schluehr" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [snipped]
>
> Wouldn't it be fun to use in Python?
>
> Only drawback: does not look like executable pseudo-code anymore :(
>
>
> Regards Kay
I don't know if it would be fun, but it certainly doesn't look accessible to
mere mortals :-) I'm
not sure if th
Ron wrote:
> On Wed, 23 Mar 2005 06:21:30 +0100, Kay Schluehr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
> >I think my proposal was more in mind of Rons modified exec than
> >Pythons lambda.
> >
> >When George proposed his unpacking behavoir for list-comps as a pack
of
> >suggar:
> >
> >1. [x*y-z for (x,y,z=0)
On Wed, 23 Mar 2005 06:21:30 +0100, Kay Schluehr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>I think my proposal was more in mind of Rons modified exec than
>Pythons lambda.
>
>When George proposed his unpacking behavoir for list-comps as a pack of
>suggar:
>
>1. [x*y-z for (x,y,z=0) in (1,2,3), (4,5), (6,7,8)]
>
Kay Schluehr wrote:
Hi all,
thanks for Your attention !
I think my proposal was more in mind of Rons modified exec than
Pythons lambda.
When George proposed his unpacking behavoir for list-comps as a pack of
suggar:
1. [x*y-z for (x,y,z=0) in (1,2,3), (4,5), (6,7,8)]
I interpreted it in a subsequen
12 matches
Mail list logo
