Loic Mahe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Chris M write :
>> Multi-return value lambda? Just so you know, there is no concept of
>> returning more than one value from a function.
>
> I wrote:
>> * multi return value lambda
>
> I meant: multiple return statement, not return multiple values
>
> pseudo
Chris M write :
> Multi-return value lambda? Just so you know, there is no concept of
> returning more than one value from a function.
I wrote:
> * multi return value lambda
I meant: multiple return statement, not return multiple values
pseudo code here:
lambda x: if A return B, if C return D,
On 2007-11-10, Terry Reedy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I think you can regard 'No do statement' as rejected. Some
> consider the non-proliferation of loop constructs a feature. I
> believe this includes GvR.
Non-providing of the standard loop constructs, yes. But loop
constructs are plenty prol
"Diez B. Roggisch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>Overall, I'd say you don't stand a chance that your proposals will be
>adopted. They are minor variations of things that have been proposed &
>rejected too often to count - and to be honest: it get's tiresome
>beating the same old horses again and
"Paul Boddie" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
| I started tracking some of the complaints about Python and comparing
| them to Python 3000's supposed remedies. It's interesting reading:
|
| http://wiki.python.org/moin/PythonWarts
For ' Inconsistent/unpredictable compa
On 9 Nov, 20:43, Frank Samuelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> Carl Banks wrote:
>
> > What you say is correct in principle, but it's senseless to apply it to
> > something you use every day, like def. It's like arguing that irregular
> > verbs make speech less productive.
>
> They do for people wh
On Fri, 09 Nov 2007 11:41:24 -0500, Frank Samuelson wrote:
>> The ideas are
>> *never* fully thought out or materialized, and they invariably invite
>> scorn from the user community.
>
> Of course, they're thought out: They're stolen from another language.
> Specifically, the language in which
Frank Samuelson a écrit :
(snip)
>> Arbitrary changes to syntax are never going to fly. It's a lost cause.
>
>
> The changes are not arbitrary.
Which ones ?
> They are logical, consistent, less
> arbitrary and thus more productive.
For who ?
> If such
> changes are a lost cause, that is too
Frank Samuelson a écrit :
> Bruno Desthuilliers wrote:
>
>> Yes. Python deliberately choosed to be a statement-based language.
>>
>>> Why not use the = operator like most other assignments?
>>
>>
>> This dead horse has been beaten to hell and back.
>>
>> Note that as far as I'm concerned, I may li
On Thu, 2007-11-08 at 15:00 -0500, Frank Samuelson wrote:
> I love Python, and it is one of my 2 favorite
> languages. I would suggest that Python steal some
> aspects of the S language.
In general, I agree that Python has some antiquated concepts at its core
(statements being a major one) and th
"Frank Samuelson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
| My impression was that "consistency" was important to Python.
Important, but not over-riding of all else.
| "Consistency" improves my productivity because I don't have to
| keep referring to the manual. Things wo
Carl Banks wrote:
>> "Consistency" improves my productivity because I don't have to keep
>> referring to the manual. Things work the way I expect them to work.
>
> Really, should we be taking suggestions from someone who needs a manual
> to recall the syntax of the def statement?
>
> What you
On Fri, 09 Nov 2007 11:41:24 -0500, Frank Samuelson wrote:
>> There are at least 2 posts a month by someone who decides that they
>> want to re-wire Python syntax. Usually it's because of some particular
>> idiom they're used to in another language,
>
> And python does not use idioms from other
So you like my ideas too!
>
> There are at least 2 posts a month by someone who decides that they
> want to re-wire Python syntax. Usually it's because of some particular
> idiom they're used to in another language,
And python does not use idioms from other languages?
> in other cases it's be
Multi-return value lambda? Just so you know, there is no concept of
returning more than one value from a function.
def a(): return 1, 2
returns one value - a tuple of (1, 2).
lambda: (1, 2)
does the same thing.
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Frank Samuelson a écrit :
> foo = function(x,y) x+y*2 # Example S language code
> bar = foo
> bar(3,4)
> m = lapply( s, foo )
> bb = lapply(s, function(t) t[3]*4 )
Here you want all functions to be lambda functions:
you can get something very close to what you want,
just like this:
foo = lambd
On Nov 9, 9:52 am, Frank Samuelson
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Bruno Desthuilliers wrote:
> > Yes. Python deliberately choosed to be a statement-based language.
>
> >> Why not use the = operator like most other assignments?
>
> > This dead horse has been beaten to hell and back.
>
> > Note that as
On Nov 9, 2007 8:52 AM, Frank Samuelson
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Bruno Desthuilliers wrote:
>
> > Yes. Python deliberately choosed to be a statement-based language.
> >
> >> Why not use the = operator like most other assignments?
> >
> > This dead horse has been beaten to hell and back.
> >
> >
Bruno Desthuilliers wrote:
> Yes. Python deliberately choosed to be a statement-based language.
>
>> Why not use the = operator like most other assignments?
>
> This dead horse has been beaten to hell and back.
>
> Note that as far as I'm concerned, I may like an expression-based
> Python-insp
Frank Samuelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> It's also not clear how you expect this to work with anything more
>> complex than a single expression. How do you handle statements and
>> multiple returns?
> >
>> def foo(x, y):
>> L = []
>> try:
>> if x[y] % 2:
>> print
Steven D'Aprano wrote:
> Why? What benefit do you gain?
>
>> Define function objects as "function"s, let users put them where they
>> want to. Get rid of lambda, get rid of def, only use = for assignments.
>
> So you remove two keywords. That's a plus. But then you have to create a
> WHOLE lo
Steven D'Aprano <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Besides, if you want this behaviour, you can add it yourself:
>
> class mylist(list):
> # Untested!
> def __getitem__(self, index):
> if type(index) is list:
> return [self[i] for i in index]
> return super(mylist,
Scott David Daniels <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> To quote a poster at
http://www.thescripts.com/forum/thread22741.html,
>> "While we are at it, I also don't understand why sequences can't be
>> used as indices. Why not, say, l[[2,3]] or l[(2, 3)]? Why a special
>> slice concept? " Isn't that un
Frank Samuelson wrote:
> I love Python, and it is one of my 2 favorite
> languages. I would suggest that Python steal some
> aspects of the S language.
I generally agree with the various naye-sayers, but find one
argument missing:
> ---
> 2. Al
On Thu, 08 Nov 2007 15:00:03 -0500, Frank Samuelson wrote:
> 1. Currently in Python
> def foo(x,y): ...
> assigns the name foo to a function object. Is this pythonic?
>
> Why not use the = operator like most other assignments?
Why? What benefit do you gain?
> Define function objects as "func
Frank Samuelson a écrit :
> I love Python, and it is one of my 2 favorite
> languages. I would suggest that Python steal some
> aspects of the S language.
>
> ---
> 1. Currently in Python
> def foo(x,y): ...
> assigns the name foo to a function
Frank Samuelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I love Python, and it is one of my 2 favorite
> languages. I would suggest that Python steal some
> aspects of the S language.
I would suggest each of these be discussed in a separate thread, each
with a specific Subject field, rather than three loos
Frank Samuelson schrieb:
> I love Python, and it is one of my 2 favorite
> languages. I would suggest that Python steal some
> aspects of the S language.
>
> ---
> 1. Currently in Python
> def foo(x,y): ...
> assigns the name foo to a function
Frank Samuelson pisze:
> foo = function(x,y) x+y*2 # Example S language code
Ugly.
--
Jarek Zgoda
http://zgodowie.org/
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
On Nov 8, 3:00 pm, Frank Samuelson
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I know these ideas are not perfect, but I think they
> may be better... Fire away.
Python isn't Lisp.
Carl Banks
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
On Nov 8, 12:00 pm, Frank Samuelson
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> def foo(x,y): ...
> assigns the name foo to a function object.
>
> Why not use the = operator like most other assignments?
FWIW, the also binds the __name__ attribute:
foo = lambda(x,y): ...
foo.__name__ = 'foo'
Raymond
--
I love Python, and it is one of my 2 favorite
languages. I would suggest that Python steal some
aspects of the S language.
---
1. Currently in Python
def foo(x,y): ...
assigns the name foo to a function object. Is this pythonic?
Why not use t
32 matches
Mail list logo
