I missed this reply earlier.
Fredrik Lundh wrote:
> there might be cognitive theories that argue that the length of the
> symbols used to describe something is more important than the symbols
> you use and how they can be "chunked" by the brain
Expert communication is known to work differently. F
Anton Vredegoor wrote:
> Paul Boddie wrote:
> >
> > I was going to write a long reply to one of your previous messages, but
> > the above link references a project which may intersect with some of
> > your expectations. Meanwhile, it should be noted that the availability
>
> Somehow I get the impre
Anton Vredegoor wrote:
(snip)
> However, I knew of the existence of such languages but I am mostly
> interested in standardized code interchange, like for example with JSONP
> which fetches some external javascriptcode from another server using
> JSON and places the translated javascript into a we
Anton Vredegoor wrote:
> Paul Boddie wrote:
>
> > Anton Vredegoor wrote:
>
> >> Yes, but also what some other posters mentioned, making Pythons internal
> >> parsing tree available to other programs (and to Python itself) by using
> >> a widely used standard like XML as its datatype.
> >
> > http:
Anton Vredegoor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> However, I knew of the existence of such languages but I am
> mostly interested in standardized code interchange, like for
> example with JSONP which fetches some external javascriptcode
> from another server using JSON and places the translated
Paul Boddie wrote:
> Anton Vredegoor wrote:
>> Yes, but also what some other posters mentioned, making Pythons internal
>> parsing tree available to other programs (and to Python itself) by using
>> a widely used standard like XML as its datatype.
>
> http://pysch.sourceforge.net/ast.html
Very
Ravi Teja wrote:
> You blogged on Django. Let's use that. Don't you think model creation
> in Django can be represented better, given that it is done often
> enough?
nope, because 1) it's not done very often, and 2) the existing syntax is
already very minimal, and defined in terms of a languag
> I don't think that distinction is very meaningful. As a programmer I
> have to understand both.
> I understand the Python compiler well, and it gives me reasonably good
> feedback when I
> get things wrong, and it has a lot of flexibility along several
> orthogonal lines.
> We're talking about
Anton Vredegoor wrote:
> Bruno Desthuilliers wrote:
>
> > You mean like 'converting' javascript to python or python to ruby (or
> > converting any home-grown DSL to Python, etc) ?
>
> Yes, but also what some other posters mentioned, making Pythons internal
> parsing tree available to other programs
Bruno Desthuilliers wrote:
> You mean like 'converting' javascript to python or python to ruby (or
> converting any home-grown DSL to Python, etc) ?
Yes, but also what some other posters mentioned, making Pythons internal
parsing tree available to other programs (and to Python itself) by using
Ravi Teja wrote:
> > Or... maybe to be more specific, the hard work later on goes into
> > *code*. If you are enhancing your model, you do so with methods on the
> > model classes, and those methods don't effect the DSL, they are just
> > "code". You create some raw XML in the beginning, but quic
> Or... maybe to be more specific, the hard work later on goes into
> *code*. If you are enhancing your model, you do so with methods on the
> model classes, and those methods don't effect the DSL, they are just
> "code". You create some raw XML in the beginning, but quickly it's
> just a matter
Anton Vredegoor wrote:
> Diez B. Roggisch wrote:
>
> <...>
>
>>> The whole point of a code transformation mechanism like the one Anton is
>>> talking about is to be dynamic. Else one just needs a preprocessor...
>>
>>
>> No, it is not the whole point. The point is
>> ""
>> The idea is that we now
Diez B. Roggisch wrote:
<...>
>> The whole point of a code transformation mechanism like the one Anton is
>> talking about is to be dynamic. Else one just needs a preprocessor...
>
> No, it is not the whole point. The point is
>
> ""
> The idea is that we now have a fast parser (ElementTree) w
bruno at modulix wrote:
> Anton Vredegoor wrote:
>> bruno at modulix wrote:
>>
>>> I still don't get the point.
>>
>> Well, I've got to be careful here, lest I'd be associated with the
>> terr.., eh, the childp..., eh the macro-enablers.
>>
>> The idea is to have a way to transform a Python (.py) m
>> While the _result_ of a transformation might be a less efficient piece of
>> code (e.g. introducing a lock around each call to enable concurrent
>> access), the transformation itself is very - if not totally - static -
>
> really ?
See below.
> Nope, it's runned each time the module is loade
Diez B. Roggisch wrote:
> bruno at modulix wrote:
>
>
>>Diez B. Roggisch wrote:
>>
>because lots of people know how to describe XML transformations, and
>there are plenty of tools that implement such transformations
>efficiently ?
Efficiently enough for dynamic (runtime)
bruno at modulix wrote:
> Diez B. Roggisch wrote:
because lots of people know how to describe XML transformations, and
there are plenty of tools that implement such transformations
efficiently ?
>>>
>>>
>>> Efficiently enough for dynamic (runtime) use ?
>>
>>
>> Using XML-transfor
Diez B. Roggisch wrote:
>>> because lots of people know how to describe XML transformations, and
>>> there are plenty of tools that implement such transformations
>>> efficiently ?
>>
>>
>> Efficiently enough for dynamic (runtime) use ?
>
>
> Using XML-transformation for AST manipulation isn't my
Fredrik Lundh wrote:
> Kay Schluehr wrote:
>
> > If it is just a different kind of representation of common data
> > structures
>
> but how do you know ?
>
>
The semantics is specified by the syntax transformer so it is actually
compile-time semantics relative to the base language Python . For a
Fredrik Lundh a écrit :
> Laurent Pointal wrote:
>
The idea is to have a way to transform a Python (.py) module into XML
and then do source code manipulations in XML-space using ElementTree.
>>>
>>> My my my... I'm not against the idea of dynamic source code
>>> transformation, but for h
Kay Schluehr wrote:
> If it is just a different kind of representation of common data
> structures
but how do you know ?
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Ian Bicking wrote:
> > I don't use Django and I made this up quickly, so please don't pick on
> > subtleties.
> >
> > @Poll:
> > question: char length 200
> > pub_date('date published'): date
> >
> > @Choice:
> > poll -> Poll
> > choice: char length 200
> > votes: int
>
> That
Fredrik Lundh wrote:
> because lots of people know how to describe XML transformations, and
> there are plenty of tools that implement such transformations efficiently ?
>
> why would XML be inefficient ?
XML Transformations (XSLT) would *certainly* be an overkill here.
They've invented a whole
Ravi Teja wrote:
> Fredrik Lundh wrote:
> > Ravi Teja wrote:
> >
> > > Web frameworks, which seem to be the rage now in Python community could
> > > have benefited tremendously from Macro capabilities since they have a
> > > lot of boiler plate.
> >
> > they do? methinks you haven't done much web
>> because lots of people know how to describe XML transformations, and
>> there are plenty of tools that implement such transformations efficiently ?
>
> Efficiently enough for dynamic (runtime) use ?
Using XML-transformation for AST manipulation isn't my first choice
either - yet efficiency co
Kay Schluehr wrote:
> Ravi Teja wrote:
>
> > People have however written various language interpreters (Scheme,
> > Forth and yes, even Basic) in Python, just for kicks. Still does not
> > make it a DSL language anymore than it makes C a DSL language.
> >
> > At present, the closest thing to writin
BJörn Lindqvist wrote:
> > > > community has no interest in it. When I absolutely need macros, I will
> > > > go elsewhere.
> > I *like* 1..5 (ada, ruby) instead of range(5). If I had macros, I would
> > have done it myself for *my* code.
> I think this example more is a symptom of a childish nee
Fredrik Lundh wrote:
> Laurent Pointal wrote:
>> Bruno Desthuilliers wrote:
>>> Anton Vredegoor wrote:
The idea is to have a way to transform a Python (.py) module into XML
and then do source code manipulations in XML-space using ElementTree.
>
>>>
>
>>> My my my... I'm not against th
Ravi Teja wrote:
> People have however written various language interpreters (Scheme,
> Forth and yes, even Basic) in Python, just for kicks. Still does not
> make it a DSL language anymore than it makes C a DSL language.
>
> At present, the closest thing to writing a DSL in Python is Logix
> htt
Laurent Pointal wrote:
>>> The idea is to have a way to transform a Python (.py) module into XML
>>> and then do source code manipulations in XML-space using ElementTree.
>>
>> My my my... I'm not against the idea of dynamic source code
>> transformation, but for heaven's sake, *why* would one pu
bruno at modulix a écrit :
> Anton Vredegoor wrote:
>> bruno at modulix wrote:
>>
>>> I still don't get the point.
>>
>> Well, I've got to be careful here, lest I'd be associated with the
>> terr.., eh, the childp..., eh the macro-enablers.
>>
>> The idea is to have a way to transform a Python (.py
Anton Vredegoor wrote:
> bruno at modulix wrote:
>
>> I still don't get the point.
>
>
> Well, I've got to be careful here, lest I'd be associated with the
> terr.., eh, the childp..., eh the macro-enablers.
>
> The idea is to have a way to transform a Python (.py) module into XML
> and then do
John Roth wrote:
> I saw the "make" statement as a breath of fresh air.
> Then it got shot down for what were, to me, totally
> trivial reasons.
Which reasons? I as I recall, Guido cut it out without giving any
reason.
Of course Guido has the right to do so, but it is not respectful of
all the wo
bruno at modulix wrote:
> I still don't get the point.
Well, I've got to be careful here, lest I'd be associated with the
terr.., eh, the childp..., eh the macro-enablers.
The idea is to have a way to transform a Python (.py) module into XML
and then do source code manipulations in XML-space u
Ravi Teja wrote:
(snip)
> Annoted variables, symbols and code
> layout visually cue more efficiently to the object nature than do
> explicit text definitions. Of course, this is only sensible when there
> aren't too many of any of those. In that case, the cognitive cost of
> notation outweighs the
Ravi Teja wrote:
> BJörn Lindqvist wrote:
>
>>>Personally, I would like to see macros in Python (actually Logix
>>>succeeding is good enough). But I am no language designer and the
>>>community has no interest in it. When I absolutely need macros, I will
>>>go elsewhere.
>>
>>One must wonder, when
BJörn Lindqvist wrote:
>> Personally, I would like to see macros in Python (actually Logix
>> succeeding is good enough). But I am no language designer and the
>> community has no interest in it. When I absolutely need macros, I will
>> go elsewhere.
>
>
> One must wonder, when is that? When do y
Anton Vredegoor wrote:
> With the inclusion of ElementTree (an XML-parser) in Python25 and recent
> developments concerning JSON (a very Pythonesque but somewhat limited
> XML notation scheme, let's call it statically typed XML)
JSON stands for JavaScript Object Notation, and has *nothing* to do w
> > > community has no interest in it. When I absolutely need macros, I will
> > > go elsewhere.
> I *like* 1..5 (ada, ruby) instead of range(5). If I had macros, I would
> have done it myself for *my* code.
I think this example more is a symptom of a childish need to get
things your way than of a
Ravi Teja <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> I *like* 1..5 (ada, ruby) instead of range(5). If I had macros, I would
> have done it myself for *my* code.
You can write your own preprocessor to handle things like that.
--
Roberto Bonvallet
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Fredrik Lundh wrote:
> Ravi Teja wrote:
>
> > Web frameworks, which seem to be the rage now in Python community could
> > have benefited tremendously from Macro capabilities since they have a
> > lot of boiler plate.
>
> they do? methinks you haven't done much web programming lately...
>
>
You
Ravi Teja wrote:
> Web frameworks, which seem to be the rage now in Python community could
> have benefited tremendously from Macro capabilities since they have a
> lot of boiler plate.
they do? methinks you haven't done much web programming lately...
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listi
Paddy wrote:
> Ravi Teja wrote:
> > BJörn Lindqvist wrote:
> > > > Personally, I would like to see macros in Python (actually Logix
> > > > succeeding is good enough). But I am no language designer and the
> > > > community has no interest in it. When I absolutely need macros, I will
> > > > go els
Ravi Teja wrote:
> BJörn Lindqvist wrote:
> > > Personally, I would like to see macros in Python (actually Logix
> > > succeeding is good enough). But I am no language designer and the
> > > community has no interest in it. When I absolutely need macros, I will
> > > go elsewhere.
> >
> > One must
BJörn Lindqvist wrote:
> > Personally, I would like to see macros in Python (actually Logix
> > succeeding is good enough). But I am no language designer and the
> > community has no interest in it. When I absolutely need macros, I will
> > go elsewhere.
>
> One must wonder, when is that? When do
> Personally, I would like to see macros in Python (actually Logix
> succeeding is good enough). But I am no language designer and the
> community has no interest in it. When I absolutely need macros, I will
> go elsewhere.
One must wonder, when is that? When do you absolutely need macros?
--
mv
Anton Vredegoor wrote:
> With the inclusion of ElementTree (an XML-parser) in Python25 and recent
> developments concerning JSON (a very Pythonesque but somewhat limited
> XML notation scheme, let's call it statically typed XML) Python seems to
> have reached a stage where it now seems to be possi
Paddy wrote:
> Anton Vredegoor wrote:
> > With the inclusion of ElementTree (an XML-parser) in Python25 and recent
> > developments concerning JSON (a very Pythonesque but somewhat limited
> > XML notation scheme, let's call it statically typed XML)
> >
> > Your thoughts please.
> >
> > Anton
>
>
Anton Vredegoor wrote:
> With the inclusion of ElementTree (an XML-parser) in Python25 and recent
> developments concerning JSON (a very Pythonesque but somewhat limited
> XML notation scheme, let's call it statically typed XML)
> Your thoughts please.
>
> Anton
Hi Anton.
If you mean this JSON: h
Anton Vredegoor wrote:
> With the inclusion of ElementTree (an XML-parser) in Python25 and recent
> developments concerning JSON (a very Pythonesque but somewhat limited
> XML notation scheme, let's call it statically typed XML) Python seems to
> have reached a stage where it now seems to be possib
With the inclusion of ElementTree (an XML-parser) in Python25 and recent
developments concerning JSON (a very Pythonesque but somewhat limited
XML notation scheme, let's call it statically typed XML) Python seems to
have reached a stage where it now seems to be possible to completely
swallow le
52 matches
Mail list logo
