Roy Smith wrote:
> In article <54ba5a25$0$12991$c3e8da3$54964...@news.astraweb.com>,
> Steven D'Aprano wrote:
>
>> Whitespace is significant in nearly all programming languages, and so it
>> should be. Whitespace separates tokens, and lines, and is a natural way
>> of writing (at least for peop
Jussi Piitulainen wrote:
I prefer parentheses.
They are not nearly as fragile.
So do I, but the other day I had occasion to write a
small piece of VBScript, and I discovered that it
actually *forbids* parens around the arguments to
procedure calls (but not function calls).
Fortunately, it requ
On Sun, Jan 18, 2015 at 8:56 AM, Gregory Ewing
wrote:
> Ruby doesn't have that problem because it doesn't
> have functions, only methods, and the only thing you
> can do with a method in Ruby is call it.
So functions aren't first-class objects in Ruby? Bleh. I've become
quite accustomed to passin
Chris Angelico wrote:
Every once in a while, someone looks at Py2's print statement and
Py3's print function and says, "why not allow function calls without
parentheses". This right here is why not.
There's also the fact that the parens are needed to
distinguish between calling a function and u
Steven D'Aprano wrote:
def a(x=4)
x+2
end
a + b => 7
a+b => 7
a+ b => 7
a +b => 3
A shiny new penny for any non-Ruby coder who can explain that!
Seems pretty obvious to me: the Ruby interpreter is
infested with demons.
DWIM = Demonic Whim Infers Meaning
--
Greg
--
https://mail.pyth
On Sat, 17 Jan 2015 19:08:21 +, Dan Sommers wrote:
> On Sat, 17 Jan 2015 18:44:42 +, Grant Edwards wrote:
>
>> ... somebody who only knows how to write C++ [though he can do it in
>> several different languages].
>
> +1 QOTW (brilliant phrases in other threads are off topic and are
> dis
On Sat, 17 Jan 2015 18:44:42 +, Grant Edwards wrote:
> ... somebody who only knows how to write C++ [though he can do it in
> several different languages].
+1 QOTW (brilliant phrases in other threads are off topic and are
disqualified)
I have also suffered through such maintenance, but I hav
On 2015-01-17, Roy Smith wrote:
> In article <54ba39e0$0$13008$c3e8da3$54964...@news.astraweb.com>,
> Steven D'Aprano wrote:
>
>> Every time I think I would like to learn a new language, I quite quickly run
>> into some obvious feature that Python has but the newer language lacks, and
>> I think
On 2015-01-16, Gregory Ewing wrote:
> We're really quite spoiled in Python-land. It's easy
> to forget just *how* spoiled we are until you go back
> and try to do something in one of the more primitive
> languages...
I had to do some work in PHP yesterday -- fixing up some code that was
written
On Sat, 17 Jan 2015 21:33:19 +1100, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
> Gregory Ewing wrote:
>
>> Marko Rauhamaa wrote:
>>> Gregory Ewing :
>>>
If those are 24-bit RGB pixels, you could encode 3 characters in each
pixel.
>>>
>>> Not since Python3. Characters are Unicode now so you'll need to
>>> d
In article <54ba5a25$0$12991$c3e8da3$54964...@news.astraweb.com>,
Steven D'Aprano wrote:
> Whitespace is significant in nearly all programming languages, and so it
> should be. Whitespace separates tokens, and lines, and is a natural way of
> writing (at least for people using Western languages)
In article ,
Skip Montanaro wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 17, 2015 at 5:59 AM, Jussi Piitulainen
> wrote:
> > How far do you want to go? Is "a b + c" the same as "a(b) + c" or the
> > same as "a(b + c)"?
>
> I think there is only one practical interpretation, the one that all
> shells I'm familiar wit
In article <54ba39e0$0$13008$c3e8da3$54964...@news.astraweb.com>,
Steven D'Aprano wrote:
> Every time I think I would like to learn a new language, I quite quickly run
> into some obvious feature that Python has but the newer language lacks, and
> I think "bugger this for a game of soldiers" and
Il 17/01/2015 12.07, Marko Rauhamaa ha scritto:
> Jussi Piitulainen :
>
>> a+ b => 7 # a() + b
>> a +b => 3 # a(+b) => a(b) => a(1) = 1 + 2
>>
>> I'm not quite fond of such surprise in programming language syntax.
>
> Yes, whoever came up with the idea of whitespace having syntactic
> sig
On Sat, Jan 17, 2015 at 9:49 PM, Jussi Piitulainen
wrote:
> I've only seen small amounts of Ruby code on the net. The only way I
> can make some sense of that is if it gets analyzed as follows, using
> parentheses for calls:
>
> a + b => 7 # a() + b => a(4) + b => 4 + 2 + 1
> a+b => 7 # a()
Skip Montanaro writes:
> On Sat, Jan 17, 2015 at 5:59 AM, Jussi Piitulainen wrote:
> > How far do you want to go? Is "a b + c" the same as "a(b) + c" or
> > the same as "a(b + c)"?
>
> I think there is only one practical interpretation, the one that all
> shells I'm familiar with have adopted:
>
Marko Rauhamaa writes:
> Seriously, though, I hate the optional semicolon rules of JavaScript
> and Go. I dread the day when GvR gets it in his head to allow this
> syntax in Python:
>
>average_drop_rate = cumulative_drop_count /
>observation_period
>
> (although, it could be defined
Jussi Piitulainen wrote:
> I've only seen small amounts of Ruby code on the net. The only way I
> can make some sense of that is if it gets analyzed as follows, using
> parentheses for calls:
>
> a + b => 7 # a() + b => a(4) + b => 4 + 2 + 1
> a+b => 7 # a() + b
> a+ b => 7 # a() + b
>
Marko Rauhamaa wrote:
> Jussi Piitulainen :
>
>> a+ b => 7 # a() + b
>> a +b => 3 # a(+b) => a(b) => a(1) = 1 + 2
>>
>> I'm not quite fond of such surprise in programming language syntax.
>
> Yes, whoever came up with the idea of whitespace having syntactic
> significance!
Yes, we shoul
Jussi Piitulainen :
> Marko Rauhamaa writes:
>> Yes, whoever came up with the idea of whitespace having syntactic
>> significance!
>
> How far do you want to go? [...]
>
> I prefer parentheses. They are not nearly as fragile.
*cough* braces *cough*
Seriously, though, I hate the optional semicolo
On Sat, Jan 17, 2015 at 5:59 AM, Jussi Piitulainen
wrote:
> How far do you want to go? Is "a b + c" the same as "a(b) + c" or the
> same as "a(b + c)"?
I think there is only one practical interpretation, the one that all
shells I'm familiar with have adopted:
a(b, +, c)
> And I don't reall
Marko Rauhamaa writes:
> Jussi Piitulainen:
>
> > a+ b => 7 # a() + b
> > a +b => 3 # a(+b) => a(b) => a(1) = 1 + 2
> >
> > I'm not quite fond of such surprise in programming language
> > syntax.
>
> Yes, whoever came up with the idea of whitespace having syntactic
> significance!
How fa
Jussi Piitulainen :
> a+ b => 7 # a() + b
> a +b => 3 # a(+b) => a(b) => a(1) = 1 + 2
>
> I'm not quite fond of such surprise in programming language syntax.
Yes, whoever came up with the idea of whitespace having syntactic
significance!
Marko
--
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinf
Steven D'Aprano writes:
> Ah, wait, I forgot Ruby's brilliant "feature" that whitespace
> *between* expressions is significant:
>
> [steve@ando ~]$ cat ~/coding/ruby/ws-example.rb
> #!/usr/bin/ruby
>
> def a(x=4)
> x+2
> end
>
> b = 1
> print "a + b => ", (a + b), "\n"
> print "a+b => ",
Gregory Ewing wrote:
> We're really quite spoiled in Python-land. It's easy
> to forget just how spoiled we are until you go back
> and try to do something in one of the more primitive
> languages...
Every time I think I would like to learn a new language, I quite quickly run
into some obvious fe
Gregory Ewing wrote:
> Marko Rauhamaa wrote:
>> Gregory Ewing :
>>
>>>If those are 24-bit RGB pixels, you could encode
>>>3 characters in each pixel.
>>
>> Not since Python3. Characters are Unicode now so you'll need to dedicate
>> a pixel for each character.
>
> Depends on which characters you
Chris Angelico wrote:
Is this to get
around style guides that reject this kind of model:
x = Foo(
opt1=True,
opt2=True,
color=Yellow,
)
It's to get around the fact that you *can't* do that in
Java, because it doesn't have keyword arguments.
This is a source of a lot of the complex
Marko Rauhamaa wrote:
Gregory Ewing :
If those are 24-bit RGB pixels, you could encode
3 characters in each pixel.
Not since Python3. Characters are Unicode now so you'll need to dedicate
a pixel for each character.
Depends on which characters you want. With the
Flexible Chromatic Represent
On 01/15/2015 10:29 PM, Ian Kelly wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 15, 2015 at 9:00 PM, Chris Angelico wrote:
>> My first response was going to be "Well, you can always add another
>> layer of indirection to try to solve your problem", but then I went
>> and looked up builders on Wikipedia. Now I'm confused.
Gregory Ewing :
> Dennis Lee Bieber wrote:
>> On Fri, 16 Jan 2015 01:50:00 +1100, Chris Angelico
>> declaimed the following:
>>
>>>Problem: You have a smartphone with a 4x4 pixel screen.
>>
>> BIG problem, considering that a late 70s DECWriter needed 5x7
>> pixels for glyphs in an 8x10 pixel
Dennis Lee Bieber wrote:
On Fri, 16 Jan 2015 01:50:00 +1100, Chris Angelico
declaimed the following:
>
Problem: You have a smartphone with a 4x4 pixel screen.
BIG problem, considering that a late 70s DECWriter needed 5x7 pixels
for glyphs in an 8x10 pixel character cell {as I recall.
On 01/15/2015 09:29 PM, Ian Kelly wrote:
>
> In Python you just have one initializer with defaults for the optional
> arguments, so it's not an issue.
What, Python makes it easy? That must be a mistake somewhere! ;)
--
~Ethan~
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
--
https:/
On Thu, Jan 15, 2015 at 9:00 PM, Chris Angelico wrote:
> My first response was going to be "Well, you can always add another
> layer of indirection to try to solve your problem", but then I went
> and looked up builders on Wikipedia. Now I'm confused. What can you do
> with a builder that you can'
On Friday, January 16, 2015 at 9:46:30 AM UTC+5:30, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
> Rustom Mody wrote:
>
> > Let there be a hundred different versions, then people will
> > begin to clamor against the non-necessity of the penury-of-ASCII:
> >
> > http://blog.languager.org/2015/01/unicode-and-universe.ht
Yawar Amin wrote:
> To the responders in the 'beauty of the code' subthread: yes, I realise
> that lambdak is not Pythonic, and it will make angels cry, and all that.
> My view is you should actually be happy that it looks like this. If
> anyone ever asks about multi-line lambdas again, you can po
Rustom Mody wrote:
> Let there be a hundred different versions, then people will
> begin to clamor against the non-necessity of the penury-of-ASCII:
>
> http://blog.languager.org/2015/01/unicode-and-universe.html
Almost 30 years ago, Apple's Hypertalk language allowed, and encouraged, the
use of
On Fri, Jan 16, 2015 at 12:44 PM, Michael Torrie wrote:
> On 01/15/2015 06:34 PM, Roy Smith wrote:
>> The ebb and flow of technology has recently brought me someplace I never
>> thought I'd be. Java-land. And what I've discovered is that factories
>> are so last year. Apparently builders are th
On Thursday, January 15, 2015 at 10:06:34 PM UTC-5, Rick Johnson wrote:
> [...]
> Well i'm not religious in that way, but i can tell you that
> you'd be hard pressed to find a subject that did *NOT*
> annoy someone in this group. Heck, it might even be
> something like finding a "holy grail" if we
On Friday, January 16, 2015 at 8:33:14 AM UTC+5:30, Mark Lawrence wrote:
> On 16/01/2015 02:48, Rustom Mody wrote:
> >
> > The more forks the merrier!
> >
>
> When counting them, or more specifically handles, thou shalt not stop
> counting at three, but thou shalt continue to four, and thou shalt
On Wednesday, January 14, 2015 at 11:55:11 PM UTC-6, Yawar Amin wrote:
> First off, to each reader--if you believe that 'multi-
> line' lambdas are no good and we can just use functions,
> decorators, &c. to accomplish everything in Python,
> advance warning: this post will annoy you.
Well i'm not
On 16/01/2015 02:48, Rustom Mody wrote:
The more forks the merrier!
When counting them, or more specifically handles, thou shalt not stop
counting at three, but thou shalt continue to four, and thou shalt not
continue on to five https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cz2-ukrd2VQ
--
My fellow Pyt
On Friday, January 16, 2015 at 7:48:20 AM UTC+5:30, Yawar Amin wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Thursday, January 15, 2015 at 12:19:31 PM UTC-5, Rustom Mody wrote:
> > [...]
> > Looked at your suggestions...
> > And then got distracted by your other project
> > https://github.com/yawaramin/vim-cute-python
> >
Hi,
On Thursday, January 15, 2015 at 12:19:31 PM UTC-5, Rustom Mody wrote:
> [...]
> Looked at your suggestions...
> And then got distracted by your other project
> https://github.com/yawaramin/vim-cute-python
>
> Reminded me of what I had written some months ago along similar lines
> http://blog
On 16/01/2015 01:44, Michael Torrie wrote:
On 01/15/2015 06:34 PM, Roy Smith wrote:
The ebb and flow of technology has recently brought me someplace I never
thought I'd be. Java-land. And what I've discovered is that factories
are so last year. Apparently builders are the new thing.
It's ne
On Thursday, January 15, 2015 at 1:40:09 AM UTC-5, Ian wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 14, 2015 at 11:06 PM, Steven D'Aprano
> wrote:
> [...]
> > def func(a, b=None):
> > global spam
> > import math
> > spam = [a, b]*3
> > print spam
> > del spam
> >
> > value = [1, "hello", int, func]
>
On 01/15/2015 06:34 PM, Roy Smith wrote:
> The ebb and flow of technology has recently brought me someplace I never
> thought I'd be. Java-land. And what I've discovered is that factories
> are so last year. Apparently builders are the new thing.
It's never clear to me whether all these fancy
In article <87zj9kb2j0@elektro.pacujo.net>,
Marko Rauhamaa wrote:
> Skip Montanaro :
>
> > Beautiful is better than ugly.
>
> Yes, our job is to increase the Harmony of the Universe. Useful
> applications are happy side effects.
>
> > Explicit is better than implicit.
>
> Corollary: Cons
On 15/01/2015 06:39, Ian Kelly wrote:
On Wed, Jan 14, 2015 at 11:06 PM, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
I have a function, which I put into an expression like this:
def func(a, b=None):
global spam
import math
spam = [a, b]*3
print spam
del spam
value = [1, "hello", int, func
On Thursday, January 15, 2015 at 11:25:11 AM UTC+5:30, Yawar Amin wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> First off, to each reader--if you believe that 'multi-line' lambdas are
> no good and we can just use functions, decorators, &c. to accomplish
> everything in Python, advance warning: this post will annoy you.
>
On Fri, Jan 16, 2015 at 1:24 AM, Steven D'Aprano
wrote:
> Marko Rauhamaa wrote:
>
>> Corollary: Make sure the complete definition of every function can be
>> seen at once without scrolling.
>
> Problem: I like to view code on a smartphone with a 4x4 pixel screen, and
> the scroll bars obscure the
On Thu, Jan 15, 2015 at 8:29 AM, Steven D'Aprano <
steve+comp.lang.pyt...@pearwood.info> wrote:
> Now I shall try very hard to forget I ever saw it.
There are some things, no matter how hard you try, which cannot be
"unseen". :-)
Skip
--
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Ian Kelly wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 14, 2015 at 11:06 PM, Steven D'Aprano
> wrote:
>> I have a function, which I put into an expression like this:
>>
>> def func(a, b=None):
>> global spam
>> import math
>> spam = [a, b]*3
>> print spam
>> del spam
>>
>>
>> value = [1, "hello", int
Marko Rauhamaa wrote:
> Corollary: Make sure the complete definition of every function can be
> seen at once without scrolling.
Problem: I like to view code on a smartphone with a 4x4 pixel screen, and
the scroll bars obscure the text.
Solution: Change the editor to a 1pt font.
--
Steven
--
Skip Montanaro :
> Beautiful is better than ugly.
Yes, our job is to increase the Harmony of the Universe. Useful
applications are happy side effects.
> Explicit is better than implicit.
Corollary: Constructors are usually preferable to factories.
> Simple is better than complex.
Corollary: M
On Thu, Jan 15, 2015 at 7:04 AM, Roy Smith wrote:
> I don't know which zen this is, but "Beauty is important".
Kinda near the front:
% python -m this
The Zen of Python, by Tim Peters
Beautiful is better than ugly.
Explicit is better than implicit.
Simple is better than complex.
...
:-)
Skip
On Fri, Jan 16, 2015 at 12:04 AM, Roy Smith wrote:
> I don't know which zen this is, but "Beauty is important".
How about:
Beautiful is better than ugly.
Readability counts.
If the implementation is hard to explain, it's a bad idea.
ChrisA
--
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
yawar.a...@gmail.com wrote:
> I have implemented what I believe is a
> fairly robust, if ugly-looking, native Python module
I don't know which zen this is, but "Beauty is important".
--
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
On Wed, Jan 14, 2015 at 11:06 PM, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
> I have a function, which I put into an expression like this:
>
> def func(a, b=None):
> global spam
> import math
> spam = [a, b]*3
> print spam
> del spam
>
>
> value = [1, "hello", int, func]
> del func
>
> How would
On Wed, 14 Jan 2015 21:54:52 -0800, yawar.amin wrote:
> Now, the crux of my message. I have implemented what I believe is a
> fairly robust, if ugly-looking, native Python module made up of
> combinator functions which compose together to form function expressions
> (well, callable expressions).
Hi all,
First off, to each reader--if you believe that 'multi-line' lambdas are
no good and we can just use functions, decorators, &c. to accomplish
everything in Python, advance warning: this post will annoy you.
Now, the crux of my message. I have implemented what I believe is a
fairly robust,
60 matches
Mail list logo
