On Fri, 1 Jul 2005, Sion Arrowsmith wrote:
> Tom Anderson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> On Thu, 30 Jun 2005, Roy Smith wrote:
>>
>>> Even some of the relatively recent library enhancements have been kind
>>> of complicated. The logging module, for example, seems way over the
>>> top.
>>
>> Exa
Scott David Daniels <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Roy Smith wrote:
>> Look at what happened to C when it mutated into C++. In isolation, most of
>> the features of C++ seem like good ideas. Taken together, it's a huge
>> hairy mess that most people only understand increasingly larger subsets of.
Roy Smith wrote:
> Look at what happened to C when it mutated into C++. In isolation, most of
> the features of C++ seem like good ideas. Taken together, it's a huge
> hairy mess that most people only understand increasingly larger subsets of.
> Fred Brooks called it the second system syndrom
Mandus wrote:
> jepp - faster, but still slower than the map.
>
> 100 iterations:
> zip+list-comprehension: 8.1s
> izip+list-comprehension: 7.5s
> map: 7.0s
>
Strange. On 2.4.1 izip is the fastest.
The thing is that if you put benchmark code in global the
results are not fair as each var
Tom Anderson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On Thu, 30 Jun 2005, Roy Smith wrote:
>> Even some of the relatively recent library enhancements have been kind
>> of complicated. The logging module, for example, seems way over the
>> top.
>Exactly the same thing happened with Java.
I was under the im
"Tom Anderson" wrote:
> On Fri, 1 Jul 2005, George Sakkis wrote:
>
> > Keeping the language small is a worthwhile goal, but it should be traded
> > off with conciseness and readability; otherwise we could well be content
> > with s-expressions.
>
> There's quite a number of satisfied LISP programm
On Fri, 1 Jul 2005, George Sakkis wrote:
> "Terry Hancock" wrote:
>
> Keeping the language small is a worthwhile goal, but it should be traded
> off with conciseness and readability; otherwise we could well be content
> with s-expressions.
There's quite a number of satisfied LISP programmers ou
On Thu, 30 Jun 2005, Roy Smith wrote:
> Terry Hancock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> One of the strengths of Python has been that the language itself is
>> small (which it shares with C and (if I understand correctly, not being
>> a lisp programmer?) Lisp), but with all the syntax enhancements
"Terry Hancock" wrote:
> On Thursday 30 June 2005 09:49 am, Mike P. wrote:
>
> > IMHO I'm not particularly happy with the way Python is going language wise.
> > I mean, I don't think I'll ever use decorators, for example. Personally, in
> > terms of language features and capabilities I think the l
Robert Kern <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Looks like the PSU got to yoNO CARRIER
No, the trackpad on my PowerBook seems to have gone a little haywire and
I'm getting the occasional random mouse click. In that case, it seemed to
have clicked the "Post" button.
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/
Terry Hancock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> One of the strengths of Python has been that the language itself is
> small (which it shares with C and (if I understand correctly, not being
> a lisp programmer?) Lisp), but with all the syntax enhancements going
> on, Python is getting pretty complica
Roy Smith wrote:
> Terry Hancock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>One of the strengths of Python has been that the language itself is
>>small (which it shares with C and (if I understand correctly, not being
>>a lisp programmer?) Lisp), but with all the syntax enhancements going
>>on, Python is g
Terry Hancock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> One of the strengths of Python has been that the language itself is
> small (which it shares with C and (if I understand correctly, not being
> a lisp programmer?) Lisp), but with all the syntax enhancements going
> on, Python is getting pretty complica
On Thursday 30 June 2005 09:49 am, Mike P. wrote:
> That really sucks, I wasn't aware of these plans. Ok, I don't use reduce
> much, but I use lambda, map and filter all the time.
> [...]
> Also, I don't necessarily think list comprehensions are necessarily easier
> to read. I don't use them all t
On Fri, 1 Jul 2005, Mike P. wrote:
"Björn Lindström" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
"F. Petitjean" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
res = [ bb+ii*dd for bb,ii,dd in zip(b,i,d) ]
Hoping that zip will not be deprecated.
Nobody has suggested that. The ones that are pla
"Björn Lindström" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> "F. Petitjean" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > res = [ bb+ii*dd for bb,ii,dd in zip(b,i,d) ]
> >
> > Hoping that zip will not be deprecated.
>
> Nobody has suggested that. The ones that are planned to be removed are
Wed, 29 Jun 2005 08:33:58 -0700 skrev Scott David Daniels:
> Mandus wrote:
>> 29 Jun 2005 10:04:40 GMT skrev F. Petitjean:
>>
>>>Le Wed, 29 Jun 2005 09:46:15 + (UTC), Mandus a écrit :
>>>
>>>res = [ bb+ii*dd for bb,ii,dd in zip(b,i,d) ]
>>
>> seem to be a tad slower than the map, but nothing
"F. Petitjean" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>res = [ bb+ii*dd for bb,ii,dd in zip(b,i,d) ]
> Hoping that zip will not be deprecated.
Cease worrying. Zip was added to replace the zipping behavior of map and
the idiom map(None, a, b, ...). It simultaneously alter
Mandus wrote:
> 29 Jun 2005 10:04:40 GMT skrev F. Petitjean:
>
>>Le Wed, 29 Jun 2005 09:46:15 + (UTC), Mandus a écrit :
>>
>>res = [ bb+ii*dd for bb,ii,dd in zip(b,i,d) ]
>
> seem to be a tad slower than the map, but nothing serious. Guess it's
> the extra zip.
You could try timing it using i
"Carl Banks" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> Fear not, people: just as the BDFL does not indiscriminately add
> features, also he does not indiscriminately remove them. zip, though
> it feels a little exotic, is very useful and serves a purpose that no
> language feature serves(*), so rest
F. Petitjean wrote:
> Le Wed, 29 Jun 2005 09:46:15 + (UTC), Mandus a écrit :
> > Hi there,
> >
> > inspired by a recent thread where the end of reduce/map/lambda in Python was
> > discussed, I looked over some of my maps, and tried to convert them to
> > list-comprehensions.
> >
> > This one I
29 Jun 2005 10:04:40 GMT skrev F. Petitjean:
> Le Wed, 29 Jun 2005 09:46:15 + (UTC), Mandus a écrit :
>> Hi there,
>>
>> inspired by a recent thread where the end of reduce/map/lambda in Python was
>> discussed, I looked over some of my maps, and tried to convert them to
>> list-comprehensions.
"F. Petitjean" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> res = [ bb+ii*dd for bb,ii,dd in zip(b,i,d) ]
>
> Hoping that zip will not be deprecated.
Nobody has suggested that. The ones that are planned to be removed are
lambda, reduce, filter and map. Here's GvR's blog posting that explains
the reasons:
http:
Le Wed, 29 Jun 2005 09:46:15 + (UTC), Mandus a écrit :
> Hi there,
>
> inspired by a recent thread where the end of reduce/map/lambda in Python was
> discussed, I looked over some of my maps, and tried to convert them to
> list-comprehensions.
>
> This one I am not sure how to conver:
>
> Given
Hi there,
inspired by a recent thread where the end of reduce/map/lambda in Python was
discussed, I looked over some of my maps, and tried to convert them to
list-comprehensions.
This one I am not sure how to conver:
Given three tuples of length n, b,i and d, I now do:
map(lambda bb,ii,dd: bb+i
25 matches
Mail list logo
