On 2017-06-07 02:03, Mikhail V wrote: > Greg Ewing wrote: > >> Steven D'Aprano wrote: >>> There's not much, if any, benefit to writing: >>> >>> ∫(expression, lower_limit, upper_limit, name) > >> More generally, there's a kind of culture clash between mathematical >> notation and programming notation. Mathematical notation tends to >> almost exclusively use single-character names, relying on different >> fonts and alphabets, and superscripts and subscripts, to get a large >> enough set of identifiers. Whereas in programming we use a much >> smaller alphabet and longer names. > > That's probably because mathematicians grown up writing > everything with a chalk on a blackboard. > Hands are tired after hours of writing and blackboards > are limitited, need to erase everything and start over. >
Also don't forget that mathematical formalism is *always* accompanied by an explanation of what the symbols mean in the particular situation (either orally by the person doing the writing, or in prose if it's in a paper or book). Valid code, no matter how badly chosen the identifier names, is always self-explanatory (at least to the computer); a mathematical formula almost never is. > I find actually symbols ≤ ≥ (inclusive comparison) > nice. They look ok and have usage in context of writing > code. > But that's merely an exception in world of math symbols. > OTOH I'm strongly against unicode. > > > > Mikhail > _______________________________________________ > Python-ideas mailing list > Python-ideas@python.org > https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-ideas > Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/ > _______________________________________________ Python-ideas mailing list Python-ideas@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-ideas Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
