In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Jason <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
.
[good detail]
.
.
>If you can't find a way of doing what you want with iterators,
>comprehensions, or lambda, consider writing a little function. Heck,
.
.
.
"[C]onsider writing a little function", indeed; that's
a crucial summary. From a Ruby or Lisp perspective,
this proliferation of named functions is clumsy and
unsightly; Pythoneers see small def-s as opportunities
to clarify. I've come to suspect both sides are right.
The marvelous thing is that, taken as a whole, each of
Python, Ruby, ... *works*, and admits a strong, effec-
tive style. Moreover, they share enough conceptually
that it's not hard for speakers of one to understand
the others. As has already been proposed in this
thread, though, good Ruby and good Python will always
look different.
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
