On Fri, Mar 23, 2012 at 05:00:23PM +0100, Kiuhnm wrote:
> I've been writing a little library for handling streams as an excuse for
> doing a little OOP with Python.
>
> I don't share some of the views on readability expressed on this ng.
> Indeed, I believe that a piece of code may very well start as complete
> gibberish and become a pleasure to read after some additional
> information is provided.
>
> I must say that imposed indentation is a pain when one is trying to
> define some sort of DSL (domain specific language). Also, Python's
> operator overloading is a bit limited, but that makes for a more
> rewarding experience in my case.
>
> Here's an example of what you can write:
>
> numbers - push - avrg - 'med' - pop - filter(lt('med'), ge('med'))\
> - ['same', 'same'] - streams(cat) - 'same'
>
> Ok, we're at the "complete gibberish" phase.
>
> Time to give you the "additional information".
>
> I will use "<=>" to mean "is equivalent to". That's not part of the DSL.
> A flow has one or more streams:
> 1 stream:
> [1,2,3]
> 2 streams:
> [1,3,5] | [2,4,6]
> Two flows can be concatenated:
> [1,2,3] + [4,5,6] <=> [1,2,3,4,5,6]
> [0] + ([1,2] | [3,4]) + [10] <=> [0,1,2,10] | [0,3,4,10]
> ([1,2] | [10,20]) + ([3,4] | [30,40]) <=> [1,2,3,4] | [10,20,30,40]
> A flow can be transformed:
> [1,2] - f <=> [f(1),f(2)]
> ([1,2] | [3,4]) - f <=> [f(1,3),f(2,4)]
> ([1,2] | [3,4]) - [f] <=> [f(1),f(2)] | [f(3),f(4)]
> ([1,2] | [3,4]) - [f,g] <=> [f(1),f(2)] | [g(3),g(4)]
> [1,2] - [f,g] <=> [f(1),f(2)] | [g(1),g(2)]
> Some functions are special and almost any function can be made special:
> [1,2,3,4,5] - filter(isprime) <=> [2,3,5]
> [[],(1,2),[3,4,5]] - flatten <=> [1,2,3,4,5]
> Note that 'filter' is not really necessary, thanks to 'flatten'.
> Flows can be named, remembered and used
> as a value:
> [1,2,3,4,5] - 'flow' + val('flow') <=> [1,2,3,4,5]*2
> as a transformation chain:
> [1,2,3] - skipfirst - 'again' | [4,5,6] - func('again')
> <=> [2,3] | [5,6]
> Recursion is also possible and stops when a function is applied to an
> empty sequence.
> Flows can be saved (push) and restored (pop) :
> [1,2,3,4] - push - by(2) - 'double' - pop | val('double')
> <=> [1,2,3,4] | [2,4,6,8]
> There are easier ways to achieve the same result, of course:
> [1,2,3,4] - [id, by(2)]
>
> Let's go back to our example. I didn't tell you anything but you should
> be able to understand it anyway.
>
> numbers - push - avrg - 'med' - pop - filter(lt('med'), ge('med'))\
> - ['same', 'same'] - streams(cat) - 'same'
>
> It reads as
>
> "take a list of numbers - save it - compute the average and named it
> 'med' - restore the flow - create two streams which have, respect., the
> numbers less than 'med' and those greater or equal to 'med' - do the
> /entire/ 'same' process on each one of the two streams - concat the
> resulting streams - name all this /entire/ process 'same'.
> Not readable enough? Replace 'same' with 'qsort'.
>
> Is that readable or am I going crazy? [note: that's a rhetorical
> question whose answer is "That's very readable!"]
>
This sounds like a concatenative programming and i've found many cool
examples from Haskell and Ruby. I was pleased with Python's rigid
off-side rule at first but frustrated when I realized that this is a
two-edged blade as the rule makes a DSL difficult.
Sorry for former mail to you (my damn Android gmail client doesn't
understand mailing lists well).
--
Ray
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
