On 3/23/2012 22:18, Nathan Rice wrote:
I understand what
you're trying to communicate, so I think you need to be a little more
strict and explicit in your definitions.
No, I don't think you understand what I meant.
I don't agree. Sorry.
You could just point out those inconsistencies that you found.
Yes. I thought that streams as an alternative to functional programming were
widely known.
Streams aren't really a paradigm of computation. They're a semantic
element of a computational system which cuts across paradigms. If you
want to retract that and say you were talking about dataflow
programming (which is much larger than streams, and actually has a
cohesive definition), I won't hold it against you.
I wasn't talking of dataflow programming. "Flow programming" is much
closer to functional programming than dataflow programming is.
Instead of talking of what I wasn't trying to do and, indeed, I didn't do,
you should try to understand what I wanted to do and, in fact, I did.
I'm afraid your cup is too full to understand simple things as the one I
wrote in my OP.
Clearly, because I didn't explicitly include the possibility that you
are just writing throwaway code with no attempt at development of
ideas for the purpose of practicing writing code in the paragraph
after the one you quoted.
x != 'a' doesn't imply that x == 'b'.
If your goal is to learn to code, instead of posting a message stating
that you have a superior way to compose code, you might want to try to
solve a problem and ask others their opinion of the structure and
techniques in your code.
Never said it was superior.
We've been talking about readability a lot, haven't we? I was just
proposing something different.
Kiuhnm
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
