On 11Nov2012 11:16, Steve Howell <showel...@yahoo.com> wrote: | On Nov 11, 10:34 am, Peter Otten <__pete...@web.de> wrote: | > Steve Howell wrote: | > > On Nov 11, 1:09 am, Paul Rubin <no.em...@nospam.invalid> wrote: | > >> Cameron Simpson <c...@zip.com.au> writes: | > >> > | I'd prefer the original code ten times over this inaccessible beast. | > >> > Me too. | > | > >> Me, I like the itertools version better. There's one chunk of data | > >> that goes through a succession of transforms each of which | > >> is very straightforward. | > | > > Thanks, Paul. | > | > > Even though I supplied the "inaccessible" itertools version, I can | > > understand why folks find it inaccessible. As I said to the OP, there | > > was nothing wrong with the original imperative approach; I was simply | > > providing an alternative. | > | > > It took me a while to appreciate itertools, but the metaphor that | > > resonates with me is a Unix pipeline. [...] | > Actually you supplied the "accessible" itertools version. For reference, | > here's the inaccessible version: [...] | I know Peter's version is tongue in cheek, but I do think that it has | a certain expressive power, and it highlights three mind-expanding | Python modules. | Here's a re-flattened take on Peter's version ("Flat is better than | nested." -- PEP 20): [...]
Ok, who's going to quiz the OP on his/her uptake of these techniques... -- Cameron Simpson <c...@zip.com.au> It's hard to make a man understand something when his livelihood depends on him not understanding it. - Upton Sinclair -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list