On 15/10/2019 12:38, Antoon Pardon wrote:
On 11/10/19 15:48, Rhodri James wrote:
On 10/10/2019 12:40, Antoon Pardon wrote:
About including piped iterators:
http://code.activestate.com/recipes/580625-collection-pipeline-in-python/
On 10/10/19 13:00, Paul Moore wrote:
As another measure, look at various other libraries on PyPI and ask
yourself why *this* library needs to be in the stdlib more than those
others. The answer to that question would be a good start for an
argument to include the library.
Well my answer would be that this library wouldn't add functionality
but rather would allow IMO for a more readable coding style.
If you split the work to be done over mulitple generators I find it
easier to understand when I read something like:
for item in some_file | gen1 | gen2 | gen3:
...
than when I read something like:
for item in gen3(gen2(gen1(somefile))):
...
With my ever-so-reactionary hat on, I have to say I'm the other way
round. With "gen3(gen2(gen1(somefile)))" it's pretty obvious what's
going on -- nested function or generator calls, probably the latter
from the name. With "somefile|gen1|gen2|gen3" I need more context to
kick my expectations out of the more common meaning of "|" as "or".
Yes, context demands that the "|" in your first example can't actually
be an "or". It still causes a moment of logical disconnect (currently
a long moment) that throws me out of understanding what your code is
doing overall into what this line means in particular. It's exactly
like coming across an unusual phrasing or iffy grammar in a piece of
writing; you get thrown out of the reading experience by having to
concentrate on the individual words.
But isn't this just a matter of experience? For example does it still
causes a moment of logical disconnect when you see a '+' used for
concatenation? For me the use of '|' is very similar to how it is used
by unix shells. Would the use of an other operator ease this disconnect
for you, maybe '>>', or wouldn't that make a difference?
I *could* get used to any syntax, but why should I? We have syntax that
works perfectly well already. Making me go to the extra effort of
importing shell-style pipes or C++-style streams into my mental
construct of Python doesn't really seem necessary.
(As it happens, I don't think the use of "+" for concatenation did cause
me a moment of disconnection, because it already fitted into my mental
model. I do recall that's Perl's choice of "." as the concatenation
operator *did* cause me to stop and reevaluate quite a lot. People are
weird :-)
--
Rhodri James *-* Kynesim Ltd
--
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
