[Python-ideas] Re: Make list.reverse() more flexible
Indeed, from previous replies, I have already learnt that use-cases are the primary driver here around. In fact that should be the general case. I do admit that my assessment is too abstractive for any feasible considerations. I was looking at it from the algorithmic sense, that if a function is performant then a handful if not many problems, discovered or undiscovered, would have been avoided through efficiency. For a little instance, we have the efficient BWT algorithm, life before it was normal and progressing, but with it data compression improved. It wasn't needed, but with it we improved. This is just the line of thought, hehe. Just for comment, now that you have outlined a more conditioned judgement as to how good an idea is, I would like to say that it does improve performance - maybe a little bit of time, but space is a sure. Does it improve coding, well, if the notations remain the same, then no change, if a different semantic is introduced, then it depends. Useful - ah, relates to above, relates to what many have already from before. The Zen is the wisest: since practicality beats purity, a function is only worth used when its code-friendly and readable, which points out that it heavily depends on the semantics we come up with. I think how useful it is realistically how simple it is to read it and code it. I guess it's just semantics! Thanks for the feedback! ___ Python-ideas mailing list -- python-ideas@python.org To unsubscribe send an email to python-ideas-le...@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman3/lists/python-ideas.python.org/ Message archived at https://mail.python.org/archives/list/python-ideas@python.org/message/BJX77YQ3QJWHN4PFKEATD5MBHCHXWSAL/ Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
[Python-ideas] Re: Make list.reverse() more flexible
On Mon, Mar 8, 2021 at 1:24 AM Vincent Cheong wrote: > Indeed, if one puts on a perspective glasses of 'use-cases', it's obvious that there is no urgency, no real-time necessity for that. We can see that there is growing interest, but just my opinion, the more deserving point is that it exhibits intelligence and power. As the zen says: “practically beats purity” I can’t speak for everyone, but I think use cases are the primary driver to adding anything to. Python. That is, in order to add something, it needs to be: A) useful And B) provide an easier/clearer way to write to code and/or significantly improve performance. “Exhibiting intelligence and power” is not enough. -CHB -- Christopher Barker, PhD (Chris) Python Language Consulting - Teaching - Scientific Software Development - Desktop GUI and Web Development - wxPython, numpy, scipy, Cython ___ Python-ideas mailing list -- python-ideas@python.org To unsubscribe send an email to python-ideas-le...@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman3/lists/python-ideas.python.org/ Message archived at https://mail.python.org/archives/list/python-ideas@python.org/message/4YHGJIQLWQ342J3FBXS4OGNMIPB4DZOA/ Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
[Python-ideas] Re: Make list.reverse() more flexible
Indeed, making a slice a view does pose painful challenges. For a slice iterator, I wonder if there is an bigger overhead in being an iterator or building an iterator. I wholeheartedly agree that 'adding add-hoc functionality' is slightly toy-ish, but I brought up the idea of 'start' and 'stop' parameters because I believed that mentioning just these two things themselves are humbly adequately below that 'troublesome' or 'complex' line. Yes, Numpy's slice is a view and that is memory efficient. Memory_view, lazy_slice, View_object, and other terms, quite an expansive room of considerations. For discussions-sake, I would like to comment about: 'Frankly, I didn't see a lot of use-cases at the time -- but now it seems that we have some more, and some more interest.'. Indeed, if one puts on a perspective glasses of 'use-cases', it's obvious that there is no urgency, no real-time necessity for that. We can see that there is growing interest, but just my opinion, the more deserving point is that it exhibits intelligence and power. Intelligence because a users gets to choose what to do with that sublist 'before' it takes memory - it's intelligent not to use resources unless explicitly told to, like a generator. Power because if I can 'specify' that section of a list without making a copy, I'm effectively achieving the same thing as many would using for-loop + range() + indices. It has that tiny little conceptual resemblance to how reversed() being much better than for-loop + range() + negative_indices, when iterating backwards. I'm schooled by how there was a history archive on this. Thanks for the links. Thanks for the input. ___ Python-ideas mailing list -- python-ideas@python.org To unsubscribe send an email to python-ideas-le...@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman3/lists/python-ideas.python.org/ Message archived at https://mail.python.org/archives/list/python-ideas@python.org/message/AJNG4C6QJ372HO3UKVT63HJXAPFKWX6P/ Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
[Python-ideas] Re: OT: Make list.reverse() more flexible
On Mon, Mar 08, 2021 at 04:59:26PM +0900, Stephen J. Turnbull wrote: > I'm curious: Many of the sorting algorithms I know use swap pairs of > elements, but what sorting algorithm reverses segments longer than 3? I have a feeling that Timsort may do that --- I believe it looks for either ascending or descending runs, sorts them, and reverses them if necessary. Of course I may be wrong. -- Steve ___ Python-ideas mailing list -- python-ideas@python.org To unsubscribe send an email to python-ideas-le...@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman3/lists/python-ideas.python.org/ Message archived at https://mail.python.org/archives/list/python-ideas@python.org/message/DBGL775O5DZ3QU57TO3R4YDS4SLX7FRW/ Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
[Python-ideas] Re: OT: Make list.reverse() more flexible
Depends on the implementation. If you, instead of swapping pair by pair one by one, rewrite that sequence in the opposite direction and that sequence is longer than 3, it already fits the situation. A block swap algorithm swaps two elements of an array. If out-of-place, you can specify more than 3 items, and you would have been doing that. Thanks. ___ Python-ideas mailing list -- python-ideas@python.org To unsubscribe send an email to python-ideas-le...@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman3/lists/python-ideas.python.org/ Message archived at https://mail.python.org/archives/list/python-ideas@python.org/message/BPF7DCQIRCGP37LIZ3J5S2WC4QEULY3G/ Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
[Python-ideas] OT: Make list.reverse() more flexible
Vincent Cheong writes: > Sorry for not explaining the background of my idea. I'm involved in > the research area of sorting algorithms. Reversals are part of > sorting I'm curious: Many of the sorting algorithms I know use swap pairs of elements, but what sorting algorithm reverses segments longer than 3? ___ Python-ideas mailing list -- python-ideas@python.org To unsubscribe send an email to python-ideas-le...@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman3/lists/python-ideas.python.org/ Message archived at https://mail.python.org/archives/list/python-ideas@python.org/message/7J3W2XAGO4ST3Z3QN2YAQBLCCOCPBW46/ Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
