Re: why brackets commas in func calls can't be ommited? (maybe it could be PEP?)
On Thu, 22 Mar 2007 14:20:42 -0400, Steve Holden [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: ... I'm in danger of getting short-tempered on c.l.py for the first time in a long time. If you think that five arguments is an excessive number for a function then you live in a world of toy programs. Or at least in a world where people have good taste and time to Do It Right(tm). I personally believe many five-argument methods would be better off refactored. I killed one today which had fourteen (most of which were unused). But I don't pretend that it's always worth the effort of doing that, in the real world. /Jorgen -- // Jorgen Grahn grahn@Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu \X/ snipabacken.dyndns.org R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn! -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: why brackets commas in func calls can't be ommited? (maybe it could be PEP?)
Dennis Lee Bieber a écrit : On Thu, 22 Mar 2007 03:27:37 +1100, Steven D'Aprano [EMAIL PROTECTED] declaimed the following in comp.lang.python: So what should a b c d be? (a, b, c, d) a(b, c, d) a(b, (c, d)) a(b(c, d)) a(b(c(d))) Have I missed anything? Which is the right way? Who can tell? a(b)(c)(d) or, explicit, ((a(b))(c))(d) G (Yeah ((Lisp) (is back))) -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: why brackets commas in func calls can't be ommited? (maybe it could be PEP?)
dmitrey wrote: if you want result = func1(func2(arg)) you should use result = func1 (func2 arg) This is in conflict with current meanig, Ergo it breaks old code rgds \SK -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: why brackets commas in func calls can't be ommited? (maybe it could be PEP?)
dmitrey wrote: 1st still is shorter by 1 char; considering majority of people use space after comma number of parameters can be big it yileds foo bar baz bar2 bar3 bar4 vs foo(bar, baz, bar2, bar3, bar4) I think most readers already agree on the ambiguities part. Now, for the length of the code... I agree that in you example the first syntax yields a full /five/ spaces less than the second syntax. However, it ignores the fact that if you are creating functions with that many arguments, you are probably doing something wrong. Can't those arguments be provided as a list? Let's see what is shorter: foo bar baz bar2 bar3 bar4 or foo *bars Not to mention that it might (or might not) be a good idea to wrap the function in some kind of class where you can specify a whole bunch of attributes, so that you do not have to call a function with that many arguments to start with. Regards, Bart -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: why brackets commas in func calls can't be ommited? (maybe it could be PEP?)
Bart Willems wrote: dmitrey wrote: 1st still is shorter by 1 char; considering majority of people use space after comma number of parameters can be big it yileds foo bar baz bar2 bar3 bar4 vs foo(bar, baz, bar2, bar3, bar4) I think most readers already agree on the ambiguities part. Now, for the length of the code... I agree that in you example the first syntax yields a full /five/ spaces less than the second syntax. However, it ignores the fact that if you are creating functions with that many arguments, you are probably doing something wrong. Can't those arguments be provided as a list? I'm in danger of getting short-tempered on c.l.py for the first time in a long time. If you think that five arguments is an excessive number for a function then you live in a world of toy programs. Let's see what is shorter: foo bar baz bar2 bar3 bar4 or foo *bars Not to mention that it might (or might not) be a good idea to wrap the function in some kind of class where you can specify a whole bunch of attributes, so that you do not have to call a function with that many arguments to start with. Right, I think I have to assume that you're taking the piss. regards Steve -- Steve Holden +44 150 684 7255 +1 800 494 3119 Holden Web LLC/Ltd http://www.holdenweb.com Skype: holdenweb http://del.icio.us/steve.holden Recent Ramblings http://holdenweb.blogspot.com -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: why brackets commas in func calls can't be ommited? (maybe it could be PEP?)
Steve Holden [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I agree that in you example the first syntax yields a full /five/ spaces less than the second syntax. However, it ignores the fact that if you are creating functions with that many arguments, you are probably doing something wrong. Can't those arguments be provided as a list? I'm in danger of getting short-tempered on c.l.py for the first time in a long time. If you think that five arguments is an excessive number for a function then you live in a world of toy programs. There's no need for functions of more than one argument. Even in existing Python syntax, instead of def f(a,b,c,d,e): ... you could say def f((a,b,c,d,e)): ... and receive a,b,c,d,e in a single tuple. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
why brackets commas in func calls can't be ommited? (maybe it could be PEP?)
Hi all, I looked to the PEPs didn't find a proposition to remove brackets commas for to make Python func call syntax caml- or tcl- like: instead of result = myfun(param1, myfun2(param5, param8), param3) just make possible using result = myfun param1 (myfun2 param5 param8) param3 it would reduce length of code lines and make them more readable, + no needs to write annoing charecters. Maybe it will require more work than I suppose, for example handling of things like result = myfun(param1, myfun2(param5, param8), param3=15, param4=200) to result = myfun param1 (myfun2 param5 param8) param3=15 param4=200 #so it needs some more efforts to decode by compiler but anyway I think it worth. + it will not yield incompabilities with previous Python versions. WBR, D. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: why brackets commas in func calls can't be ommited? (maybe it could be PEP?)
Hello Dmitrey, I looked to the PEPs didn't find a proposition to remove brackets commas for to make Python func call syntax caml- or tcl- like: instead of result = myfun(param1, myfun2(param5, param8), param3) just make possible using result = myfun param1 (myfun2 param5 param8) param3 If you have result = func1 func2 arg is it result = func1(func2, arg) or result = func1(func2(arg)) Miki [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://pythonwise.blogspot.com -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: why brackets commas in func calls can't be ommited? (maybe it could be PEP?)
I think it should result result = func1(func2, arg) if you want result = func1(func2(arg)) you should use result = func1 (func2 arg) if ... = word1 word2 word3 ... then only word word1 should be call to func word1 with parameters word2, word3 etc If you have result = func1 func2 arg is it result = func1(func2, arg) or result = func1(func2(arg)) Miki [EMAIL PROTECTED]http://pythonwise.blogspot.com -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: why brackets commas in func calls can't be ommited? (maybe it could be PEP?)
dmitrey wrote: it would reduce length of code lines and make them more readable, + no needs to write annoing charecters. IMHO, it's less readable. I suppose I'm not on my own with this opinion. Regards, Björn -- BOFH excuse #34: (l)user error -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: why brackets commas in func calls can't be ommited? (maybe it could be PEP?)
dmitrey wrote: Hi all, I looked to the PEPs didn't find a proposition to remove brackets commas for to make Python func call syntax caml- or tcl- like: instead of result = myfun(param1, myfun2(param5, param8), param3) just make possible using result = myfun param1 (myfun2 param5 param8) param3 it would reduce length of code lines and make them more readable, + no needs to write annoing charecters. This is not true, there is no shorter code lines: foo bar baz foo(bar,baz) And the more readable part certainly depends on the habits of the user - to me, it's harder to read. Apart from that, even if both statements were true, I doubt there is even the slightest chance of including it - after all, you'd have to keep around the old way of doing things anyway, and thus you'd end up with two styles of coding - certainly _not_ something anybody in the python developer community is interested in. Diez -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: why brackets commas in func calls can't be ommited? (maybe it could be PEP?)
dmitrey [EMAIL PROTECTED] (d) wrote: d I think it should result d result = func1(func2, arg) d if you want d result = func1(func2(arg)) d you should use d result = func1 (func2 arg) d if d ... = word1 word2 word3 ... d then only word word1 should be call to func word1 with parameters d word2, word3 etc That depends whether you want function application to be left-associative or right-associative. For example, in haskell it is left associative which is the more obvious choice because it has currying. -- Piet van Oostrum [EMAIL PROTECTED] URL: http://www.cs.uu.nl/~piet [PGP 8DAE142BE17999C4] Private email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: why brackets commas in func calls can't be ommited? (maybe it could be PEP?)
On Mar 21, 8:38 am, dmitrey [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi all, I looked to the PEPs didn't find a proposition to remove brackets commas for to make Python func call syntax caml- or tcl- like: instead of result = myfun(param1, myfun2(param5, param8), param3) just make possible using result = myfun param1 (myfun2 param5 param8) param3 it would reduce length of code lines and make them more readable, + no needs to write annoing charecters. Maybe it will require more work than I suppose, for example handling of things like result = myfun(param1, myfun2(param5, param8), param3=15, param4=200) to result = myfun param1 (myfun2 param5 param8) param3=15 param4=200 #so it needs some more efforts to decode by compiler but anyway I think it worth. + it will not yield incompabilities with previous Python versions. WBR, D. In my opinion, it is much less readable. That may be due to my experiences with TCL, BASH-scripting, with C, C++, and Python. The parenthesis make it very obvious that a function call is going on, and mirrors the mathematical notations that denote using a function. With touch-typing on an American keyboard, the ()'s are not really any more annoying than any of the various top-row digits. I personally find the backslash character (\) to be far more annoying, as it can have one of several locations depending on the keyboard style. (Most sanely put it above the Enter key.) As others have pointed out, the code that you presented really isn't all that much shorter. Short code isn't really what Python's about. Perl has many ways to write very short, incomprehensible code. A further ambiguity to consider: result = func1 Is the name result bound to the function func1? Or is func1 called, and its result is bound to the name result? Good luck with your PEP. --Jason -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: why brackets commas in func calls can't be ommited? (maybe it could be PEP?)
dmitrey [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: + it will not yield incompabilities with previous Python versions. So how would you write: func(-3) func(*param) with your scheme? These already have an incompatible meaning: func -3 func *param1 -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: why brackets commas in func calls can't be ommited? (maybe it could be PEP?)
On Mar 21, 3:38 pm, dmitrey [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi all, I looked to the PEPs didn't find a proposition to remove brackets commas for to make Python func call syntax caml- or tcl- like: instead of result = myfun(param1, myfun2(param5, param8), param3) just make possible using result = myfun param1 (myfun2 param5 param8) param3 How would you write a = b(c())? In my opinion it'll make code extremely obfuscaded. The great thing about Python, when comparing with eg. Perl or C, is that code is readable, even if written by experienced hacker. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: why brackets commas in func calls can't be ommited? (maybe it could be PEP?)
On Wed, 21 Mar 2007 07:55:08 -0700, dmitrey top posted: I think it should result What's it? Please don't top post, it makes your answer hard to understand and makes your readers have to do more work to read your posts. We're not being paid to read your posts, so I'd estimate that about 70% of readers have just clicked Delete at this point and ignored you. For those remaining: The Original Poster, dmitrey, wants to copy caml syntax, because he doesn't like brackets and commas. The problem is that the expression: name1 name2 is ambiguous. Does it mean name1(name2) or (name1, name2)? Add a third name, and the ambiguity increases: there are now at least four ways to interpret name1 name2 name3: (name1, name2, name3) (name1, name2(name3)) name1(name2, name3) name1(name2(name3)) Dmitrey thinks that the third way is the right way to interpret the proposed expression, just because it seems natural to him. But that is illogical: it means that *different* parsing rules are applied to the name2 name3 part than to the name1 * part (where * stands in for anything): Dmitry wants name1 * to equal name1(*) which is fair enough as it stands. But he wants to expand the * part, not by following the same rule, but by following the different rule name2 name3 = (name2, name3) and form a tuple. So what should a b c d be? (a, b, c, d) a(b, c, d) a(b, (c, d)) a(b(c, d)) a(b(c(d))) Have I missed anything? Which is the right way? Who can tell? Who can guess? I don't know how caml resolves these ambiguities, or even if caml resolves them, or if it is a good solution. But I propose that an even better solution is to insist on EXPLICIT function calls and tuple construction, that is to insist on brackets and commas. In other words, to go back to Dmitry's original post where he wrote: it would reduce length of code lines and make them more readable I would change that to say it would reduce length of code lines and make them LESS readable and MORE ambiguous, leading to MORE bugs. -- Steven. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: why brackets commas in func calls can't be ommited? (maybe it could be PEP?)
Bart Ogryczak wrote: On Mar 21, 3:38 pm, dmitrey [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi all, I looked to the PEPs didn't find a proposition to remove brackets commas for to make Python func call syntax caml- or tcl- like: instead of result = myfun(param1, myfun2(param5, param8), param3) just make possible using result = myfun param1 (myfun2 param5 param8) param3 How would you write a = b(c())? In my opinion it'll make code extremely obfuscaded. The great thing about Python, when comparing with eg. Perl or C, is that code is readable, even if written by experienced hacker. Yes, but let's not forget that we are in half-baked idea territory here. The fact that dmitrey didn't twig that the absence of such a proposal was likely for good reasons implies either an intellectual arrogance beyond that of most mere mortals or a goodly dollop of ignorance. Maybe we could omit the leading whitespace as well? regards Steve -- Steve Holden +44 150 684 7255 +1 800 494 3119 Holden Web LLC/Ltd http://www.holdenweb.com Skype: holdenweb http://del.icio.us/steve.holden Recent Ramblings http://holdenweb.blogspot.com -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: why brackets commas in func calls can't be ommited? (maybe it could be PEP?)
foo bar baz foo(bar,baz) 1st still is shorter by 1 char; considering majority of people use space after comma number of parameters can be big it yileds foo bar baz bar2 bar3 bar4 vs foo(bar, baz, bar2, bar3, bar4) result = func1 for this case should using result = func1() should remain + remaining function defenitions def myfun(param1, param2,...,paramk, *args, **kwargs) How would you write a = b(c())? a = b c() So what should a b c d be? (a, b, c, d) a(b, c, d) a(b, (c, d)) a(b(c, d)) a(b(c(d))) I mentioned above that it should be 2nd case I don't know how caml resolves these ambiguities, or even if caml resolves them Yes, he does it perfectly, hence Python could have same abilities. But I don't insist anything, I only proposed. Since majority disagreed with the proposition, it don't worth further discussion. WBR, D. P.S. Steven, many people aren't able speak English as good as you, so do I. I hope majority of readers will forgive me for wasting their costly attantion time. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: why brackets commas in func calls can't be ommited? (maybe it could be PEP?)
dmitrey a écrit : Hi all, I looked to the PEPs didn't find a proposition to remove brackets commas for to make Python func call syntax caml- or tcl- like: instead of result = myfun(param1, myfun2(param5, param8), param3) just make possible using result = myfun param1 (myfun2 param5 param8) param3 it would reduce length of code lines Not by a noticeable amount and make them more readable, I guess it's a matter of personal taste, experience with other languages and whatnot, but as far a I'm concerned, I find the actual syntax more readable - I don't have to think twice to know that it's a function call and what are the params. Also, and FWIW, in Python, the parens are the call operator. Given that a function may return another function, how would you handle the following case: result = my_hof(foo, bar)(baaz) And while where at it, since Python functions are first class objects, how would you handle this other case: def somefunc(arg): return 2 * arg alias = somefunc # some code here result = alias(42) + no needs to write annoing charecters. Could it be that these 'annoying characters' have a good reason to be here ? Strange as it might be, Python has not been built randomly. Maybe it will require more work than I suppose, Probably, yes. but anyway I think it worth. So try to solve the above problems and come back here with an example working implementation. + it will not yield incompabilities with previous Python versions. Hmmm. I would not bet my life on this... -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: why brackets commas in func calls can't be ommited? (maybe it could be PEP?)
dmitrey wrote: I looked to the PEPs didn't find a proposition to remove brackets commas for to make Python func call syntax caml- or tcl- like: instead of result = myfun(param1, myfun2(param5, param8), param3) just make possible using result = myfun param1 (myfun2 param5 param8) param3 You should really post this somewhere that Guido will see it so he can add it to PEP 3099: Things that will Not Change in Python 3000. Really, there's no way this is going to fly, so you might as well drop it or write your own language. STeVe P.S. If you use IPython, I believe you can get some of this. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: why brackets commas in func calls can't be ommited? (maybe it could be PEP?)
Diez B. Roggisch wrote: dmitrey wrote: I looked to the PEPs didn't find a proposition to remove brackets commas for to make Python func call syntax caml- or tcl- like: instead of result = myfun(param1, myfun2(param5, param8), param3) just make possible using result = myfun param1 (myfun2 param5 param8) param3 it would reduce length of code lines and make them more readable, + no needs to write annoing charecters. This is not true, there is no shorter code lines: foo bar baz foo(bar,baz) And the more readable part certainly depends on the habits of the user - to me, it's harder to read. I agree. Not to mention, the secondary stated goal of saving typing should be very, very low down on the list of priorities in programming language design. Excessive and needless verbosity is one thing; but saving keystrokes for its own sake is not a priority and never should be. -- Erik Max Francis [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.alcyone.com/max/ San Jose, CA, USA 37 20 N 121 53 W AIM, Y!M erikmaxfrancis I am not afraid / To be a lone Bohemian -- Lamya -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
