"Marcin 'Qrczak' Kowalczyk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Greg Ewing <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > So I'd like to propose that "def time" be modified
> > slightly to mean "def time of the outermost function
> > that is still inside the scopes containing all the
> > names that the case expre
Greg Ewing <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> So I'd like to propose that "def time" be modified
> slightly to mean "def time of the outermost function
> that is still inside the scopes containing all the
> names that the case expressions depend on". Not
> sure about the wording of that, but I hope you
On 7/7/06, Guido van Rossum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I don't like storing it as a global; and that's probably incorrect
> too, e.g. if multiple definitions of f are being made in a loop.
Should the case expressions be different for each loop? If not, then
it doesn't matter, and a per-module s
On 7/9/06, Greg Ewing <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> For an expert user, I don't think "outermost possible
> function object" is substantially harder to grasp than
> "immediately enclosing function object".
I'm not getting through here. I think it is harder to debug because
now you have to take into
Guido van Rossum wrote:
> On 7/7/06, Greg Ewing <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> You seem to be conflating "nested functions" and
>> "functional programming", which doesn't make sense
>> to me.
>
> Not even a smidgen? Small nested functions (or lambdas) are pretty
> common in a functional style.
On 7/7/06, Talin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I'm in agreement with Greg here - his version sounds easier to
> understand, with less hidden gotchas. I would rather have "it always
> works with the same semantics, but some cases are slower than others",
> than "it only works in some cases".
I think
On 7/7/06, Greg Ewing <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Guido van Rossum wrote:
>
> > The
> > combination of the first and second suggests a functional programming
> > mindset which somehow makes the third less likely.
>
> You seem to be conflating "nested functions" and
> "functional programming", whic
On 7/7/06, Georg Brandl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Ka-Ping Yee wrote:
> > On Wed, 5 Jul 2006, Guido van Rossum wrote:
> >> So, my proposal is to give up on static, accept PEP 3103 with the
> >> following options:
> >> - Syntax alternative 2+B (unindented cases, 'case in ...' for
> >> multip
On Wed, 5 Jul 2006, Guido van Rossum wrote:
> So, my proposal is to give up on static, accept PEP 3103 with the
> following options:
> - Syntax alternative 2+B (unindented cases, 'case in ...' for
> multiple cases).
> - Semantics option 3 (def-time freezing)
>
> Do we need any more discussi
Ka-Ping Yee wrote:
> On Wed, 5 Jul 2006, Guido van Rossum wrote:
>> So, my proposal is to give up on static, accept PEP 3103 with the
>> following options:
>> - Syntax alternative 2+B (unindented cases, 'case in ...' for
>> multiple cases).
>> - Semantics option 3 (def-time freezing)
>>
>>
Greg Ewing wrote:
> Guido van Rossum wrote:
>
>>The
>>combination of the first and second suggests a functional programming
>>mindset which somehow makes the third less likely.
>
> You seem to be conflating "nested functions" and
> "functional programming", which doesn't make sense
> to me.
>
>>
Guido van Rossum wrote:
> The
> combination of the first and second suggests a functional programming
> mindset which somehow makes the third less likely.
You seem to be conflating "nested functions" and
"functional programming", which doesn't make sense
to me.
> Your suggestion also makes it ha
Greg Ewing wrote:
> Andrew Clover wrote:
>
>
>>Here's another syntax off the top of my head - put the first case in the
>>switch statement?
>>
>> switch biscuit.type if 'digestive':
>> ...
>> elif in 'jammy_dodger', 'garibaldi':
>> ...
>> else:
>> ...
>
>
> Ugly.
s
On 7/6/06, Greg Ewing <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Guido van Rossum wrote:
>
> > So, my proposal is to give up on static, accept PEP 3103 with the
> > following options:
> > - Syntax alternative 2+B (unindented cases, 'case in ...' for multiple
> > cases).
> > - Semantics option 3 (def-time fr
Greg Ewing writes:
> Maybe a compromise could be reached by having the
> style guide recommend a two-space indent for the
> cases, and a further two-space indent for the
> case bodies. Then the overall indentation of the
> bodies would still be only four spaces.
+1: I tried it and it looks good on
Georg Brandl wrote:
> I'm not very comfortable about the no-additional-indentation-after-colon
> syntax too, but I also realize that requiring two levels of indentation
> for a single statement is too much.
That's a matter of opinion. I don't have any trouble
with it, but then I don't tend to set
Andrew Clover wrote:
> Here's another syntax off the top of my head - put the first case in the
> switch statement?
>
>switch biscuit.type if 'digestive':
>...
>elif in 'jammy_dodger', 'garibaldi':
>...
>else:
>...
Ugly.
--
Greg
_
Guido van Rossum wrote:
> So, my proposal is to give up on static, accept PEP 3103 with the
> following options:
> - Syntax alternative 2+B (unindented cases, 'case in ...' for multiple
> cases).
> - Semantics option 3 (def-time freezing)
I agree with giving up on static, or at least treatin
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Jul 5, 2006, at 6:54 AM, Guido van Rossum wrote:
> So, my proposal is to give up on static, accept PEP 3103 with the
> following options:
> - Syntax alternative 2+B (unindented cases, 'case in ...' for
> multiple cases).
> - Semantics option
On 7/5/06, Andrew Clover <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Guido van Rossum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > (I'm not super confident about the syntax alternatives yet.)
>
> The switch:-without-indent business still naggingly makes me feel
> uncomfortable.
Me too, but only on even-numbered days...
> I
Andrew Clover wrote:
> Guido van Rossum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> (I'm not super confident about the syntax alternatives yet.)
>
> The switch:-without-indent business still naggingly makes me feel
> uncomfortable.
>
> Is this a valid no-case-switch?
>
>switch cake:
>print 'hello'
Guido van Rossum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> (I'm not super confident about the syntax alternatives yet.)
The switch:-without-indent business still naggingly makes me feel
uncomfortable.
Is this a valid no-case-switch?
switch cake:
print 'hello'
Here's another syntax off the top of my
On 7/5/06, Guido van Rossum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
One of her comments struck home: the open source development process,which is often represented as exclusively taking place on line, isactually augmented in a significant way by direct physical interactionbetween developers at events like EuroP
I'm sitting here at EuroPython listening to a speaker who has analyzed
interaction patterns on python-dev. (She represents me as a red dot
and Raymond H as a yellow star in a diagram. I'm trying not to read
too much into that. :-)
One of her comments struck home: the open source development proces
24 matches
Mail list logo
