Typo:
*You can usually guess that, since `person` isn't a local variable, we're
probably dealing with a generator *comprehension*
On Sun, Jul 29, 2018 at 11:00 PM, Abe Dillon wrote:
> [Steven D'Aprano]
>
>> really wish you would stop talking about "natural language" as if
>> there were only one
[Steven D'Aprano]
> really wish you would stop talking about "natural language" as if
> there were only one (and it were English).
I'm fine with that. I've just had someone jump down my throat before about
being overly English-centric when talking about readability.
[Steven D'Aprano]
> even
[Steve D'Aprano]
> so you absolutely are claiming that dot access "isn't *that* different"
> from the possessive in English.
Only in the context that I gave: `person.name`. In other contexts (e.g.
thing.is_metal) the possessive analogy is obviously inaccurate, but I
didn't make the broad claim
On Sun, Jul 29, 2018, 7:46 AM Steven D'Aprano wrote:
> One of the problems with David Mertz's counter-proposal for a magic
> None-aware proxy is that we can't tell the difference between spam.eggs
> and spam.eggs where one of them is magic and the other is not. So we have a
> nice, clear,
On Sun, Jul 29, 2018 at 02:12:22AM -0500, Abe Dillon wrote:
[I said this]
> > Python is very little like natural language. Your earlier idea that
> > attribute access spam.eggs is like natural language (in English) because
> > its only a few characters different from "spam's eggs" really doesn't
