On 2010-09-30, namekuseijin wrote:
> it generates a list from syntax comprehended in list-like syntax!
Okay, help me out here. (Killed the crossposting.)
I am not understanding how the word applies. I'm fine with it, but I don't
see any relation at all between the thing called a list comprehen
On 29 set, 17:46, Xah Lee wrote:
> On Sep 29, 11:02 am, namekuseijin wrote:
>
> > On 28 set, 19:38, Xah Lee wrote:
>
> > > • “list comprehension” is a very bad jargon; thus harmful to
> > > functional programing or programing in general. Being a bad jargon, it
> > > encourage mis-communication,
On Wed, Sep 29, 2010 at 2:46 PM, Xah Lee wrote:
> what's your basis in saying that “list comprehension” is intuitive?
>
> any statics, survery, research, references you have to cite?
>
> to put this in context, are you saying that lambda, is also intuitive?
> “let” is intuitive? “for” is intuitiv
On Sep 29, 11:02 am, namekuseijin wrote:
> On 28 set, 19:38, Xah Lee wrote:
>
> > • “list comprehension” is a very bad jargon; thus harmful to
> > functional programing or programing in general. Being a bad jargon, it
> > encourage mis-communication, mis-understanding.
>
> I disagree: it is a qu
On 28 set, 19:38, Xah Lee wrote:
> • “list comprehension” is a very bad jargon; thus harmful to
> functional programing or programing in general. Being a bad jargon, it
> encourage mis-communication, mis-understanding.
I disagree: it is a quite intuitive term to describe what the
expression does
2010-09-28
On Sep 28, 12:07 pm, namekuseijin wrote:
> On 28 set, 14:56, Xah Lee wrote:
>
> > ultimately, all lang gets transformed at the compiler level to become
> > machine instructions, which is imperative programing in the ultimate
> > sense.
>
> > You say that “do” is merely macro and ultim
xah wrote:
> in anycase, how's “do” not imperative?
On Sep 28, 6:27 am, namekuseijin wrote:
> > how's “do” a “named let”? can you show example or reference of that
> > proposal? (is it worthwhile?)
>
> I'll post it again in the hope you'll read this time:
>
> "
> (do ((i 0 (+ 1 i)) ; i initially
On 27 set, 18:39, Xah Lee wrote:
> On Sep 27, 12:11 pm, namekuseijin wrote:
>
> > On 27 set, 16:06, Xah Lee wrote:> 2010-09-27
>
> > > > For instance, this is far more convenient:
> > > > [x+1 for x in [1,2,3,4,5] if x%2==0]
> > > > than this:
> > > > map(lambda x:x+1,filter(lambda x:x%2==0,[1,2
On Sep 27, 12:11 pm, namekuseijin wrote:
> On 27 set, 16:06, Xah Lee wrote:> 2010-09-27
>
> > > For instance, this is far more convenient:
> > > [x+1 for x in [1,2,3,4,5] if x%2==0]
> > > than this:
> > > map(lambda x:x+1,filter(lambda x:x%2==0,[1,2,3,4,5]))
>
> > How about this:
>
> [snip]
>
> h
On 27 set, 16:06, Xah Lee wrote:
> 2010-09-27
>
> > For instance, this is far more convenient:
> > [x+1 for x in [1,2,3,4,5] if x%2==0]
> > than this:
> > map(lambda x:x+1,filter(lambda x:x%2==0,[1,2,3,4,5]))
>
> How about this:
[snip]
how about this: read before replying.
--
http://mail.python
2010-09-27
> For instance, this is far more convenient:
> [x+1 for x in [1,2,3,4,5] if x%2==0]
> than this:
> map(lambda x:x+1,filter(lambda x:x%2==0,[1,2,3,4,5]))
How about this:
LC(func, inputList, P)
compared to
[func for myVar in inputList if P]
the functional form is:
• shorter
• n
11 matches
Mail list logo
