Ron_Adam wrote:
On Fri, 25 Mar 2005 18:58:27 +0100, Reinhold Birkenfeld
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ron_Adam wrote:
What if you could:
x = lambda{ x, y: x+y}
Hmm comma creates a problem here. so...
from __future__ import braces
SyntaxError: not a chance
Reinhold ;)
LOL, :-)
Kay Schluehr [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
To make my intention clear for another time, also for George who
mistrusts these exercises alltogether. I want to derive a syntax and
semantics for anonymus functions ( called tuple-actions ) that are
generalizations of rules that are already used
On 24 Mar 2005 22:16:10 -0800, Kay Schluehr [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
It's all developed during this discussion. Sometimes I'm a bit
surprised were it goes.
I enjoy exploring ideas this way. Many times it leads to dead ends or
you just end up with a long way back to where you started, but
Ron_Adam wrote:
What if you could:
x = lambda{ x, y: x+y}
Hmm comma creates a problem here. so...
from __future__ import braces
SyntaxError: not a chance
Reinhold ;)
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
On Fri, 25 Mar 2005 18:58:27 +0100, Reinhold Birkenfeld
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ron_Adam wrote:
What if you could:
x = lambda{ x, y: x+y}
Hmm comma creates a problem here. so...
from __future__ import braces
SyntaxError: not a chance
Reinhold ;)
LOL, :-)
Is that to discourage
Ron wrote:
On Wed, 23 Mar 2005 06:21:30 +0100, Kay Schluehr [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
I think my proposal was more in mind of Rons modified exec than
Pythons lambda.
When George proposed his unpacking behavoir for list-comps as a pack
of
suggar:
1. [x*y-z for (x,y,z=0) in (1,2,3),
Kay Schluehr [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[snipped]
Wouldn't it be fun to use in Python?
Only drawback: does not look like executable pseudo-code anymore :(
Regards Kay
I don't know if it would be fun, but it certainly doesn't look accessible to
mere mortals :-) I'm
not sure if the mind
On Thu, 24 Mar 2005 12:07:44 -0500, George Sakkis
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Kay Schluehr [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[snipped]
Wouldn't it be fun to use in Python?
Only drawback: does not look like executable pseudo-code anymore :(
Regards Kay
I don't know if it would be fun, but it
On 24 Mar 2005 01:58:48 -0800, Kay Schluehr [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
I personally don't like using exec and eval for stuff different from
evaluating user input.
I lean the other way. I never want to use user impute for eval and
exec. Way too risky. But limited use, that is not user input,
Ron_Adam wrote:
On 24 Mar 2005 01:58:48 -0800, Kay Schluehr [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
I personally don't like using exec and eval for stuff different from
evaluating user input.
I lean the other way. I never want to use user impute for eval and
exec. Way too risky.
Well a Python console
Kay Schluehr wrote:
Hi all,
thanks for Your attention !
I think my proposal was more in mind of Rons modified exec than
Pythons lambda.
When George proposed his unpacking behavoir for list-comps as a pack of
suggar:
1. [x*y-z for (x,y,z=0) in (1,2,3), (4,5), (6,7,8)]
I interpreted it in a
On Wed, 23 Mar 2005 06:21:30 +0100, Kay Schluehr [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
I think my proposal was more in mind of Rons modified exec than
Pythons lambda.
When George proposed his unpacking behavoir for list-comps as a pack of
suggar:
1. [x*y-z for (x,y,z=0) in (1,2,3), (4,5), (6,7,8)]
I
Hi all,
thanks for Your attention !
I think my proposal was more in mind of Rons modified exec than
Pythons lambda.
When George proposed his unpacking behavoir for list-comps as a pack of
suggar:
1. [x*y-z for (x,y,z=0) in (1,2,3), (4,5), (6,7,8)]
I interpreted it in a subsequent posting in lambda
13 matches
Mail list logo
