On Thu, 2009-01-22 at 09:07 -0700, Joe Strout wrote:
Beep
Doesn't get much more readable and syntax-free than that.
readable doesn't mean smallest amount of syntax possible sometimes
syntax
increases the readability of a text as you would see if we for
example
dropped all
J. Cliff Dyer wrote:
On Tue, 2009-02-03 at 08:33 -0700, Joe Strout wrote:
J. Cliff Dyer wrote:
But what if your language allows functions to be used as first class
objects? (Mine does :))
x = Beep
Does that assign the name x to the Beep object or does it assign the
result of a Beep
On Feb 3, 2:01 pm, J. Cliff Dyer j...@sdf.lonestar.org wrote:
On Tue, 2009-02-03 at 08:33 -0700, Joe Strout wrote:
J. Cliff Dyer wrote:
But what if your language allows functions to be used as first class
objects? (Mine does :))
x = Beep
Does that assign the name x to the Beep
On Tue, 2009-02-03 at 08:33 -0700, Joe Strout wrote:
J. Cliff Dyer wrote:
But what if your language allows functions to be used as first class
objects? (Mine does :))
x = Beep
Does that assign the name x to the Beep object or does it assign the
result of a Beep call to x?
Joe Strout wrote:
Aaron Brady wrote:
Where functions are first-class objects, a bare function object isn't
distinguishable either from its call.
That depends not on whether functions are first-class objects, but on
the *syntax* of function invocation vs. function reference. It just so
On Wed, 21 Jan 2009 08:17:34 -0700, Joe Strout wrote:
Steven D'Aprano wrote:
...
But even if RB doesn't have these things, I question that the syntax is
beautiful. Consider some arbitrary method Foo. If you see this:
Foo
Is that legal RB syntax?
You betcha!
How do you know? I
On Jan 22, 1:46 am, Steven D'Aprano
ste...@remove.this.cybersource.com.au wrote:
On Wed, 21 Jan 2009 00:57:49 -0800, Aaron Brady wrote:
Natural language doesn't have the equivalent of parentheses,
I take it you mean natural language doesn't have the equivalent of
parentheses for *calling*,
On Jan 22, 2:17 am, Steven D'Aprano
ste...@remove.this.cybersource.com.au wrote:
On Wed, 21 Jan 2009 08:17:34 -0700, Joe Strout wrote:
But of course. Any method call is legal only if the form of the call
matches the method prototype -- if you try to call a function that
requires 4
Steven D'Aprano wrote:
Foo
Is that legal RB syntax?
You betcha!
How do you know? I haven't specified what Foo does.
You haven't specified whether Foo is a valid identifier at all, so I'm
assuming that it is both valid and used correctly here. The syntax is
certainly valid -- it
On Tue, 20 Jan 2009 11:58:46 -0700, Joe Strout wrote:
Aaron Brady wrote:
I think it would be a good step if you could make some sensible
interpretation of a typical statement without its parentheses.
f abc 123
--
f( abc, 123 )
It would be just the thing in a couple of situations...
On Jan 20, 9:16 pm, MRAB goo...@mrabarnett.plus.com wrote:
Terry Reedy wrote:
Joe Strout wrote:
Aaron Brady wrote:
I think it would be a good step if you could make some sensible
interpretation of a typical statement without its parentheses.
f abc 123
--
f( abc, 123 )
How would
On Jan 21, 2:36 am, Steven D'Aprano
ste...@remove.this.cybersource.com.au wrote:
On Tue, 20 Jan 2009 11:58:46 -0700, Joe Strout wrote:
Aaron Brady wrote:
I think it would be a good step if you could make some sensible
interpretation of a typical statement without its parentheses.
f abc
Steven D'Aprano wrote:
LogError Walk has gotten too silly, CurrentTime
Here, LogError is a method call that takes two arguments, and
CurrentTime is a method call that takes none.
That seems ambiguous to me. As a non-RealBasic programmer, I can see at
least four meanings it could have.
Aaron Brady wrote:
Where functions are first-class objects, a bare function object isn't
distinguishable either from its call.
That depends not on whether functions are first-class objects, but on
the *syntax* of function invocation vs. function reference. It just so
happens than in
Benjamin J. Racine wrote:
I think it would be a good step if you could make some sensible interpretation
of a typical statement without its parentheses.
f abc 123
--
f( abc, 123 )
It would be just the thing in a couple of situations... though it does conflict with raw-string
literals as
On Jan 21, 9:24 am, Joe Strout j...@strout.net wrote:
Aaron Brady wrote:
Where functions are first-class objects, a bare function object isn't
distinguishable either from its call.
That depends not on whether functions are first-class objects, but on
the *syntax* of function invocation vs.
On Jan 21, 2:50 pm, Scott David Daniels scott.dani...@acm.org wrote:
Benjamin J. Racine wrote:
I think it would be a good step if you could make some sensible
interpretation of a typical statement without its parentheses.
f abc 123
--
f( abc, 123 )
It would be just the thing in a
On Wed, 21 Jan 2009 00:57:49 -0800, Aaron Brady wrote:
Natural language doesn't have the equivalent of parentheses,
I take it you mean natural language doesn't have the equivalent of
parentheses for *calling*, since NLs can (and do) use parentheses for
grouping -- as well as various
On Jan 17, 6:10 pm, The Music Guy music...@alphaios.net wrote:
Wow, impressive responses.
It sounds like the general consensus is that English would not be a good
choice for programming even if there were an interpreter capable of
turning human language into machine language. But that makes
Aaron Brady wrote:
I think it would be a good step if you could make some sensible
interpretation of a typical statement without its parentheses.
f abc 123
--
f( abc, 123 )
It would be just the thing in a couple of situations...
Such a language is possible -- take a look at REALbasic
Python is English-like enough that everybody including non-programmers can
understand it.e.g
# Import the operating system module
import os
# define new function
def open_dir_tree(path):
for File in os.listdir(path):
file_or_dir = os.path.join(path, File)
# Read the line
On Jan 20, 12:58 pm, Joe Strout j...@strout.net wrote:
Aaron Brady wrote:
I think it would be a good step if you could make some sensible
interpretation of a typical statement without its parentheses.
f abc 123
--
f( abc, 123 )
It would be just the thing in a couple of situations...
Aaron Brady wrote:
Unambiguity and readability are two different things. (This should be
a quasi-tangent, neither agreed, nor opposed, nor unrelated to what
you said.)
If you have
f abc 123
it's unambiguous, but, if you have
g f abc 123 def
there's no sure way to determine where the call
] On Behalf Of Aaron
Brady
Sent: Tuesday, January 20, 2009 10:14 AM
To: python-list@python.org
Subject: Re: English-like Python
On Jan 17, 6:10 pm, The Music Guy music...@alphaios.net wrote:
Wow, impressive responses.
It sounds like the general consensus is that English would not be a
good choice
Joe Strout wrote:
Aaron Brady wrote:
Unambiguity and readability are two different things. (This should be
a quasi-tangent, neither agreed, nor opposed, nor unrelated to what
you said.)
If you have
f abc 123
it's unambiguous, but, if you have
g f abc 123 def
there's no sure way to
Joe Strout wrote:
Aaron Brady wrote:
I think it would be a good step if you could make some sensible
interpretation of a typical statement without its parentheses.
f abc 123
--
f( abc, 123 )
It would be just the thing in a couple of situations...
Such a language is possible -- take a look
On Jan 16, 12:02 pm, The Music Guy music...@alphaios.net wrote:
Just out of curiousity, have there been any attempts to make a version
of Python that looks like actual English text? I mean, so much of Python
is already based on the English language that it seems like the next
natural step
Joe Strout wrote:
Aaron Brady wrote:
I think it would be a good step if you could make some sensible
interpretation of a typical statement without its parentheses.
f abc 123
--
f( abc, 123 )
How would you differentiate
f 'abc' + 'def'
as
f('abc') + 'def'
versus
f('abc' + 'def')
Such a
Terry Reedy wrote:
Joe Strout wrote:
Aaron Brady wrote:
I think it would be a good step if you could make some sensible
interpretation of a typical statement without its parentheses.
f abc 123
--
f( abc, 123 )
How would you differentiate
f 'abc' + 'def'
as
f('abc') + 'def'
versus
f('abc'
The Music Guy wrote:
Just out of curiousity, have there been any attempts to make a version
of Python that looks like actual English text?
Many have tried that in the decades, but IMHO the best approach is to
just rename the language. We cannot do that since it's already been
trademarked
Wow, impressive responses.
It sounds like the general consensus is that English would not be a good
choice for programming even if there were an interpreter capable of
turning human language into machine language. But that makes sense; even
English professionals have trouble understanding each
On Jan 15, 7:02 pm, The Music Guy music...@alphaios.net wrote:
Just out of curiousity, have there been any attempts to make a version
of Python that looks like actual English text? I mean, so much of Python
is already based on the English language that it seems like the next
natural step would
On 16 Jan., 02:02, The Music Guy music...@alphaios.net wrote:
Just out of curiousity, have there been any attempts to make a version
of Python that looks like actual English text?
No, but I've once written a Python dialect that uses German text. Just
look at how amazing this result is !!! But
2009/1/17 Kay Schluehr kay.schlu...@gmx.net:
On 16 Jan., 02:02, The Music Guy music...@alphaios.net wrote:
Just out of curiousity, have there been any attempts to make a version
of Python that looks like actual English text?
No, but I've once written a Python dialect that uses German text.
2009/1/16 has has.te...@virgin.net:
http://www.alice.org/
Ooh, JavaLikeSyntax.py indeed! Why not PythonLikeSyntax, since
that's apparently what they used!
--
Tim Rowe
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
On Jan 16, 5:39 pm, Erik Max Francis m...@alcyone.com wrote:
Inform 7 has some
interesting ideas, but I think the general problem with English-like
programming language systems is that once you get into the nitty gritty
details, you end up having to know exactly the right things to type,
This
On Jan 16, 3:15 am, alex23 wuwe...@gmail.com wrote:
On Jan 16, 5:39 pm, Erik Max Francis m...@alcyone.com wrote:
Inform 7 has some
interesting ideas, but I think the general problem with English-like
programming language systems is that once you get into the nitty gritty
details, you end
[Hit Reply instead of Reply All. Sorry alex23.]
alex23 wrote:
On Jan 16, 5:39 pm, Erik Max Francis m...@alcyone.com wrote:
Inform 7 has some interesting ideas, but I think the general
problem with English-like programming language systems is that once
you get into the nitty gritty details, you
On Jan 16, 8:39 am, Erik Max Francis m...@alcyone.com wrote:
I was thinking of this as well when I saw his post. Inform 7 has some
interesting ideas, but I think the general problem with English-like
programming language systems is that once you get into the nitty gritty
details, you end up
2009/1/16 The Music Guy music...@alphaios.net:
Just out of curiousity, have there been any attempts to make a version
of Python that looks like actual English text? I mean, so much of Python
is already based on the English language that it seems like the next
natural step would be to make a
On 16 Jan, 05:42, Chris Rebert c...@rebertia.com wrote:
On Thu, Jan 15, 2009 at 5:02 PM, The Music Guy music...@alphaios.net wrote:
Just out of curiousity, have there been any attempts to make a version
of Python that looks like actual English text?
[...]
Does the name AppleScript mean
alex23 wrote:
On Jan 16, 5:39 pm, Erik Max Francis m...@alcyone.com wrote:
Inform 7 has some
interesting ideas, but I think the general problem with English-like
programming language systems is that once you get into the nitty gritty
details, you end up having to know exactly the right things
Just out of curiousity, have there been any attempts to make a version
of Python that looks like actual English text? I mean, so much of Python
is already based on the English language that it seems like the next
natural step would be to make a programming language which is actually a
spoken one.
On Fri, Jan 16, 2009 at 11:02 AM, The Music Guy music...@alphaios.net wrote:
Just out of curiousity, have there been any attempts to make a version
of Python that looks like actual English text? I mean, so much of Python
is already based on the English language that it seems like the next
On Thu, Jan 15, 2009 at 5:02 PM, The Music Guy music...@alphaios.net wrote:
Just out of curiousity, have there been any attempts to make a version
of Python that looks like actual English text? I mean, so much of Python
is already based on the English language that it seems like the next
The Music Guy music...@alphaios.net writes:
...might be translated as...
Import the operating system module.
http://coboloncogs.org
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
The Music Guy skrev:
Just out of curiousity, have there been any attempts to make a version
of Python that looks like actual English text? I mean, so much of Python
is already based on the English language that it seems like the next
natural step would be to make a programming language which is
Tobias Andersson wrote:
The Music Guy skrev:
Just out of curiousity, have there been any attempts to make a version
of Python that looks like actual English text? I mean, so much of Python
is already based on the English language that it seems like the next
natural step would be to make a
The Music Guy wrote:
Just out of curiousity, have there been any attempts to make a version
of Python that looks like actual English text? I mean, so much of Python
is already based on the English language that it seems like the next
natural step would be to make a programming language which is
49 matches
Mail list logo
