On Aug 9, 8:19 am, Mike Kent mrmak...@cox.net wrote:
On Aug 8, 8:43 pm, rantingrick rantingr...@gmail.com wrote:
Xah, this is really you, isn't it. Come on, confess.
*MOI*, How could *I* be xah. I really don't like Ruby however he
gushes over it all the time. And he does not like Python that
On Aug 8, 8:15 pm, Steven D'Aprano st...@remove-this-
cybersource.com.au wrote:
On Sun, 08 Aug 2010 17:43:03 -0700, rantingrick wrote:
Ruby has what they
call a Here Doc. Besides picking the most boneheaded name for such an
object
It's standard terminology that has been around for a long
On Aug 8, 8:15 pm, Steven D'Aprano st...@remove-this-
cybersource.com.au wrote:
In Ruby they decided to be more general, so you can define whatever
heredoc you need to quote whatever literal string you need. That's not
bone-headed.
Devils Advocate!
PS: Man you're irb main was so full of
On Mon, 09 Aug 2010 00:29:19 -0700, rantingrick wrote:
On Aug 8, 8:15 pm, Steven D'Aprano st...@remove-this-
cybersource.com.au wrote:
In Ruby they decided to be more general, so you can define whatever
heredoc you need to quote whatever literal string you need. That's not
bone-headed.
Hi Steven,
On 2010-08-09 10:21, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
And that it's quite finicky about blank lines between methods and inside
functions. Makes it hard to paste code directly into the interpreter.
And that pasting doesn't strip out any leading prompts. It needs a good
doctest mode.
On Aug 8, 8:43 pm, rantingrick rantingr...@gmail.com wrote:
Hello folks,
You all know i been forced to use Ruby and i am not happy about that.
***Blablabla cut long rant***
Xah, this is really you, isn't it. Come on, confess.
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
On 2010-08-09 06:42 , Stefan Schwarzer wrote:
Hi Steven,
On 2010-08-09 10:21, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
And that it's quite finicky about blank lines between methods and inside
functions. Makes it hard to paste code directly into the interpreter.
And that pasting doesn't strip out any leading
Hi Robert,
On 2010-08-09 22:23, Robert Kern wrote:
On 2010-08-09 06:42 , Stefan Schwarzer wrote:
Unfortunatey, when I enter
In [2]: %paste
at the prompt it gives me (before I pasted anything)
In [2]: %paste
File
On 2010-08-09 23:43, Stefan Schwarzer wrote:
I got that traceback as soon as I typed in %paste and
pressed enter, without pasting anything in the terminal.
I had assumed it works like :paste in Vim, activating a
I meant :set paste of course.
Stefan
--
On 9 Aug, 10:21, Steven D'Aprano st...@remove-this-
cybersource.com.au wrote:
And that it's quite finicky about blank lines between methods and inside
functions. Makes it hard to paste code directly into the interpreter.
The combination of editor, debugger and interpreter is what I miss
most
On 8/9/10 4:43 PM, Stefan Schwarzer wrote:
Hi Robert,
On 2010-08-09 22:23, Robert Kern wrote:
On 2010-08-09 06:42 , Stefan Schwarzer wrote:
Unfortunatey, when I enter
In [2]: %paste
at the prompt it gives me (before I pasted anything)
In [2]: %paste
Hello folks,
You all know i been forced to use Ruby and i am not happy about that.
But i thought i would share more compelling evidence of the moronicity
of the Ruby language syntax from the perspective of regexp's.
I recently built myself a nice little Ruby script editor because i
hate
rantingrick wrote:
Hello folks,
[snip]
-
Strings
-
Single line strings are exactly the same in both languages except in
Ruby double quoted strings are backslash interpreted and single quote
strings are basically raw. Except Ruby introduces more cruft
On Sun, 08 Aug 2010 17:43:03 -0700, rantingrick wrote:
Ha. Ruby does not really have multi line strings.
Except, of course, it does, as you go on to show.
Ruby has what they
call a Here Doc. Besides picking the most boneheaded name for such an
object
It's standard terminology that has
On Feb 23, 1:03 pm, Alf P. Steinbach al...@start.no wrote:
Uhm, Paganini...
As I understand it he invented the destroy your instruments on stage. :-)
Cheers,
- Alf (off-topic)
You probably meant Franz Liszt, who regularly broke piano strings.
Paganini was also a rock-star virtuoso but he
On Feb 16, 10:41 pm, Andrej Mitrovic andrej.mitrov...@gmail.com
wrote:
On Feb 16, 7:38 pm, Casey Hawthorne caseyhhammer_t...@istar.ca
wrote:
Interesting talk on Python vs. Ruby and how he would like Python to
have just a bit more syntactic flexibility.
http://blog.extracheese.org/2010/02
On Sun, Feb 21, 2010 at 10:22 AM, John Bokma j...@castleamber.com wrote:
Jonathan Gardner jgard...@jonathangardner.net writes:
On Fri, Feb 19, 2010 at 11:16 PM, Lie Ryan lie.1...@gmail.com wrote:
Now, why don't we start a PEP to make python a fully-functional language
then?
Because people
Jonathan Gardner jgard...@jonathangardner.net writes:
I won't deny that really smart people enjoy the challenge of
programming in a functional style, and some even find it easier to
work with. However, when it comes to readability and maintenance, I
appreciate the statement-based programming
Jonathan Gardner jgard...@jonathangardner.net writes:
On Sun, Feb 21, 2010 at 10:22 AM, John Bokma j...@castleamber.com wrote:
Jonathan Gardner jgard...@jonathangardner.net writes:
On Fri, Feb 19, 2010 at 11:16 PM, Lie Ryan lie.1...@gmail.com wrote:
Now, why don't we start a PEP to make
In message 1ecc71bf-54ab-45e6-a38a-d1861f092...@v25g2000yqk.googlegroups.com,
sjdevn...@yahoo.com wrote:
On Feb 20, 1:30 am, Lawrence D'Oliveiro l...@geek-central.gen.new_zealand
wrote:
In message op.u8at0suda8n...@gnudebst, Rhodri James wrote:
In classic Pascal, a procedure was distinct
John Bokma j...@castleamber.com writes:
In my class there where basically 2 groups of people: the ones who got
functional programming and the ones who had a hard time with it. The
latter group consisted mostly of people who had been programming in
languages like C and Pascal for years; they
In message
3aa0205f-1e98-4376-92e4-607f96f13...@k19g2000yqc.googlegroups.com, Michael
Sparks wrote:
[1] This is perhaps more appropriate because '(a b c) is equivalent
to (quote a b c), and quote a b c can be viewed as close to
python's expression lambda: a b c
You got to be
On Mon, Feb 22, 2010 at 12:31 PM, John Bokma j...@castleamber.com wrote:
In my class there where basically 2 groups of people: the ones who got
functional programming and the ones who had a hard time with it. The
latter group consisted mostly of people who had been programming in
languages
On Feb 22, 8:35 pm, Jonathan Gardner jgard...@jonathangardner.net
wrote:
On Mon, Feb 22, 2010 at 12:31 PM, John Bokma j...@castleamber.com wrote:
In my class there where basically 2 groups of people: the ones who got
functional programming and the ones who had a hard time with it. The
Steve Howell showel...@yahoo.com writes:
My gut instinct is that functional programming works well for lots of
medium sized problems and it is worth learning.
I think it's worth learning because it will make you a better programmer
even if you never use it for anything beyond academic
On Feb 22, 9:11 pm, Steve Howell showel...@yahoo.com wrote:
On Feb 22, 8:35 pm, Jonathan Gardner jgard...@jonathangardner.net
wrote:
On Mon, Feb 22, 2010 at 12:31 PM, John Bokma j...@castleamber.com wrote:
In my class there where basically 2 groups of people: the ones who got
On Feb 22, 9:06 pm, Paul Rubin no.em...@nospam.invalid wrote:
Steve Howell showel...@yahoo.com writes:
My gut instinct is that functional programming works well for lots of
medium sized problems and it is worth learning.
I think it's worth learning because it will make you a better
* Paul Rubin:
Steve Howell showel...@yahoo.com writes:
My gut instinct is that functional programming works well for lots of
medium sized problems and it is worth learning.
I think it's worth learning because it will make you a better programmer
even if you never use it for anything beyond
Jonathan Gardner jgard...@jonathangardner.net writes:
On Fri, Feb 19, 2010 at 11:16 PM, Lie Ryan lie.1...@gmail.com wrote:
Now, why don't we start a PEP to make python a fully-functional language
then?
Because people don't think the same way that programs are written in
functional
On Fri, Feb 19, 2010 at 11:16 PM, Lie Ryan lie.1...@gmail.com wrote:
Now, why don't we start a PEP to make python a fully-functional language
then?
Because people don't think the same way that programs are written in
functional languages.
--
Jonathan Gardner
jgard...@jonathangardner.net
--
On Fri, Feb 19, 2010 at 11:17 PM, sjdevn...@yahoo.com
sjdevn...@yahoo.com wrote:
On Feb 20, 1:30 am, Lawrence D'Oliveiro l...@geek-
central.gen.new_zealand wrote:
If Python doesn’t distinguish between procedures and functions, why should
it distinguish between statements and expressions?
On Feb 18, 4:15 pm, Steve Howell showel...@yahoo.com wrote:
...
def print_numbers()
[1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6].map { |n|
[n * n, n * n * n]
}.reject { |square, cube|
square == 25 || cube == 64
}.map { |square, cube|
cube
On Feb 20, 6:13 am, Michael Sparks spark...@gmail.com wrote:
On Feb 18, 4:15 pm, Steve Howell showel...@yahoo.com wrote:
...
def print_numbers()
[1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6].map { |n|
[n * n, n * n * n]
}.reject { |square, cube|
square == 25 || cube
On Feb 19, 1:44 pm, Steve Howell showel...@yahoo.com wrote:
def coroutine(co):
def _inner(*args, **kwargs):
gen = co(*args, **kwargs)
gen.next()
return gen
return _inner
def squares_and_cubes(lst, target):
for n in lst:
target.send((n * n, n
This pipeline idea has actually been implemented further, see http://
blog.onideas.ws/stream.py.
from stream import map, filter, cut
range(10) map(lambda x: [x**2, x**3]) filter(lambda t: t[0]!
=25 and t[1]!=64) cut[1] list
[0, 1, 8, 27, 216, 343, 512, 729]
Wow, cool!
Just to show that
On Feb 19, 7:50 am, Roald de Vries r...@roalddevries.nl wrote:
This pipeline idea has actually been implemented further, see http://
blog.onideas.ws/stream.py.
from stream import map, filter, cut
range(10) map(lambda x: [x**2, x**3]) filter(lambda t: t[0]!
=25 and t[1]!=64) cut[1]
On Fri, 19 Feb 2010 08:32:53 -0800, Steve Howell wrote:
The extra expressiveness of Ruby comes from the fact that you can add
statements within the block, which I find useful sometimes just for
debugging purposes:
debug = true
data = strange_dataset_from_third_party_code()
On Feb 19, 9:30 am, Steven D'Aprano st...@remove-this-
cybersource.com.au wrote:
On Fri, 19 Feb 2010 08:32:53 -0800, Steve Howell wrote:
The extra expressiveness of Ruby comes from the fact that you can add
statements within the block, which I find useful sometimes just for
debugging
On 02/19/10 14:57, Steve Howell wrote:
In a more real world example, the intermediate results would be
something like this:
departments
departments_in_new_york
departments_in_new_york_not_on_bonus_cycle
employees_in_departments_in_new_york_not_on_bonus_cycle
In message 87eikjcuzk@benfinney.id.au, Ben Finney wrote:
Lawrence D'Oliveiro l...@geek-central.gen.new_zealand writes:
In message hlhdsi$2p...@theodyn.ncf.ca, cjw wrote:
Aren't lambda forms better described as function?
Is this a function?
lambda : None
What about this?
In message 84166541-c10a-47b5-ae5b-
b23202624...@q2g2000pre.googlegroups.com, Steve Howell wrote:
Some people make the definition of function more restrictive--if it
has side effects, it is not a function.
Does changing the contents of CPU cache count as a side-effect?
--
In message op.u8at0suda8n...@gnudebst, Rhodri James wrote:
In classic Pascal, a procedure was distinct from a function in that it had
no return value. The concept doesn't really apply in Python; there are no
procedures in that sense, since if a function terminates without supplying
an
Lawrence D'Oliveiro l...@geek-central.gen.new_zealand writes:
So there is no distinction between functions and procedures, then?
In Python, no.
--
\ “When we pray to God we must be seeking nothing — nothing.” |
`\ —Saint Francis of Assisi |
Ben Finney wrote:
Lawrence D'Oliveiro l...@geek-central.gen.new_zealand writes:
If Python doesn’t distinguish between procedures and functions, why
should it distinguish between statements and expressions?
I don't see the connection between those two predicates. Why does the
former matter
On Feb 20, 1:28 am, Lawrence D'Oliveiro l...@geek-
central.gen.new_zealand wrote:
In message 87eikjcuzk@benfinney.id.au, Ben Finney wrote:
Lawrence D'Oliveiro l...@geek-central.gen.new_zealand writes:
In message hlhdsi$2p...@theodyn.ncf.ca, cjw wrote:
Aren't lambda forms better
On Feb 20, 1:30 am, Lawrence D'Oliveiro l...@geek-
central.gen.new_zealand wrote:
In message op.u8at0suda8n...@gnudebst, Rhodri James wrote:
In classic Pascal, a procedure was distinct from a function in that it had
no return value. The concept doesn't really apply in Python; there are no
On 02/20/10 17:30, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
In message op.u8at0suda8n...@gnudebst, Rhodri James wrote:
In classic Pascal, a procedure was distinct from a function in that it had
no return value. The concept doesn't really apply in Python; there are no
procedures in that sense, since if a
On 02/20/10 18:17, sjdevn...@yahoo.com wrote:
On Feb 20, 1:30 am, Lawrence D'Oliveiro l...@geek-
central.gen.new_zealand wrote:
In message op.u8at0suda8n...@gnudebst, Rhodri James wrote:
In classic Pascal, a procedure was distinct from a function in that it had
no return value. The concept
On Feb 19, 10:30 pm, Lawrence D'Oliveiro l...@geek-
central.gen.new_zealand wrote:
In message op.u8at0suda8n...@gnudebst, Rhodri James wrote:
In classic Pascal, a procedure was distinct from a function in that it had
no return value. The concept doesn't really apply in Python; there are no
On Feb 19, 11:12 pm, Steve Holden st...@holdenweb.com wrote:
Ben Finney wrote:
Lawrence D'Oliveiro l...@geek-central.gen.new_zealand writes:
If Python doesn’t distinguish between procedures and functions, why
should it distinguish between statements and expressions?
I don't see the
Jonathan Gardner jgard...@jonathangardner.net wrote:
On Feb 17, 12:02 am, Lawrence D'Oliveiro l...@geek-
central.gen.new_zealand wrote:
In message
8ca440b2-6094-4b35-80c5-81d000517...@v20g2000prb.googlegroups.com,
Jonathan Gardner wrote:
I used to think anonymous functions (AKA blocks,
On Feb 18, 1:23 am, Duncan Booth duncan.bo...@invalid.invalid wrote:
Jonathan Gardner jgard...@jonathangardner.net wrote:
On Feb 17, 12:02 am, Lawrence D'Oliveiro l...@geek-
central.gen.new_zealand wrote:
In message
8ca440b2-6094-4b35-80c5-81d000517...@v20g2000prb.googlegroups.com,
Steve Howell showel...@yahoo.com wrote:
If this is an argument against using anonymous functions, then it is a
quadruple strawman.
Shipping buggy code is a bad idea, even with named functions.
I doubt very much whether I have ever shipped any bug-free code but
even if it was fit for purpose
On Thu, 18 Feb 2010 06:15:20 -0800, Steve Howell wrote:
On Feb 18, 1:23 am, Duncan Booth duncan.bo...@invalid.invalid wrote:
Jonathan Gardner jgard...@jonathangardner.net wrote:
On Feb 17, 12:02 am, Lawrence D'Oliveiro l...@geek-
central.gen.new_zealand wrote:
In message
On Feb 18, 8:15 am, Steve Howell showel...@yahoo.com wrote:
def print_numbers()
[1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6].map { |n|
[n * n, n * n * n]
}.reject { |square, cube|
square == 25 || cube == 64
}.map { |square, cube|
cube
}.each {
On Thu, 18 Feb 2010 08:15:46 -0800, Steve Howell wrote:
Just to be clear, I'm not saying it's unforgivable to occasionally ship
software with bugs. It happens.
Occasionally? Oh, if only.
I would say that there probably isn't a non-trivial application in the
world that is entirely bug-free.
On Feb 18, 11:15 am, Steve Howell showel...@yahoo.com wrote:
def print_numbers()
[1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6].map { |n|
[n * n, n * n * n]
}.reject { |square, cube|
square == 25 || cube == 64
}.map { |square, cube|
cube
}.each {
Jonathan Gardner jgard...@jonathangardner.net writes:
On Feb 18, 8:15 am, Steve Howell showel...@yahoo.com wrote:
def print_numbers()
[1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6].map { |n|
[n * n, n * n * n]
}.reject { |square, cube|
square == 25 || cube == 64
John Bokma j...@castleamber.com writes:
Jonathan Gardner jgard...@jonathangardner.net writes:
On Feb 18, 8:15 am, Steve Howell showel...@yahoo.com wrote:
def print_numbers()
[1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6].map { |n|
[n * n, n * n * n]
}.reject { |square, cube|
On Feb 18, 3:04 pm, sjdevn...@yahoo.com sjdevn...@yahoo.com wrote:
You could do it without intermediate names or lambdas in Python as:
def print_numbers():
for i in [ cube for (square, cube) in
[(n*n, n*n*n) for n in [1,2,3,4,5,6]]
if square!=25
On Feb 18, 3:00 pm, Steven D'Aprano st...@remove-this-
cybersource.com.au wrote:
[...]
You wouldn't name your functions:
f01, f02, f03, f04, ... f99
Exactly.
(say), unless you were trying to deliberately obfuscate your code.
Anonymous functions are even more obfuscated than that. You can
Steven D'Aprano wrote:
On Thu, 18 Feb 2010 06:15:20 -0800, Steve Howell wrote:
[...]
There really ought to be a special level of Hell for people who misuse
strawman to mean a weak or invalid argument instead of what it
actually means, which is a weak or invalid argument NOT HELD by your
On Feb 18, 3:04 pm, sjdevn...@yahoo.com sjdevn...@yahoo.com wrote:
On Feb 18, 11:15 am, Steve Howell showel...@yahoo.com wrote:
def print_numbers()
[1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6].map { |n|
[n * n, n * n * n]
}.reject { |square, cube|
square == 25 || cube
Steve Howell showel...@yahoo.com writes:
But frankly, although there's no reason that you _have_ to name the
content at each step, I find it a lot more readable if you do:
def print_numbers():
tuples = [(n*n, n*n*n) for n in (1,2,3,4,5,6)]
filtered = [ cube for (square, cube) in
On Feb 18, 10:58 pm, Paul Rubin no.em...@nospam.invalid wrote:
Steve Howell showel...@yahoo.com writes:
But frankly, although there's no reason that you _have_ to name the
content at each step, I find it a lot more readable if you do:
def print_numbers():
tuples = [(n*n, n*n*n) for n
On Feb 18, 2:49 pm, Jonathan Gardner jgard...@jonathangardner.net
wrote:
On Feb 18, 8:15 am, Steve Howell showel...@yahoo.com wrote:
def print_numbers()
[1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6].map { |n|
[n * n, n * n * n]
}.reject { |square, cube|
square == 25
On Feb 18, 7:58 pm, Paul Rubin no.em...@nospam.invalid wrote:
Steve Howell showel...@yahoo.com writes:
But frankly, although there's no reason that you _have_ to name the
content at each step, I find it a lot more readable if you do:
def print_numbers():
tuples = [(n*n, n*n*n) for n
On Feb 18, 8:27 pm, sjdevn...@yahoo.com sjdevn...@yahoo.com wrote:
On Feb 18, 10:58 pm, Paul Rubin no.em...@nospam.invalid wrote:
Steve Howell showel...@yahoo.com writes:
But frankly, although there's no reason that you _have_ to name the
content at each step, I find it a lot more
On Thu, Feb 18, 2010 at 10:46 PM, Steve Howell showel...@yahoo.com wrote:
On Feb 18, 2:49 pm, Jonathan Gardner jgard...@jonathangardner.net
wrote:
On Feb 18, 8:15 am, Steve Howell showel...@yahoo.com wrote:
def print_numbers()
[1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6].map { |n|
[n *
On Feb 18, 7:58 pm, Paul Rubin no.em...@nospam.invalid wrote:
Steve Howell showel...@yahoo.com writes:
But frankly, although there's no reason that you _have_ to name the
content at each step, I find it a lot more readable if you do:
def print_numbers():
tuples = [(n*n, n*n*n) for n
Steve Howell showel...@yahoo.com writes:
http://haskell.org/ghc/docs/6.10.4/html/users_guide/syntax-extns.html...
might be of interest. Maybe Ruby and/or Python could grow something similar.
Can you elaborate?
List comprehensions are a Python feature you're probably familiar with,
and I think
On Thu, 18 Feb 2010 22:48:21 -0500, Steve Holden wrote:
Next week: Lesson 2 - Ad Hominem Attacks
I wouldn't pay any attention to Steve, all Stevens are notorious liars.
--
Steven
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Steve Howell wrote:
Python may not support the broadest notion of anonymous functions, but
it definitely has anonymous blocks. You can write this in Python:
for i in range(10):
print i
print i * i
print i * i * i
There's a clear difference between this and a Ruby
On Thu, 18 Feb 2010 19:57:35 -0800, Steve Howell wrote:
The names you give to the intermediate results here are terse--tuples
and filtered--so your code reads nicely.
In a more real world example, the intermediate results would be
something like this:
departments
On Feb 18, 9:41 pm, Steven D'Aprano st...@remove-this-
cybersource.com.au wrote:
On Thu, 18 Feb 2010 22:48:21 -0500, Steve Holden wrote:
Next week: Lesson 2 - Ad Hominem Attacks
I wouldn't pay any attention to Steve, all Stevens are notorious liars.
--
Steven
Especially when their last
On Fri, 19 Feb 2010 18:52:20 +1300, Gregory Ewing wrote:
The Ruby approach has the advantage of making it possible to implement
user-defined control structures without requiring a macro facility. You
can't do that in Python.
[...]
Also, most people who advocate adding some form of
On Feb 18, 9:46 pm, Steven D'Aprano st...@remove-this-
cybersource.com.au wrote:
On Thu, 18 Feb 2010 19:57:35 -0800, Steve Howell wrote:
The names you give to the intermediate results here are terse--tuples
and filtered--so your code reads nicely.
In a more real world example, the
On Feb 18, 9:37 pm, Kurt Smith kwmsm...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Feb 18, 2010 at 10:46 PM, Steve Howell showel...@yahoo.com wrote:
On Feb 18, 2:49 pm, Jonathan Gardner jgard...@jonathangardner.net
wrote:
On Feb 18, 8:15 am, Steve Howell showel...@yahoo.com wrote:
def print_numbers()
On Feb 18, 9:52 pm, Gregory Ewing greg.ew...@canterbury.ac.nz wrote:
Steve Howell wrote:
Python may not support the broadest notion of anonymous functions, but
it definitely has anonymous blocks. You can write this in Python:
for i in range(10):
print i
print i * i
In message 60b1abce-4381-46ab-91ed-
f2ab2154c...@g19g2000yqe.googlegroups.com, Andrej Mitrovic wrote:
Also, lambda's are expressions, not statements ...
Is such a distinction Pythonic, or not? For example, does Python distinguish
between functions and procedures?
--
In message
8ca440b2-6094-4b35-80c5-81d000517...@v20g2000prb.googlegroups.com,
Jonathan Gardner wrote:
I used to think anonymous functions (AKA blocks, etc...) would be a
nice feature for Python.
Then I looked at a stack trace from a different programming language
with lots of anonymous
Aahz a écrit :
In article 8ca440b2-6094-4b35-80c5-81d000517...@v20g2000prb.googlegroups.com,
Jonathan Gardner jgard...@jonathangardner.net wrote:
I used to think anonymous functions (AKA blocks, etc...) would be a
nice feature for Python.
Then I looked at a stack trace from a different
Jonathan Gardner jgard...@jonathangardner.net writes:
Then I looked at a stack trace from a different programming language
with lots of anonymous functions. (I believe it was perl.)
I became enlightened.
If it was Perl [1], I doubt it. Because line numbers are reported, and
if that doesn't
On 17-Feb-10 05:48 AM, Bruno Desthuilliers wrote:
Lawrence D'Oliveiro a écrit :
In message 60b1abce-4381-46ab-91ed-
f2ab2154c...@g19g2000yqe.googlegroups.com, Andrej Mitrovic wrote:
Also, lambda's are expressions, not statements ...
Is such a distinction Pythonic, or not?
Python is (by
On 2/17/2010 1:51 PM, cjw wrote:
On 17-Feb-10 05:48 AM, Bruno Desthuilliers wrote:
Lawrence D'Oliveiro a écrit :
In message 60b1abce-4381-46ab-91ed-
f2ab2154c...@g19g2000yqe.googlegroups.com, Andrej Mitrovic wrote:
Also, lambda's are expressions, not statements ...
Is such a distinction
In message hlhdsi$2p...@theodyn.ncf.ca, cjw wrote:
Aren't lambda forms better described as function?
Is this a function?
lambda : None
What about this?
lambda : sys.stdout.write(hi there!\n)
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
On 2/17/2010 5:46 PM, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
In messagehlhdsi$2p...@theodyn.ncf.ca, cjw wrote:
Aren't lambda forms better described as function?
Is this a function?
lambda : None
What about this?
lambda : sys.stdout.write(hi there!\n)
To repeat: Python lambda expressions
Lawrence D'Oliveiro l...@geek-central.gen.new_zealand writes:
In message hlhdsi$2p...@theodyn.ncf.ca, cjw wrote:
Aren't lambda forms better described as function?
Is this a function?
lambda : None
What about this?
lambda : sys.stdout.write(hi there!\n)
They are both lambda
On Thu, 18 Feb 2010 11:46:52 +1300, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
In message hlhdsi$2p...@theodyn.ncf.ca, cjw wrote:
Aren't lambda forms better described as function?
Is this a function?
lambda : None
What about this?
lambda : sys.stdout.write(hi there!\n)
Of course they
On Feb 17, 10:39 am, John Bokma j...@castleamber.com wrote:
Jonathan Gardner jgard...@jonathangardner.net writes:
Then I looked at a stack trace from a different programming language
with lots of anonymous functions. (I believe it was perl.)
I became enlightened.
If it was Perl [1], I
On Feb 17, 12:02 am, Lawrence D'Oliveiro l...@geek-
central.gen.new_zealand wrote:
In message
8ca440b2-6094-4b35-80c5-81d000517...@v20g2000prb.googlegroups.com,
Jonathan Gardner wrote:
I used to think anonymous functions (AKA blocks, etc...) would be a
nice feature for Python.
Then I
On Feb 17, 12:02 am, Lawrence D'Oliveiro l...@geek-
central.gen.new_zealand wrote:
In message 60b1abce-4381-46ab-91ed-
f2ab2154c...@g19g2000yqe.googlegroups.com, Andrej Mitrovic wrote:
Also, lambda's are expressions, not statements ...
Is such a distinction Pythonic, or not? For example,
On Wed, 17 Feb 2010 12:39:30 -0600, John Bokma wrote:
Jonathan Gardner jgard...@jonathangardner.net writes:
Then I looked at a stack trace from a different programming language
with lots of anonymous functions. (I believe it was perl.)
I became enlightened.
If it was Perl [1], I doubt
On Thu, 18 Feb 2010 01:04:00 -, Jonathan Gardner
jgard...@jonathangardner.net wrote:
On Feb 17, 12:02 am, Lawrence D'Oliveiro l...@geek-
central.gen.new_zealand wrote:
In message 60b1abce-4381-46ab-91ed-
f2ab2154c...@g19g2000yqe.googlegroups.com, Andrej Mitrovic wrote:
Also, lambda's
On Wed, 17 Feb 2010 17:04:00 -0800, Jonathan Gardner wrote:
(What the heck is a procedure, anyway? Is this different from a
subroutine, a method, or a block?)
The name is used in Pascal, which probably means it originated from
Fortran or Algol.
A subroutine is a generic piece of code which
Steven D'Aprano ste...@remove.this.cybersource.com.au writes:
On Wed, 17 Feb 2010 12:39:30 -0600, John Bokma wrote:
[..]
If it was Perl [1], I doubt it. Because line numbers are reported, and
if that doesn't help you, you can annotate anonymous functions with a
nick name using
local
On Feb 17, 5:39 pm, Steven D'Aprano
ste...@remove.this.cybersource.com.au wrote:
On Wed, 17 Feb 2010 17:04:00 -0800, Jonathan Gardner wrote:
(What the heck is a procedure, anyway? Is this different from a
subroutine, a method, or a block?)
The name is used in Pascal, which probably means it
On Feb 16, 4:19 pm, Jonathan Gardner jgard...@jonathangardner.net
wrote:
On Feb 16, 11:41 am, Andrej Mitrovic andrej.mitrov...@gmail.com
wrote:
On Feb 16, 7:38 pm, Casey Hawthorne caseyhhammer_t...@istar.ca
wrote:
Interesting talk on Python vs. Ruby and how he would like Python
On Feb 17, 10:39 am, John Bokma j...@castleamber.com wrote:
Jonathan Gardner jgard...@jonathangardner.net writes:
Then I looked at a stack trace from a different programming language
with lots of anonymous functions. (I believe it was perl.)
I became enlightened.
If it was Perl [1], I
Interesting talk on Python vs. Ruby and how he would like Python to
have just a bit more syntactic flexibility.
http://blog.extracheese.org/2010/02/python-vs-ruby-a-battle-to-the-death.html
--
Regards,
Casey
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
1 - 100 of 167 matches
Mail list logo
