On Tue, 15 Feb 2011 18:55:50 -0500, Gerald Britton wrote:
> So, what's the feeling out there? Go with map and the operators or
> stick with the list comps?
Stick to whatever feels and reads better at the time.
Unless you have profiled your code, and determined that the map or list
comp was the
You could look into the windows registry, the key
"HKLM\SYSTEM\CurrentControlSet\Control\Nls" has all the supported LCID's
listed. If not, you could simply get the codepage provided by
locale.setlocale(), e.g.:
import locale
print(locale.setlocale(locale.LC_ALL, ""))
prints "Portuguese_Brazil.125
On Mon, Jun 7, 2010 at 9:20 AM, Steven D'Aprano
wrote:
>> Ruby has a very nice map
>
> I'm thrilled for them. Personally I think the syntax is horrible.
I concur!
--James
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
On 6/6/2010 7:20 PM, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
On Sun, 06 Jun 2010 08:16:02 -0700, rantingrick wrote:
Everyone knows i'm a Python fanboy so nobody can call me a troll for
this...
The first rule of trolling is, always deny being a troll, no matter how
obvious the trolling.
Such as the exagerate
On Jun 6, 8:16 am, rantingrick wrote:
> Everyone knows i'm a Python fanboy so nobody can call me a troll for
> this...
1. I don't remember you so I don't know if you're a Python fanboy or
not
2. If you act like a troll I'll call you one even if you are Python
fanboy
Actually, your post only came
On Mon, 07 Jun 2010 10:16:19 +1000
Lie Ryan wrote:
> On 06/07/10 09:56, D'Arcy J.M. Cain wrote:
> > Show me the unit test that defines the problem.
>
> that you must use foo() and you can't change foo() (since foo is very
> complex), and you give the same result as the original solution.
I rejec
On 06/07/10 09:56, D'Arcy J.M. Cain wrote:
> On Mon, 07 Jun 2010 05:59:02 +1000
> Lie Ryan wrote:
>>> foo = lambda x: [y + 1 for y in x]
>>> [foo(x) for x in [[4, 6, 3], [6, 3, 2], [1, 3, 5]]]
>>>
>>> Didn't seem like such a long walk.
>>>
>>
>> that's because you're simplifying the problem, the c
On Mon, 07 Jun 2010 05:59:02 +1000
Lie Ryan wrote:
> > foo = lambda x: [y + 1 for y in x]
> > [foo(x) for x in [[4, 6, 3], [6, 3, 2], [1, 3, 5]]]
> >
> > Didn't seem like such a long walk.
> >
>
> that's because you're simplifying the problem, the correct walk is:
Well, since it gives the same
On Sun, 06 Jun 2010 08:16:02 -0700, rantingrick wrote:
> Everyone knows i'm a Python fanboy so nobody can call me a troll for
> this...
The first rule of trolling is, always deny being a troll, no matter how
obvious the trolling. But on the chance I'm wrong, and for the benefit of
others, your
On 6/6/2010 11:16 AM, rantingrick wrote:
Everyone knows i'm a Python fanboy so nobody can call me a troll for
this...
Non sequitor. It depends on your intention in posting this...
Python map is just completely useless. For one it so damn slow
Posting invalid speed comparisons stacked agains
On Jun 6, 2:48 pm, Richard Thomas wrote:
> Python's map has the useful feature that nobody is in any doubt about
> what it does. I don't know much about Ruby I have to say but looking
> at that piece of syntax you gave I had no idea how to interpret it.
> Anyway, I looked it up.
Well Ruby likes t
On 06/07/10 05:54, D'Arcy J.M. Cain wrote:
> On Mon, 07 Jun 2010 05:27:43 +1000
> Lie Ryan wrote:
>> In the most naive uses, map appears to have no advantage over list
>> comprehension; but one thing that map can do that list comprehension
>> still can't do without a walk around the park:
>>
>> de
On Mon, 07 Jun 2010 05:27:43 +1000
Lie Ryan wrote:
> In the most naive uses, map appears to have no advantage over list
> comprehension; but one thing that map can do that list comprehension
> still can't do without a walk around the park:
>
> def foo(func, args):
> g = lambda x: x+1
> re
Python's map has the useful feature that nobody is in any doubt about
what it does. I don't know much about Ruby I have to say but looking
at that piece of syntax you gave I had no idea how to interpret it.
Anyway, I looked it up.
Calling an method on each of a collection of objects is best
accomp
On 06/06/2010 05:16 PM, rantingrick wrote:
> So can anyone explain this poor excuse for a map function? Maybe GVR
> should have taken it out in 3.0? *scratches head*
>
>
Speaking of Py3k: map no longer builds lists. What once was map is no
more, what once was itertools.imap is now map.
Sometim
On 06/07/10 03:22, rantingrick wrote:
> On Jun 6, 12:02 pm, Alain Ketterlin
> wrote:
>> rantingrick writes:
>> I've not used map since I learned about list comprehensions.
>
> Thats has been my experienced also. Actually i've been at Python for
> O... about 2 years now and i don't think i've eve
On Jun 6, 12:02 pm, Alain Ketterlin
wrote:
> rantingrick writes:
> I've not used map since I learned about list comprehensions.
Thats has been my experienced also. Actually i've been at Python for
O... about 2 years now and i don't think i've ever used map in a
script even one time until a month
map is not needed. LC is great :D
On Sun, Jun 6, 2010 at 10:32 PM, Alain Ketterlin <
al...@dpt-info.u-strasbg.fr> wrote:
> rantingrick writes:
>
> > Python map is just completely useless. [...]
>
> import time
> def test1():
> > l = range(1)
> > t1 = time.time()
> >
rantingrick writes:
> Python map is just completely useless. [...]
import time
def test1():
> l = range(1)
> t1 = time.time()
> map(lambda x:x+1, l)
> t2= time.time()
> print t2-t1
def test2():
> l = range(1)
> t1 = time.time()
>
rantingrick wrote:
> Python map is just completely useless. For one it so damn slow why
> even bother putting it in the language? And secondly, the total "girl-
> man" weakness of lambda renders it completely mute!
Do you realise that you don't have to use lambda? If you need more than a
single
On Jun 6, 2010, at 5:16 PM, rantingrick wrote:
Everyone knows i'm a Python fanboy so nobody can call me a troll for
this...
Python map is just completely useless. For one it so damn slow why
even bother putting it in the language? And secondly, the total "girl-
man" weakness of lambda renders it
On Mon, Jun 7, 2010 at 1:16 AM, rantingrick wrote:
> So can anyone explain this poor excuse for a map function? Maybe GVR
> should have taken it out in 3.0? *scratches head*
Let me get this straight... You're complaining about some trivial
code you've written and a 0.002 or less execution time ?
Paul Rubin wrote:
Luis Quesada writes:
[ id*v for id,v in enumerate(L) ]
Cool! Thanks!
If you really want to write that in pointfree style (untested):
import itertools, operator
...
itertools.starmap(operator.mul, enumerate(L))
For your other question, you could probably do someth
Luis Quesada writes:
>> [ id*v for id,v in enumerate(L) ]
> Cool! Thanks!
If you really want to write that in pointfree style (untested):
import itertools, operator
...
itertools.starmap(operator.mul, enumerate(L))
For your other question, you could probably do something ugly
with ifil
Duncan Booth wrote:
Luis Quesada wrote:
Is there a way
of writing the following without using zip:
map(lambda (id,v):id*v,zip(range(len(L)),L))
[ id*v for id,v in enumerate(L) ]
Cool! Thanks!
Cheers,
Luis
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Luis Quesada wrote:
> Is there a way
> of writing the following without using zip:
> map(lambda (id,v):id*v,zip(range(len(L)),L))
[ id*v for id,v in enumerate(L) ]
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
On Wednesday 02 September 2009 09:38:20 elsa wrote:
>
> in my own defense - firstly, I was able to implement what I wanted to
> do with loops, and I used this to solve the problem I needed to.
My rant was not intended as a personal attack - far from it - if all the
people on this list were to po
On Aug 31, 11:44 pm, Hendrik van Rooyen
wrote:
> On Monday 31 August 2009 11:31:34 Piet van Oostrum wrote:
>
> > But ultimately it is also very much a matter of taste, preference and
> > habit.
>
> This is true, but there is another reason that I posted - I have noticed that
> there seems to be a
Another possibilities, if you really *desire* to use map()
and not list-comprehension (I'd prefer the latter), are:
# Python 2.x:
map(func, mylist, itertools.repeat('booHoo', len(mylist)))
# Python 3.x, where map() works like Py2.x's itertools.imap():
list(map(func, mylist, itertools.repeat('boo
Piet van Oostrum wrote:
> [myFunc(elt, 'booHoo') for elt in myList] is also a good candidate and
> in this case I think it is preferable to both the loop and the map with
> a partial or lambda in terms of clarity.
>From memory, a listcomp with a non-builtin function is also faster
than map with t
On Sun, 30 Aug 2009 21:55:52 -0700, elsa wrote:
> say I have a list, myList. Now say I have a function with more than
> one argument:
>
> myFunc(a, b='None')
>
> now, say I want to map myFunc onto myList, with always the same
> argument for b, but iterating over a:
>
> map(myFunc(b='booHoo'), m
elsa writes:
> map(myFunc(b='booHoo'), myList)
>
> Why doesn't this work? is there a way to make it work?
You can use functools.partial but a listcomp might be simpler:
list(myfunc(a, b='booHoo') for a in myList)
There is another listcomp syntax with square brackets, but I try to
avoid it b
On Monday 31 August 2009 11:31:34 Piet van Oostrum wrote:
> But ultimately it is also very much a matter of taste, preference and
> habit.
This is true, but there is another reason that I posted - I have noticed that
there seems to be a tendency amongst newcomers to the group to go to great
len
On Mon, 31 Aug 2009 10:43:07 +0200, Hendrik van Rooyen wrote:
> Here is some heretical advice:
>
> Do not use stuff like map and reduce unless they fit what you want to do
> perfectly, and "JustWorks" the first time.
>
> You have a very clear idea of what you want to do, so why do you not
> just
> Hendrik van Rooyen (HvR) wrote:
>HvR> On Monday 31 August 2009 06:55:52 elsa wrote:
>HvR> 8< - map question
>>>
>>> (Ultimately, I want to call myFunc(myList[0], 'booHoo'), myFunc(myList
>>> [1], 'booHoo'), myFunc(myList[2], 'booHoo') etc. However, I m
En Mon, 31 Aug 2009 05:43:07 -0300, Hendrik van Rooyen
escribió:
On Monday 31 August 2009 06:55:52 elsa wrote:
(Ultimately, I want to call myFunc(myList[0], 'booHoo'), myFunc(myList
[1], 'booHoo'), myFunc(myList[2], 'booHoo') etc. However, I might want
to call myFunc(myList[0], 'woo'), myFunc
On Monday 31 August 2009 06:55:52 elsa wrote:
8< - map question
>
> (Ultimately, I want to call myFunc(myList[0], 'booHoo'), myFunc(myList
> [1], 'booHoo'), myFunc(myList[2], 'booHoo') etc. However, I might want
> to call myFunc(myList[0], 'woo'), myFunc(myLis
elsa :
>now, say I want to map myFunc onto myList, with always the same
>argument for b, but iterating over a:
>>> from functools import partial
>>> def g(x,y=1): return x+y
...
>>> map(partial(g,y=2),[1,2])
[3, 4]
>>> map(partial(g,y=42),[1,2])
[43, 44]
--
Wir danken für die Beachtung aller S
On 08/30/2009 10:55 PM, elsa wrote:
> i have a question about the built in map function. Here 'tis:
>
> say I have a list, myList. Now say I have a function with more than
> one argument:
>
> myFunc(a, b='None')
>
> now, say I want to map myFunc onto myList, with always the same
> argument for b, b
On Sun, Aug 30, 2009 at 9:55 PM, elsa wrote:
> Hi,
>
> i have a question about the built in map function. Here 'tis:
>
> say I have a list, myList. Now say I have a function with more than
> one argument:
>
> myFunc(a, b='None')
>
> now, say I want to map myFunc onto myList, with always the same
>
ml1n wrote:
> I'm not really sure how to explain this so maybe some example code is
> best. This code makes a list of objects by taking a list of ints and
> combining them with a constant:
>
> class foo:
> def __init__(self):
> self.a = 0
> self.b = 0
>
> def func(a,b):
> f = new
ml1n wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > This may be what you need:
> >
> > class foo:
> > def __init__(self, a, b):
> > self.a = a
> > self.b = b
> >
> > vars = [1,2,3,4,5,6]
> > objects = [foo(a, 1) for a in vars]
> >
> >
> > Note that in Python the new is expressed wit the () at th
ml1n:
> Looks like someone already did:
> http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-list/2005-January/259870.html
Don't belive too much in such general timings. Time your specific code
when you think you need a true answer. Timing Python code is very easy
and fast, and sometimes results are surprisi
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> ml1n wrote:
> > In the interests of speed my thinking was that using map would move the
> > loop out of Python and into C, is that the case when using list
> > comprehension? I'd always thought it was just syntatic short hand for
> > a Python loop.
>
> In Python the fast
"ml1n" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> In the interests of speed my thinking was that using map would move the
> loop out of Python and into C, is that the case when using list
> comprehension? I'd always thought it was just syntatic short hand for
> a Python loop.
Best to run benchmarks, but I don
ml1n wrote:
> In the interests of speed my thinking was that using map would move the
> loop out of Python and into C, is that the case when using list
> comprehension? I'd always thought it was just syntatic short hand for
> a Python loop.
In Python the faster things are often the most simple.
Y
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> This may be what you need:
>
> class foo:
> def __init__(self, a, b):
> self.a = a
> self.b = b
>
> vars = [1,2,3,4,5,6]
> objects = [foo(a, 1) for a in vars]
>
>
> Note that in Python the new is expressed wit the () at the end:
>
> > f = new foo()
>
> Bye,
This may be what you need:
class foo:
def __init__(self, a, b):
self.a = a
self.b = b
vars = [1,2,3,4,5,6]
objects = [foo(a, 1) for a in vars]
Note that in Python the new is expressed wit the () at the end:
> f = new foo()
Bye,
bearophile
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/list
Mirco:
>He, this looks more like Haskell than like Python (for me, it looks awful ;-)
Maybe this is more readable:
ar = [[3,3,3,3],
[3,3,3,1],
[3,3,4,3]]
print sorted( [(r,c) for r,row in enumerate(ar) for c in
xrange(len(row))],
key=lambda (r,c): ar[r][c]
)
Thus spoke [EMAIL PROTECTED] (on 2006-06-23 00:57):
> Maybe you want something like this (but this doesn't use map):
> [(r,c) for r, row in enumerate(m) for c in xrange(len(row))]
Ahh, its a 'list comprehension', nice. Now,
lets see how the decorate/undecorate sort
turns out to look in Python:
Maybe you want something like this (but this doesn't use map):
def indexes(m):
return [(r,c) for r, row in enumerate(m) for c in xrange(len(row))]
m1 = [[2,2,5],
[2,2],
[2,2,2,2]]
m2 = [[],
[2],
[1,2,3,4]]
print indexes(m1)
print indexes(m2)
Output:
[(0, 0), (0, 1),
"py" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Is there a way in python to figure out which process is running on
> which port? I know in Windows XP you can run "netstat -o" and see the
> process ID for each open portbut I am looking for something not
> tied to windows particularly, hopefully something in
py wrote:
> Is there a way in python to figure out which process is running on
> which port? I know in Windows XP you can run "netstat -o" and see the
> process ID for each open portbut I am looking for something not
> tied to windows particularly, hopefully something in python.
>
> if not,
[Claire McLister]
> I've made the script available on our downloads page at:
>
> http://www.zeesource.net/downloads/e2i
[Alan Kennedy]
>> I look forward to the map with updated precision :-)
[Claire McLister]
> Me too. Please let me know how we should modify the script.
Having examined your sc
On Nov 7, 2005, at 3:26 PM, Alan Kennedy wrote:
> Sure, please do make it available, or at least the geolocation
> component
> anyway. I'm sure you'll get lots of useful comments from the many
> clever
> and experienced folk who frequent this group.
>
I've made the script available on our downl
Claire McLister <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Thanks, Alan. You are absolutely right, we are not using the
> NNTP-Posting-Host header for obtaining the IP address.
Yes, but what are you using?
> The Python list is unique among the lists that we have handled so far,
> in that it has a cross-postin
[Claire McLister]
> Thanks, Alan. You are absolutely right, we are not using the
> NNTP-Posting-Host header for obtaining the IP address.
Aha, that would explain the lack of precision in many cases. A lot of
posters in this list/group go through NNTP (either with an NNTP client
or through NNTP-
Thanks, Alan. You are absolutely right, we are not using the
NNTP-Posting-Host header for obtaining the IP address.
The Python list is unique among the lists that we have handled so far,
in that it has a cross-posting mechanism with a net news. Hence, it
seems we are getting many more wrong loc
"George Sakkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> "Jorge Godoy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> > H... I don't see mine listed there: I'm in South America, Brasil. More
> > specifically in Curitiba, Paraná, Brasil. :-)
>
> That's funny; I was looking for mine and I stumbled across yours at
> Piscataw
[Alan Kennedy]
>>So presumably "chcgil" indicates you're in Chicago, Illinois?
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Yes, but why, then, is my name logged into Mountain View, CA?
Presumably the creators of the map have chosen to use a mechanism other
than NNTP-Posting-Host IP address to geolocate posters.
Claire
"Jorge Godoy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> H... I don't see mine listed there: I'm in South America, Brasil. More
> specifically in Curitiba, Paraná, Brasil. :-)
That's funny; I was looking for mine and I stumbled across yours at
Piscataway, NJ, US. :-)
George
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman
Alan Kennedy wrote:
> [Robert Kern]
> >>Most of AOL's offices are in Dulles, VA. Google's headquarters are in
> >>Mountain View, CA.
>
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Aha, I post to the usenet through Google. Makes the map application
> > all the more stupid, doesn't it?
>
> Actually, no, because Google G
[Robert Kern]
>>Most of AOL's offices are in Dulles, VA. Google's headquarters are in
>>Mountain View, CA.
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Aha, I post to the usenet through Google. Makes the map application
> all the more stupid, doesn't it?
Actually, no, because Google Groups sets the NNTP-Posting-Host head
Robert Kern wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> > North of that bubble is a second massive list also labeled Mountain
> > View
> > 94043. I found my name on that list and I live in the Chicago area.
> > Moutain View is, perhaps, where aol.com is located? These bubbles are
> > showing the locatio
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> North of that bubble is a second massive list also labeled Mountain
> View
> 94043. I found my name on that list and I live in the Chicago area.
> Moutain View is, perhaps, where aol.com is located? These bubbles are
> showing the location of the server that's registered
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Rocco Moretti wrote:
>
>>It's also a testament to the limited value of physically locating people
>>by internet addresses - If you zoom in on the San Fransico bay area, and
>>click on the southern most bubble (south of San Jose), you'll see the
>>entry for the Mountain Vi
Rocco Moretti wrote:
> Paul McGuire wrote:
> > "Claire McLister" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > We've been working with Google Maps, and have created a web service to
> > map origins of emails to a group. As a trial, we've developed a map of
> > emails to thi
"George Sakkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> "Steven Bethard" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Dict comprehensions were recently rejected:
>> http://www.python.org/peps/pep-0274.html
>> The reason, of course, is that dict comprehensions don't gain you much
>> a
"Steven Bethard" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Christopher Subich wrote:
> > Ron Adam wrote:
> >> I think the association of (lambda) to [list_comp] is a nice
> >> distinction. Maybe a {dictionary_comp} would make it a complete set. ;-)
> >
> > Yeah, dictionary comprehensions would be an interesti
Christopher Subich wrote:
> Ron Adam wrote:
>> I think the association of (lambda) to [list_comp] is a nice
>> distinction. Maybe a {dictionary_comp} would make it a complete set. ;-)
>
> Yeah, dictionary comprehensions would be an interesting feature. :)
> Syntax might be a bit unwieldy, thoug
Ron Adam wrote:
> Christopher Subich wrote:
>
>> As others have mentioned, this looks too much like a list
>> comprehension to be elegant, which also rules out () and {}... but I
>> really do like the infix syntax.
>
>
> Why would it rule out ()?
Generator expressions. Mind you, Py3k might w
Erik Max Francis wrote:
> Ron Adam wrote:
>
>> Well in my previous explanation I *mean* it to be empty parenthesis.
>>
>> Does that help?
>
>
> Maybe it might be beneficial to learn a little more of the language
> before proposing such wide-reaching (and un-Pythonic) reforms?
Hi Erik,
Getting
Ron Adam wrote:
> Well in my previous explanation I *mean* it to be empty parenthesis.
>
> Does that help?
Maybe it might be beneficial to learn a little more of the language
before proposing such wide-reaching (and un-Pythonic) reforms?
--
Erik Max Francis && [EMAIL PROTECTED] && http://www.
Erik Max Francis wrote:
> Ron Adam wrote:
>
>> It's not an empty tuple, it's an empty parenthesis. Using tuples it
>> would be.
>>
>> (a,) == (,)
>>
>> which would be the same as:
>>
>> (,) == (,)
>
>
> >>> ()
> ()
> >>> a = ()
> >>> type(a)
>
> >>> (,)
> File "", line 1
> (,)
>
Christopher Subich wrote:
> As others have mentioned, this looks too much like a list comprehension
> to be elegant, which also rules out () and {}... but I really do like
> the infix syntax.
Why would it rule out ()?
You need to put a lambda express in ()'s anyways if you want to use it
righ
Ron Adam wrote:
> It's not an empty tuple, it's an empty parenthesis. Using tuples it
> would be.
>
> (a,) == (,)
>
> which would be the same as:
>
> (,) == (,)
>>> ()
()
>>> a = ()
>>> type(a)
>>> (,)
File "", line 1
(,)
^
SyntaxError: invalid syntax
You've wandered way
Terry Hancock wrote:
> With list comprehensions and generators becoming so integral, I'm
> not sure about "unpythonic". And a syntax just occured to me --
> what about this:
>
> [y*x for x,y]
>
> ?
>
> (that is:
>
> [ for ]
>
> It's just like the beginning of a list comprehension or generator
In <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Ron Adam wrote:
> Reinhold Birkenfeld wrote:
>> Ron Adam wrote:
>>>(a) == ()
>>
>>
>> Whoops! a (which is None) is equal to the empty tuple (which is not None)?
>
> It's not an empty tuple, it's an empty parenthesis. Using tuples it
> would be.
But empty parenthesis a
On Wednesday 06 July 2005 08:38 am, Tom Anderson wrote:
> On Wed, 6 Jul 2005, Terry Hancock wrote:
> > With list comprehensions and generators becoming so integral, I'm
> > not sure about "unpythonic".
>
> I'm going to resist the temptation to argue that list comps are themselves
> unpythonic :).
"Stian Søiland" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On 2005-07-06 02:46:27, George Sakkis wrote:
>> So, who would object the full-word versions for python 3K ?
>> def -> define
>> del -> delete
>> exec -> execute
>> elif -> else if
>Objections for the "else if" might be
On Wednesday 06 July 2005 09:41 am, Steven Bethard wrote:
> Terry Hancock wrote:
> > And a syntax just occured to me -- what about this:
> > [ for ]
>
> If you haven't already, see:
> http://wiki.python.org/moin/AlternateLambdaSyntax
> for other similar proposals.
Yeah, it's basically "Robert Bre
"Pawe³ Sakowski" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Tom Anderson wrote:
> def flatten(ll):
> return reduce(lambda a, l: a.extend(l), ll, [])
>
> How would one do that as a list comp, by the way? I'm really not very
> good
> with them yet.
Not really a list-comprehensio
The difference in readability between
func = lambda x: x**3 - 5*x
def func(x):
return x**3 - 5*x
def func(x): return x**3 - 5*x
is obviously a matter of personal vision.
The fuctional difference (and, I believe, the only difference) is that the
def form attaches the specific name 'func' t
> Am I just weird?
I feel the same way about where to use lambda's and where *not*
I come from C and C++ background and defining a function at the top
level (no nested functions) would always require good reasons
function name has to be remembered, to put it in other words it has to
be added in
On Thu, 7 Jul 2005, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
> On Wed, 06 Jul 2005 14:28:55 +0100, Tom Anderson wrote:
>
>>> del -> delete
>>
>> How about just getting rid of del? Removal from collections could be done
>> with a method call,
>
> Which would be called object.del() I presume.
That would be fine.
>
Steven D'Aprano wrote:
> On Thu, 07 Jul 2005 09:36:24 +, Duncan Booth wrote:
>
>
>>Steven D'Aprano wrote:
>>
>>>This is something I've never understood. Why is it bad
>>>form to assign an "anonymous function" (an object) to a
>>>name?
>>
>>Because it obfuscates your code for no benefit. Yo
On Thu, 7 Jul 2005, Ron Adam wrote:
Stian Søiland wrote:
> Or what about a recursive generator?
That's the sort of thing i like to see!
Ok, lets see... I found a few problems with the testing (and corrected
it) so the scores have changed. My sort in place routines were cheating
because t
On 7 Jul 2005 15:46:23 GMT, Duncan Booth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Steven D'Aprano wrote:
>
>> Put it this way: whenever I see a two-line def as above, I can't help
>> feeling that it is a waste of a def. ("Somebody went to all the trouble
>> to define a function for *that*?") Yet I would never
Reinhold Birkenfeld wrote:
> Ron Adam wrote:
>
>
>>Given the statement:
>>
>>a = None
>>
>>And the following are all true:
>>
>> a == None
>
>
> Okay.
>
>
>>(a) == (None)
>
>
> Okay.
>
>
>>(a) == ()
>
>
> Whoops! a (which is None) is equal to the empty tuple (which is not None)?
It's
=?ISO-8859-2?Q?Pawe=B3?= Sakowski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
ll=[[1,2],[3,4,5],[6]]
sum(ll,[])
>[1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6]
That's a great argument for list.__add__ having the semantics of
extend rather than append 8-)
--
\S -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- http://www.chaos.org.uk/~sion/
___ | "Fra
Steven D'Aprano wrote:
> Put it this way: whenever I see a two-line def as above, I can't help
> feeling that it is a waste of a def. ("Somebody went to all the trouble
> to define a function for *that*?") Yet I would never think the same about
> a lambda -- lambdas just feel like they should be l
On Thu, 07 Jul 2005 09:36:24 +, Duncan Booth wrote:
> Steven D'Aprano wrote:
>> This is something I've never understood. Why is it bad
>> form to assign an "anonymous function" (an object) to a
>> name?
>
> Because it obfuscates your code for no benefit. You should avoid making it
> hard f
Tom Anderson wrote:
> def flatten(ll):
> return reduce(lambda a, l: a.extend(l), ll, [])
>
> How would one do that as a list comp, by the way? I'm really not very good
> with them yet.
Not really a list-comprehension based solution, but I think what you want is
>>> ll=[[1,2],[3,4,5],[6]]
>>> su
Agreed, I dislike map and its ilk as well.
However, they are handy in some cases. I particularly like the way Ruby
deals with this problem. Instead of all these functions, internal
iterators and true anonymous blocks are used.
Case in point:
def gt_than_5(obj):
return obj > 5
results = filter(
Steven D'Aprano wrote:
> This is something I've never understood. Why is it bad
> form to assign an "anonymous function" (an object) to a
> name?
Because it obfuscates your code for no benefit. You should avoid making it
hard for others to read your code (and 'others' includes yourself in the
Steven Bethard wrote:
> If you're really afraid of two lines, write it as:
>
> def r(): randint(1, 100)
>
> This is definitely a bad case for an anonymous function because it's not
> anonymous! You give it a name, r.
This is something I've never understood. Why is it bad
form to assign a
Ron Adam wrote:
> Given the statement:
>
> a = None
>
> And the following are all true:
>
> a == None
Okay.
> (a) == (None)
Okay.
> (a) == ()
Whoops! a (which is None) is equal to the empty tuple (which is not None)?
> (None) == ()
>
> Then this "conceptual" comparison should also be tr
Mike Meyer wrote:
> Ron Adam <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>>So doing this would give an error for functions that require an argument.
>>
>> def foo(x):
>> return x
>>
>> a = None
>> b = foo(a)# error because a dissapears before foo gets it.
>
>
> So how do I pass None
Stian Søiland wrote:
> Or what about a recursive generator?
>
> a = [1,2,[[3,4],5,6],7,8,[9],[],]
>
> def flatten(item):
> try:
> iterable = iter(item)
> except TypeError:
> yield item # inner/final clause
> else:
> for elem in
Ron Adam <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> So doing this would give an error for functions that require an argument.
>
> def foo(x):
> return x
>
> a = None
> b = foo(a)# error because a dissapears before foo gets it.
So how do I pass None to a function?
> >>TypeErro
1 - 100 of 274 matches
Mail list logo
