alex23 wuwe...@gmail.com writes:
The examples here are a wonder to behold as well:
http://mtomassoli.wordpress.com/2012/04/20/code-blocks-in-python/
Wow. “What really happens is that rewrite rewrites the code, executes it
and quits.”
Please keep this far away from anything resembling Python.
On 5/4/2012 4:44, alex23 wrote:
On May 4, 2:17 am, Kiuhnmkiuhnm03.4t.yahoo.it wrote:
On 5/3/2012 2:20, alex23 wrote:
locals() is a dict. It's not injecting anything into func's scope
other than a dict so there's not going to be any name clashes. If you
don't want any of its content in your
On Fri, May 4, 2012 at 9:12 PM, Kiuhnm
kiuhnm03.4t.yahoo...@mail.python.org wrote:
If I and my group of programmers devised a good and concise syntax and
semantics to describe some applicative domain, then we would want to
translate that into the language we use.
Unfortunately, Python doesn't
On 05/04/2012 05:12 AM, Kiuhnm wrote:
Hand-wavy, no real example, doesn't make sense.
Really? Then I don't know what would make sense to you.
Speaking as as an observer here, I've read your blog post, and looked at
your examples. They don't make sense to me either. They aren't real
You know what I find rich about all of this?
[ ... ] I'd like to change the syntax of my module 'codeblocks' to make it
more
[ ... ] pythonic.
Kiuhnm posted a thread to the group asking us to help him make it more
Pythonic, but he has steadfastly refused every single piece of help he
was
On 5/3/2012 2:20, alex23 wrote:
On May 2, 8:52 pm, Kiuhnmkiuhnm03.4t.yahoo.it wrote:
func(some_args, locals())
I think that's very bad. It wouldn't be safe either. What about name
clashing
locals() is a dict. It's not injecting anything into func's scope
other than a dict so there's
if only Python wasn't so rigid.
what.
You realize you'd have a little more luck with Python if you weren't
wielding it like a cudgel in the examples you've posted here, right?
Because it looks like you're treating the language as everything it
isn't and nothing it is this whole time. No wonder
On Thu, May 3, 2012 at 10:17 AM, Kiuhnm
kiuhnm03.4t.yahoo...@mail.python.org wrote:
On 5/3/2012 2:20, alex23 wrote:
On May 2, 8:52 pm, Kiuhnmkiuhnm03.4t.yahoo.it wrote:
func(some_args, locals())
I think that's very bad. It wouldn't be safe either. What about name
clashing
On May 4, 2:17 am, Kiuhnm kiuhnm03.4t.yahoo.it wrote:
On 5/3/2012 2:20, alex23 wrote:
locals() is a dict. It's not injecting anything into func's scope
other than a dict so there's not going to be any name clashes. If you
don't want any of its content in your function's scope, just don't
On Thu, 03 May 2012 19:44:57 -0700, alex23 wrote:
[snip]
My version was:
def a(): pass
def b(): pass
func_packet = locals()
func(arg, func_packet)
Now, please explain how that produces name-clashes that your version
does not.
I too am uncomfortable about passing
On Fri, May 4, 2012 at 12:44 PM, alex23 wuwe...@gmail.com wrote:
On May 4, 2:17 am, Kiuhnm kiuhnm03.4t.yahoo.it wrote:
I would've come up with something even better if only Python wasn't so rigid.
The inability for people to add 6 billion mini-DSLs to solve any
stupid problem _is a good
On May 4, 1:47 pm, Steven D'Aprano steve
+comp.lang.pyt...@pearwood.info wrote:
I too am uncomfortable about passing locals() to a function, but not
because of imaginary name clashes. The problem as I see it is that this
will give the function access to things the function has no need for.
And
On 5/2/2012 4:43, alex23 wrote:
[Apologies in advance if this comes through twice]
On May 2, 12:18 am, Kiuhnmkiuhnm03.4t.yahoo.it wrote:
Most Pythonic doesn't mean better, unfortunately.
Nor does it mean Kiuhnm prefers it.
That goes without saying.
For instance, assume that you want to
On 02/05/2012 11:52, Kiuhnm wrote:
I remember a post on this ng when one would create a list of commands
and then use that list as a switch table. My module let you do that very
easily.
Kiuhnm
I'll believe that when I see a reference to your code repository and the
working example that
Steven D'Aprano wrote:
Have you actually tried to use these code blocks of yours? I asked you
for a *working* example earlier, and you replied with examples that
failed with multiple NameErrors and no hint as to how to fix them. And
now you give an example that fails with SyntaxError.
On May 2, 8:52 pm, Kiuhnm kiuhnm03.4t.yahoo.it wrote:
func(some_args, locals())
I think that's very bad. It wouldn't be safe either. What about name
clashing
locals() is a dict. It's not injecting anything into func's scope
other than a dict so there's not going to be any name clashes.
On 05/02/2012 04:52 AM, Kiuhnm wrote:
The problem is always the same. Those functions are defined at the
module level so name clashing and many other problems are possible.
Only functions defined at the module level are in fact in the module's
namespace. For example, this works fine, and the
On 05/02/2012 10:26 PM, Michael Torrie wrote:
If you are experiencing name clashes you need to start dividing your
code up logically instead of keeping everything in the global namespace
of your module.
I shouldn't have used the word global here as it's not actually global.
--
On 5/1/2012 5:27, alex23 wrote:
On Apr 30, 2:05 am, Peter Pearsonppear...@nowhere.invalid wrote:
Hey, guys, am I the only one here who can't even guess what
this code does? When did Python become so obscure?
Thankfully it hasn't. The most Pythonic way to pass around a code
block is still to
On Wed, May 2, 2012 at 12:18 AM, Kiuhnm
kiuhnm03.4t.yahoo...@mail.python.org wrote:
Most Pythonic doesn't mean better, unfortunately.
For instance, assume that you want to write a function that accepts a
dictionary of callbacks:
func(some_args, callbacks)
Pythonic way
def
On Tue, 01 May 2012 16:18:03 +0200, Kiuhnm wrote:
Most Pythonic doesn't mean better, unfortunately.
Perhaps. But this example is not one of those cases.
For instance, assume that you want to write a function that accepts a
dictionary of callbacks:
func(some_args, callbacks)
Pythonic
On Wed, May 2, 2012 at 1:11 AM, Steven D'Aprano
steve+comp.lang.pyt...@pearwood.info wrote:
So in this case, even though Python is slightly more verbose, and forces
you to have the discipline of writing named functions ahead of time, this
is actually a *good* thing because it encourages you to
On 5/1/2012 17:11, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
My way
--
with func(some_args) ':dict':
with when_odd as 'n':
pass
with when_prime as 'n':
pass
If you actually try that, you will see that it cannot work. You get:
SyntaxError: can't assign to literal
If you
Holy crap.
Easy there, tiger.
I understand you're frustrated, but the people here are trying to
help, even if they've decided the means of helping is trying to
explain why they feel your style of development isn't the best way to
do things.
You're going to wear out your welcome and not get any
On Tue, May 1, 2012 at 1:07 PM, Kiuhnm
kiuhnm03.4t.yahoo...@mail.python.org wrote:
If you had read the module's docstring you would know that the public
version uses
Are you aware that you've never posted a link to your module, nor it's
docstrings? Are you also aware that your module is
(sent from my phone)
On May 1, 2012 6:42 PM, Jerry Hill malaclyp...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, May 1, 2012 at 1:07 PM, Kiuhnm
kiuhnm03.4t.yahoo...@mail.python.org wrote:
If you had read the module's docstring you would know that the public
version uses
Are you aware that you've never posted
Arnaud Delobelle wrote:
On May 1, 2012 6:42 PM, Jerry Hill wrote:
On Tue, May 1, 2012 at 1:07 PM, Kiuhnm wrote:
If you had read the module's docstring you would know that the public
version uses
Are you aware that you've never posted a link to your module, nor it's
docstrings? Are you also
On Tue, 01 May 2012 19:07:58 +0200, Kiuhnm wrote:
On 5/1/2012 17:11, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
My way
--
with func(some_args) ':dict':
with when_odd as 'n':
pass
with when_prime as 'n':
pass
If you actually try that, you will see that it cannot work.
Steven D'Aprano steve+comp.lang.pyt...@pearwood.info writes:
On Tue, 01 May 2012 19:07:58 +0200, Kiuhnm wrote:
[entitled demands]
Believe it or not, the world does not revolve around you. We cannot
see what is in your head. If we ask for a WORKING EXAMPLE, you need to
give an example that
[Apologies in advance if this comes through twice]
On May 2, 12:18 am, Kiuhnm kiuhnm03.4t.yahoo.it wrote:
Most Pythonic doesn't mean better, unfortunately.
Nor does it mean Kiuhnm prefers it.
For instance, assume that you want to write a function that accepts a
dictionary of callbacks:
On May 2, 12:43 pm, alex23 wuwe...@gmail.com wrote:
I'm not entirely sure what your 'solution' offers over something like:
class FOO(object):
def __init__(self, fn):
self.fn = fn
def __enter__(self):
return self.fn
def __exit__(self, exc_type, exc_value,
On May 2, 12:18 am, Kiuhnm kiuhnm03.4t.yahoo.it wrote:
Most Pythonic doesn't mean better, unfortunately.
Neither does Kiuhnm prefers it.
For instance, assume that you want to write a function that accepts a
dictionary of callbacks:
func(some_args, callbacks)
Pythonic way
Ben Finney wrote:
[ ... ] Even worse is the
penchant for ‘foo .bar()’, the space obscures the fact that this is
attribute access.
I like the style sometimes when it helps to break the significantly different
parts out of
boilerplate:
libbnem. BN_add .argtypes = [ctypes.POINTER
On 4/30/2012 16:17, mwil...@the-wire.com wrote:
Ben Finney wrote:
[ ... ] Even worse is the
penchant for ‘foo .bar()’, the space obscures the fact that this is
attribute access.
I like the style sometimes when it helps to break the significantly different
parts out of
boilerplate:
On 4/30/2012 17:02, Kiuhnm wrote:
On 4/30/2012 16:17, mwil...@the-wire.com wrote:
Ben Finney wrote:
[ ... ] Even worse is the
penchant for ‘foo .bar()’, the space obscures the fact that this is
attribute access.
I like the style sometimes when it helps to break the significantly
different
On 4/30/2012 17:02, Kiuhnm wrote:
BignumTypePtr = ctypes.POINTER(BignumType)
for op, op_word in ((libbnem.BN_add, libbnem.BN_add_word),
(libbnem.BN_sub, libbnem.BN_sub_word)):
op.argtypes = [BignumTypePtr] * 3
op_word.argtypes = [BignumTypePtr, ctypes.c_ulong]
op.restype = op_word.restype
On 4/30/2012 17:42, mwil...@the-wire.com wrote:
On 4/30/2012 17:02, Kiuhnm wrote:
BignumTypePtr = ctypes.POINTER(BignumType)
for op, op_word in ((libbnem.BN_add, libbnem.BN_add_word),
(libbnem.BN_sub, libbnem.BN_sub_word)):
op.argtypes = [BignumTypePtr] * 3
op_word.argtypes = [BignumTypePtr,
Kiuhnm wrote:
Regarding ctypes, try this to convince yourself that there's no problem
in reusing BignumPtrType:
from ctypes import POINTER, c_int
assert POINTER(c_int) is POINTER(c_int)
print ('POINTERs are shareable:', ctypes.POINTER (BignumType) is ctypes.POINTER
(BignumType))
[
mwil...@the-wire.com writes:
Another take-away might be don't use boilerplate, but in the situation
I didn't see a simple way to avoid it.
It seems we agree, then, that avoiding boilerplate code is preferable to
writing bad boilerplate code.
--
\ “Computer perspective on Moore's
On Fri, 27 Apr 2012 13:24:35 +0200, Kiuhnm kiuhnm03.4t.yahoo.it wrote:
I'd like to change the syntax of my module 'codeblocks' to make it more
pythonic.
Current Syntax:
with res func(arg1) 'x, y':
print(x, y)
with res func(arg1) block_name 'x, y':
Current Syntax:
with res func(arg1) 'x, y':
print(x, y)
with res func(arg1) block_name 'x, y':
print(x, y)
New Syntax:
with res == func(arg1) .taking_block (x, y):
print(x, y)
with res == func(arg1) .taking_block (x, y) as
29.04.12 19:05, Peter Pearson написав(ла):
Hey, guys, am I the only one here who can't even guess what
this code does? When did Python become so obscure?
This isn't Python at all. It's Ruby.
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Peter Pearson ppearson@nowhere.invalid writes:
On Fri, 27 Apr 2012 13:24:35 +0200, Kiuhnm kiuhnm03.4t.yahoo.it wrote:
I'd like to change the syntax of my module 'codeblocks' to make it
more pythonic.
The “chained callable” style isn't very Pythonic, IMO. Even worse is the
penchant for ‘foo
On 4/27/2012 18:07, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
On Fri, 27 Apr 2012 17:03:19 +0200, Kiuhnm wrote:
On 4/27/2012 16:09, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
On Fri, 27 Apr 2012 13:24:35 +0200, Kiuhnm wrote:
I'd like to change the syntax of my module 'codeblocks' to make it
more pythonic.
Current Syntax:
Kiuhnm wrote:
I'd like to change the syntax of my module 'codeblocks' to make it more
pythonic.
Current Syntax:
with res func(arg1) 'x, y':
print(x, y)
with res func(arg1) block_name 'x, y':
print(x, y)
New Syntax:
with res == func(arg1) .taking_block (x,
I'd like to change the syntax of my module 'codeblocks' to make it more
pythonic.
Current Syntax:
with res func(arg1) 'x, y':
print(x, y)
with res func(arg1) block_name 'x, y':
print(x, y)
New Syntax:
with res == func(arg1) .taking_block (x, y):
On Fri, 27 Apr 2012 13:24:35 +0200, Kiuhnm wrote:
I'd like to change the syntax of my module 'codeblocks' to make it more
pythonic.
Current Syntax:
with res func(arg1) 'x, y':
print(x, y)
with res func(arg1) block_name 'x, y':
print(x, y)
I'm sorry,
On 4/27/2012 16:09, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
On Fri, 27 Apr 2012 13:24:35 +0200, Kiuhnm wrote:
I'd like to change the syntax of my module 'codeblocks' to make it more
pythonic.
Current Syntax:
with res func(arg1) 'x, y':
print(x, y)
with res func(arg1) block_name
On Fri, 27 Apr 2012 17:03:19 +0200, Kiuhnm wrote:
On 4/27/2012 16:09, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
On Fri, 27 Apr 2012 13:24:35 +0200, Kiuhnm wrote:
I'd like to change the syntax of my module 'codeblocks' to make it
more pythonic.
Current Syntax:
with res func(arg1) 'x, y':
On Fri, Apr 27, 2012 at 10:07 AM, Steven D'Aprano
steve+comp.lang.pyt...@pearwood.info wrote:
How about you give an actual working example of what you mean by a code
block and how you use it?
He wrote a full blog post about it last week:
50 matches
Mail list logo
