On 15/01/24 1:28 am, Left Right wrote:
Python isn't a context-free language, so the grammar that is used to
describe it doesn't actually describe the language
Very few languages have a formal grammar that *fully* describes
the set of strings that constitute valid programs, including all
the
On 13/01/24 11:34 pm, Left Right wrote:
To make this
shorter, Python allows:
for in ... : ...
Um, no, it doesn't. An assignment target is not, on its own, a
statement.
It's hard to make sense of what you're saying. You seem to be
surprised by the fact that Python doesn't require variables
On 15/01/24 14:45, Chris Angelico wrote:
On Mon, 15 Jan 2024 at 12:42, dn via Python-list wrote:
On 15/01/24 14:33, Chris Angelico via Python-list wrote:
On Mon, 15 Jan 2024 at 12:12, dn via Python-list wrote:
Here's another witticism I'll often toss at trainees (in many languages,
and
On Mon, 15 Jan 2024 at 12:42, dn via Python-list wrote:
>
> On 15/01/24 14:33, Chris Angelico via Python-list wrote:
> > On Mon, 15 Jan 2024 at 12:12, dn via Python-list
> > wrote:
> >> Here's another witticism I'll often toss at trainees (in many languages,
> >> and especially in UX): just
On 15/01/24 14:33, Chris Angelico via Python-list wrote:
On Mon, 15 Jan 2024 at 12:12, dn via Python-list wrote:
Here's another witticism I'll often toss at trainees (in many languages,
and especially in UX): just because we can do it, doesn't make it a good
idea!
Programming. We were so
On Mon, 15 Jan 2024 at 12:12, dn via Python-list wrote:
> Here's another witticism I'll often toss at trainees (in many languages,
> and especially in UX): just because we can do it, doesn't make it a good
> idea!
>
Programming. We were so busy with whether we COULD that we didn't stop
to think
On 15/01/24 11:47, Chris Angelico via Python-list wrote:
On Mon, 15 Jan 2024 at 09:40, dn via Python-list wrote:
The basic challenge came from my earlier (and blasé) repetition of the
Python refrain "everything in Python is an object". Which led to:
...
So, no, there's an "everything" which
On 15/01/24 08:06, AVI GROSS via Python-list wrote:
...> You provided a way to create an anonymous function and that was not
enough.
I wonder if you could throw in the new := walrus operator to similarly make
a named lambda function in a similar way.
Why would @Chris have anything to do with
On 15/01/24 01:28, Left Right wrote:
Second time to ameliorate wording-dispute in this thread! The original
phrase was: "[modified] BNF". Some of us have worked with various forms
and evolutions of BNF since back in the days of COBOL-60 proposals, and
know it when we see it!
OK, here are the
In Windows the provided methods for running complex command lines are either a
batch file or a shortcut.Someone very kindly pointed out to me in this thread
that there is a PEP for py.exe. I don't use py.exe originally because I didn't
trust it believing it was a new-fangled Microsoft trick. I
Whoa, Олег Сивоконь!
I do not understand any arguments about whether comments are, or are not an
object.
From one perspective, python comments have even less meaning than whitespace
and simply do not exist. I mean once a naked "#" is seen, the rest of that
line is effectively discarded by the
On Mon, 15 Jan 2024 at 09:40, dn via Python-list wrote:
> The basic challenge came from my earlier (and blasé) repetition of the
> Python refrain "everything in Python is an object". Which led to:
>
> <<<
> For example, you may say "functions in Python are
> objects", but you cannot put a
Straight Ahead, on average,
I am not sure what your beef is as apparently it is always something else than
some others assumed.
If your point is that you want consistency, sure that would be nice. But maybe
part of the inconsistency I am not sure you mean is an artifact of the language.
There
On 15/01/24 10:23, Chris Angelico via Python-list wrote:
On Mon, 15 Jan 2024 at 08:15, Left Right wrote:
Python grammar rules prevent function definition from
appearing in left-hand side of the head of the for loop. However, a
variable declaration, which is also a statement, is allowed there.
> You said function. I made a function. You said "head of a for loop
> clause". I put it there. Problem was underspecified.
I also wrote a lot of letters, if you combine them very liberally,
without any regard to the order in which they were written or the
context in which they were used, you may
> Second time to ameliorate wording-dispute in this thread! The original
> phrase was: "[modified] BNF". Some of us have worked with various forms
> and evolutions of BNF since back in the days of COBOL-60 proposals, and
> know it when we see it!
OK, here are the conceptual differences between
On 14/01/24 16:48, Chris Angelico wrote:
On Sun, 14 Jan 2024 at 14:43, dn via Python-list wrote:
Similarly, whilst we could write:
a, b, c = 1, 2, 3
I would only do this when it aligns particularly well with the
algorithm being implemented. For example, you could start a Fibonacci
> What do you mean?
>
> for x in lambda: ...:
> ...
>
> Perfectly grammatical.
1. You put the lambda definition in the wrong place (it should be in
the left-hand side, or as Python calls it "star_targets", but you put
it into "star_expressions", which would be where the right-hand side
is drawn
> What do you mean by this? Most languages I've worked with allow
> variables to be initialized with arbitrary expressions, and a lot of
> languages allow narrowly-scoped variables.
I'm talking about the *left* hand side of the assignment, not the
right hand side. Initialization with arbitrary
On Mon, 15 Jan 2024 at 08:15, Left Right wrote:
> Python grammar rules prevent function definition from
> appearing in left-hand side of the head of the for loop. However, a
> variable declaration, which is also a statement, is allowed there.
What is a "variable declaration" in Python? Please
Chris,
It gets frustrating when people demand too much when strictly speaking, it
is not really needed or may cause new problems.
How often do you really think anyone out there NEEDS to define a function in
the context mentioned?
You provided a way to create an anonymous function and that was
On 1/14/2024 8:54 AM, Thomas Passin via Python-list wrote:
On 1/14/2024 7:48 AM, Sibylle Koczian via Python-list wrote:
Am 09.01.2024 um 12:36 schrieb Barry Scott via Python-list:
On 7 Jan 2024, at 15:09, Sibylle Koczian via Python-list
wrote:
Oh, and the two Windows and Python versions
It can be worth considering why a language is designed or altered in certain
ways to see if there was a tradeoff that made it seem worthwhile or easier
than some other choice.
Python grew and there was regular pressure to add keywords which might break
existing programs. So, yes, sometimes, a
On 1/14/2024 7:48 AM, Sibylle Koczian via Python-list wrote:
Am 09.01.2024 um 12:36 schrieb Barry Scott via Python-list:
On 7 Jan 2024, at 15:09, Sibylle Koczian via Python-list
wrote:
Oh, and the two Windows and Python versions are on two different
computers.
Will remove the "/env"
On Mon, 15 Jan 2024 at 00:27, Left Right wrote:
>
> > What do you mean?
> >
> > for x in lambda: ...:
> > ...
> >
> > Perfectly grammatical.
>
> 1. You put the lambda definition in the wrong place (it should be in
> the left-hand side, or as Python calls it "star_targets", but you put
> it into
Am 09.01.2024 um 12:36 schrieb Barry Scott via Python-list:
On 7 Jan 2024, at 15:09, Sibylle Koczian via Python-list
wrote:
Oh, and the two Windows and Python versions are on two different computers.
Will remove the "/env" from my shebang lines, even if I don't understand what's
On Sun, 14 Jan 2024 at 23:28, Left Right wrote:
> Having worked with a bunch of different grammar languages, the one
> used for Python isn't a recognizable BNF derivative.
That might possibly be because it isn't? It's not BNF. It's PEG. Or
are you a long way behind the times?
> For example, you
27 matches
Mail list logo
