On 24 April 2018 at 22:30, David Mertz <me...@gnosis.cx> wrote:
> I do think the pronunciation issue that Greg notices is important. I teach
> Python for most of my living, and reading and discussing code segments is an
> important part of that. When focussing on how Python actually *spells*
> something, you can't always jump to the higher-level meaning of a construct.
> For some complex expression—whether or not "binding expressions" are
> added—sometimes it makes sense to give a characterization of the *meaning*
> of the expression, but other times you want to say aloud the entire spelling
> of the expression.
>
> Although feelings are mixed about this, I like the "dunder" contraction for
> this purpose. It's less of a mouthful to say "dunder-init" than
> "underscore-underscore-init-underscore-underscore" aloud. And once you
> learn that shorthand, it's unambiguous.
>
> I think I'd pronounce:
>
> if (diff := x - x_base) and (g := gcd(diff, n)) > 1:
> return g
>
> As:
>
> "If diff bound to x minus x_base (is non-zero), and g bound to gcd of diff
> comma n is greater than 1, return g"
Pronouncing it as "name bound to expr" would also fit well with
calling the overall construct a binding expression.
You could also postpone the definitions to the end when speaking aloud:
"if diff is true and g is greater than 1, then return g, given
that diff is bound to ex minus ex-base and g is bound to the gcd of
diff and n"
However, that long form sounded awkward to me, though, so I ended up
wanting to rephrase it as just:
"if diff is true and g is greater than 1, then return g, given
that diff is ex minus ex-base and g is the gcd of diff and n"
(The only change is to replace both occurrences of "is bound to" with
a simple "is")
And writing that out actually gave me an idea that I don't believe has
come up before (or if it did, it got lost somewhere in the depths of a
long python-ideas thread):
if (diff is= x - x_base) and (g is= gcd(diff, n)) > 1:
return g
With the mnemonic for what the binding expression means being the
following invariant:
_rhs = expr
assert (name is= _rhs) is _rhs and name is _rhs
In a very real sense, that's *exactly* recreating the C pointer
semantics for "==" ("check if two pointers reference the same object")
vs "=" ("make two pointers reference the same object"), we'd just be
spelling it as "is" vs "is=".
Given that spelling, a reasonable inline pronunciation of "is=" would
still be Davids suggestion of "is bound to":
"if diff is bound to ex minux ex-base and is true and g is bound
to the gcd of diff and n and is greater than 1, then return g"
Simplifying "is bound to" to "is" in the post-definition form would
just be a verbal shorthand.
Cheers,
Nick.
--
Nick Coghlan | ncogh...@gmail.com | Brisbane, Australia
_______________________________________________
Python-Dev mailing list
Python-Dev@python.org
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev
Unsubscribe:
https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
