Hi all,
so Guido is talking about his reasoning behind dropping lambda,
reduce(), filter() and map() in the next generation of Python:
http://www.artima.com/weblogs/viewpost.jsp?thread=98196
[Prime quote: I think having the two choices side-by-side just
requires programmers to think about
A. Pagaltzis skribis 2005-03-13 23:40 (+0100):
[Prime quote: I think having the two choices side-by-side just
requires programmers to think about making a choice that's
irrelevant for their program; not having the choice streamlines
the thought process.]
But, philosophical point of view
AP == A Pagaltzis [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
AP [Prime quote: I think having the two choices side-by-side just
AP requires programmers to think about making a choice that's
AP irrelevant for their program; not having the choice streamlines
AP the thought process.]
it just proves that
A. Pagaltzis writes:
Hi all,
so Guido is talking about his reasoning behind dropping lambda,
reduce(), filter() and map() in the next generation of Python:
http://www.artima.com/weblogs/viewpost.jsp?thread=98196
[Prime quote: I think having the two choices side-by-side just
From http://dirtsimple.org/2004/12/python-is-not-java.html
In Java, you have to use getters and setters because using public fields
gives you no opportunity to go back and change your mind later to using
getters and setters. So in Java, you might as well get the chore out of the
way up front
John Siracusa skribis 2004-12-03 14:05 (-0500):
I'd like to be able to s/Python/Perl 6/ above, but after many discussions on
this topic, I'm still not sure if I can.
Anything can be anything. I'm sure that despite the ability to run all
the code you want upon reading/writing an attribute, some
On Fri, 3 Dec 2004 20:37:40 +0100, Juerd [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
John Siracusa skribis 2004-12-03 14:05 (-0500):
From http://dirtsimple.org/2004/12/python-is-not-java.html
In Java, you have to use getters and setters because using public fields
gives you no opportunity to go back and change
John Siracusa skribis 2004-12-03 14:46 (-0500):
Anyway, I thought it was interesting to see the ease of forward
compatibility for simple attributes touted as a feature of Python. I'd
like to tout it as a feature of Perl 6 too, because I also hate writing
getters and setters... :)
Of course
Juerd skribis 2004-12-03 21:09 (+0100):
$foo.bar .= foo
Meant ~= there.
Juerd
On Fri, 3 Dec 2004 22:06:43 +0100, Paul Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
http://www.nntp.perl.org/group/perl.perl6.language/9576
Wow, that's a blast from the past. I wonder how much of it is still
valid... :)
-John
On Fri, Dec 03, 2004 at 04:13:01PM -0500, John Siracusa wrote:
: On Fri, 3 Dec 2004 22:06:43 +0100, Paul Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
: http://www.nntp.perl.org/group/perl.perl6.language/9576
:
: Wow, that's a blast from the past. I wonder how much of it is still
: valid... :)
Almost all
John Siracusa writes:
I guess I wasn't asking if it would be possible (I think that's been
established), but if it would be easy, reasonable, or clean (as
it appears to be in Python, although I'm just going by what the quoted
web page says). I recall some discussions about the best way
On 2004-12-03 at 14:46:16, John Siracusa wrote:
Anyway, I thought it was interesting to see the ease of forward
compatibility for simple attributes touted as a feature of Python. I'd
like to tout it as a feature of Perl 6 too, because I also hate writing
getters and setters... :)
Amen
On Fri, Dec 03, 2004 at 02:05:16PM -0500, John Siracusa wrote:
From http://dirtsimple.org/2004/12/python-is-not-java.html
In Java, you have to use getters and setters because using public fields
gives you no opportunity to go back and change your mind later to using
getters and setters. So
David Grove [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Perl is far more practical than experimental.
Not at the moment. That's the problem.
Pretty much everything proposed, even in the wildest RFCs during the
brainstorming phase, was still stuff that's been done elsewhere by other
languages. That's the
Perl is far more practical than experimental.
Not at the moment. That's the problem.
(Note the subtle subject change back to its original intent.)
p
On Sun, Jun 03, 2001 at 02:02:03AM +, Vijay Singh wrote:
I thought your head would be turned by Ruby ;-)
BTW - There's a Ruby Inline::Perl module in alpha
testing now...this will be a nice complement to the
Inline::Python module already available...
And today I put the finishing
Simon Cozens [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Sun, Jun 03, 2001 at 02:02:03AM +, Vijay Singh wrote:
I thought your head would be turned by Ruby ;-)
BTW - There's a Ruby Inline::Perl module in alpha testing
now...this will be a nice complement to the Inline::Python
module already
On Sun, Jun 03, 2001 at 09:42:37PM +0100, Piers Cawley wrote:
Apart from the minor issue of Leon not having ported all the runtime
libraries (in annoying C) yet.
Because I'm hacking at the bytecode level, I can replace the relevant
subroutine calls to Perl builtins.
Oh, hrm. I wonder if I
Simon Cozens [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Sun, Jun 03, 2001 at 09:42:37PM +0100, Piers Cawley wrote:
Apart from the minor issue of Leon not having ported all the runtime
libraries (in annoying C) yet.
Because I'm hacking at the bytecode level, I can replace the relevant
subroutine calls
On Sun, Jun 03, 2001 at 10:48:11PM +0100, Piers Cawley wrote:
Oh, hrm. I wonder if I could use the functions from the Ruby runtime
as custom ops.
You are a very bad man. Go to it.
I would do, but I'm getting segfaults when I reimplement op.c in Perl.
Unfortunately, I'm not joking.
--
-Original Message-
From: Vijay Singh [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Saturday, June 02, 2001 10:02 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Python...
Python? Didn't know you were so into tuples...
I thought your head would be turned by Ruby ;-)
It is. But I'm
a lot of already
developed ideas practical, but breaking new ground isn't really its forte.
If you want to look at languages that are breaking new ground, I recommend
Objective Caml, or Haskell, or Mercury, or even Eiffel. Languages like
Perl and Python are really almost entirely just attempting
Python? Didn't know you were so into tuples...
I thought your head would be turned by Ruby ;-)
BTW - There's a Ruby Inline::Perl module in alpha
testing now...this will be a nice complement to the
Inline::Python module already available...
Must dash - Vijay
"raptor" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
| hi,
| I haven't used Python... but last days I read some stuff, wanted to compare
| both languages for myself and found something interesting.
| They are proposing extentinon to Pyhon 2
It's already in Python 2.0.
--
http://www.dfan.org
hi,
I haven't used Python... but last days I read some stuff, wanted to compare
both languages for myself and found something interesting.
They are proposing extentinon to Pyhon 2 (with their so called PEP
documents, this also is good idea i.e. using current or some modified
version of RFC's
On Sun, Oct 08, 2000 at 01:12:13PM +0100, raptor wrote:
[expression for variable in sequence]
Can this be done easly at the moment OR via some of the new proposals ?!!!?
map { expression } sequence
--
I used to be disgusted, now I find I'm just amused.
-- Elvis Costello
Simon Cozens wrote:
On Sun, Oct 08, 2000 at 01:12:13PM +0100, raptor wrote:
[expression for variable in sequence]
Can this be done easly at the moment OR via some of the new proposals
?!!!?
map { expression } sequence
See also RFC 81.
It's probably worth reading through the Python Enhancement Proposals
(PEPs) to see if there's anything that makes sense to steal:
http://python.sourceforge.net/peps/
Nat
29 matches
Mail list logo
