On 19 February 2017 at 12:29, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
>
> Please tell us the optics formula used to determine the optical
> "goodness" and "badness" of a word. I want to see this physics formula
> that tells us how good or bad a word is "optically", and I want to know
> the names of at least a doze
On Sun, Feb 19, 2017 at 03:58:56AM +0100, Mikhail V wrote:
> Right after that however, pure physics comes in play.
> So memorizing a visual pattern happens in some minutes
> of active reading, but further reading lasts "till final victory".
You think that learning to read is "pure physics". That'
On 19 February 2017 at 01:01, Erik wrote:
> On 18/02/17 19:35, Mikhail V wrote:
>>
>> You mean what my proposal would bring
>> technically better than e.g.:
>>
>> for i,e in enumerate(Seq)
>>
>> Well, nothing, and I will simply use it,
>> with only difference it could be:
>>
>> for i,e over enumer
On 18/02/17 19:35, Mikhail V wrote:
You mean what my proposal would bring
technically better than e.g.:
for i,e in enumerate(Seq)
Well, nothing, and I will simply use it,
with only difference it could be:
for i,e over enumerate(Seq)
In this case only space holes will be
smoothed out, so pure
On 18 February 2017 at 05:43, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 17, 2017 at 06:31:19PM +0100, Mikhail V wrote:
>
>> I have said I need the index, probably you've misread my last comment.
>> Further more I explained why I think iteration over index should be the
>> preferred way, it help with re
On Feb 18, 2017 02:30, "Mikhail V" wrote:
On 18 February 2017 at 04:13, Joao S. O. Bueno
wrote:
> I don't see the point in continuing this thread.
How does this add to the syntax discussion?
I was replying to Nicks quite vague comments
which were supposed to be critics.
There is no point disc
On 18 February 2017 at 04:13, Joao S. O. Bueno wrote:
> You can still use range.
Yes thats what I do, see my proposal
> I don't see the point in continuing this thread.
How does this add to the syntax discussion?
I was replying to Nicks quite vague comments
which were supposed to be critics.
>>
On Sat, Feb 18, 2017 at 03:27:00AM +0100, Mikhail V wrote:
> In what sense iteration over integer is limited?
It cannot iterate over something where the length is unknown in
advance, or infinite, or not meaningfully indexed by integers.
Here are four for-loops. How would you re-write this using
On Fri, Feb 17, 2017 at 06:31:19PM +0100, Mikhail V wrote:
> I have said I need the index, probably you've misread my last comment.
> Further more I explained why I think iteration over index should be the
> preferred way, it help with readability a lot.
Your concept of readability is clearly rad
On Sat, Feb 18, 2017 at 2:13 PM, Joao S. O. Bueno wrote:
> One can start coding in Python if after a couple minutes of tutorial, he
> learns
> about "for", "if", "def" and a couple data primitives - and maybe
> "print" and "input"
> for some UI. So, out of 3 needed statements to start coding, you
On 18 February 2017 at 00:27, Mikhail V wrote:
> A short Meta-note: I see most people are bottom-replying
> and still many do top-reply, namely you Nick always do.
> I dont know if there is a rule, but it makes quite hard to
> manage/read post with mixed posting style.
>
> On 17 February 2017 at 2
A short Meta-note: I see most people are bottom-replying
and still many do top-reply, namely you Nick always do.
I dont know if there is a rule, but it makes quite hard to
manage/read post with mixed posting style.
On 17 February 2017 at 23:51, Nick Timkovich wrote:
>
> I think fundamentally by s
I think fundamentally by special-casing a for-loop variant, you have a
construct with limited/no generality that's simply an additional burden to
learn. You're kind of doing the opposite of converting print from a
statement into a function. I far prefer the print function because it's a
function li
Iterating over range(len(collection)) is one of the worst anti-patterns in
Python. I take great pains to slap my students who do that.
On Feb 17, 2017 9:32 AM, "Mikhail V" wrote:
>
> On 17 February 2017 at 17:37, Chris Angelico wrote:
>
>> On Sat, Feb 18, 2017 at 3:30 AM, Mikhail V wrote:
>> >
On 17 February 2017 at 18:40, Chris Angelico wrote:
> Further discussion probably should be redirected to python-list, but
> I'll elaborate here to explain why I do not support your proposal.
>
I don't see why you want redirect me to python-list, and how
exactly do you see it, start a related d
>
> Further more I explained why I think iteration over index should be the
> preferred way, it help with readability a lot.
I think you'll find this statement at odds with most of the Python
community, especially Guido. I find looping over objects in a collection is
what you want to do 90% of th
On Sat, Feb 18, 2017 at 4:31 AM, Mikhail V wrote:
> I have said I need the index, probably you've misread my last comment.
> Further more I explained why I think iteration over index should be the
> preferred way, it help with readability a lot.
Further discussion probably should be redirected to
On 17 February 2017 at 17:37, Chris Angelico wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 18, 2017 at 3:30 AM, Mikhail V wrote:
> > On 17 February 2017 at 04:59, Chris Angelico wrote:
> >>
> >> On Fri, Feb 17, 2017 at 2:13 PM, Mikhail V
> wrote:
> >> > Common use case:
> >> >
> >> > L = [1,3,5,7]
> >> >
> >> > for i
On Sat, Feb 18, 2017 at 3:30 AM, Mikhail V wrote:
> On 17 February 2017 at 04:59, Chris Angelico wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, Feb 17, 2017 at 2:13 PM, Mikhail V wrote:
>> > Common use case:
>> >
>> > L = [1,3,5,7]
>> >
>> > for i over len(L):
>> >e = L[i]
>> >
>> > or:
>> >
>> > length = len(L)
>> >
On 17 February 2017 at 04:59, Chris Angelico wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 17, 2017 at 2:13 PM, Mikhail V wrote:
> > Common use case:
> >
> > L = [1,3,5,7]
> >
> > for i over len(L):
> >e = L[i]
> >
> > or:
> >
> > length = len(L)
> > for i over length:
> >e = L[i]
>
> Better use case:
>
> for i,
On 17.02.2017 04:59, Chris Angelico wrote:
On Fri, Feb 17, 2017 at 2:13 PM, Mikhail V wrote:
Common use case:
L = [1,3,5,7]
for i over len(L):
e = L[i]
or:
length = len(L)
for i over length:
e = L[i]
Better use case:
for i, e in enumerate(L):
I totally agree with Chris here.
Fo
On 2/17/17, Mikhail V wrote:
> Rationale
> ---
>
> Removing the brackets will help concentrate on other
> parts of code [...]
Do you think that
for i in steps * 10:
for i in steps * 1-10:
for i in steps * 1-10 ^ 2:
are better than
for i in range(10):
On Fri, Feb 17, 2017 at 2:13 PM, Mikhail V wrote:
> Common use case:
>
> L = [1,3,5,7]
>
> for i over len(L):
>e = L[i]
>
> or:
>
> length = len(L)
> for i over length:
>e = L[i]
Better use case:
for i, e in enumerate(L):
ChrisA
___
Python-ide
Here is a summary of my idea about for-loop.
It focuses on readability and does not
take in account possible technical nuances.
This is my first attempt to write a full proposal
and I suppose it is ok to post it here.
Many things (readability) can raise opinion based dispute,
so it is sort of my op
24 matches
Mail list logo
