Ville Vainio wrote:
Read up on list comprehensions and generator expressions. You'll see
the terse side of Python (and genexps look kinda poetic too ;-).
I am familiar with lc:s/genexps, I usually program in scheme which also
has them (srfi-42).
They're very nice and I use them a lot.
--
Ville Vainio wrote:
Boring code is code that numbs your senses with constant flow of
boilerplate crap, memory management and redundant type declarations
and general blah blah that you skip when you are trying to figure out
what a piece of code does.
The python code I've read so far has looked like
T.D. Lassagne wrote:
Please consider joining the International Sarcasm Society. Our motto is
Like We Need YOUR Support.
I *recognize* sarcasm; I just don't think it's very funny. Now parody,
which this turned out to be, I can appreciate.
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Scott David Daniels wrote:
No, poetry is to be read slowly and carefully, appreciating the nuance
at every point. You should be able to read past python, while poetry
is at least as much about the form of the expression as it is about
what is being expressed.
Right, I agree with these
of
refactoring and rewriting code for conciseness and clarity.
Which is a good point to make in almost any language, for code that is
to be maintained.
Sunnan
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Artie Gold wrote:
Torsten Bronger wrote:
The whole text seems to be a variant of
http://www.artima.com/weblogs/viewpost.jsp?thread=98196.
Tsch,
Torsten.
Ya think? ;-)
Heh. I was glad that Torsten pointed it out; I didn't get what was funny
about the joke until then.
--
Tim Peters wrote:
[Aahz]
The joy of coding Python should be in seeing short, concise, readable
classes that express a lot of action in a small amount of clear code --
not in reams of trivial code that bores the reader to death. --GvR
[Sunnan]
Can anyone please point me to the text that quote
Robert Kern wrote:
Sunnan wrote:
(((0.0 a) 1.0) b ) 2.0
Go on. Try it with a bunch of different values.
My bad. (Of course. The subexpressions must return booleans, not the
largest number. It couldn't work any other way.) Egg on my face, and all
that (figuratively speaking).
Not used
Daniel Silva wrote:
We think dropping FILTER and MAP is pretty uncontroversial; (filter P
S) is almost always written clearer as a DO loop (plus the LAMBDA is
slower than the loop). Even more so for (map F S). In all cases,
writing the equivalent imperative program is clearly beneficial.
How
result).
Maybe shogi?
(I don't usually read comp.lang.python and I really don't want to offend
anyone. My apologies if this post is either annoyingly obvious (and thus
contains only stuff that's been said a million times), or totally wrong.)
Sunnan
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python
to use a search engine but I only found quotations, not the source.
Sunnan
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Terry Reedy wrote:
Gee, what about 0.0 a 1.0 b 2.0? I see both as synthesized
multinary operators, but your are right in that this combination does act
differently than a+b+c.
Is really multinary in python? It looks binary to me, just like +.
(a+b)+c
(((0.0 a) 1.0) b ) 2.0
Sunnan
James Stroud wrote:
bob == (carol = 2):
if bob = (bob or carol):
bob == 4
But no one could figure out what bob was supposed to equal anyway.
Wouldn't bob equal the boolean result of the expression (carol = 2)?
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
13 matches
Mail list logo
