On Nov 20, 11:26 pm, alex23 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Nov 21, 10:07 am, Aaron Brady [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Why, I would expect the interpreter to define the functions when it
first hits the def, that is, at the point of definition.
Then why are you arguing that the parameters should be
On Nov 21, 7:49 pm, Aaron Brady [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Nov 20, 11:26 pm, alex23 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Nov 21, 10:07 am, Aaron Brady [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Why, I would expect the interpreter to define the functions when it
first hits the def, that is, at the point of
On Nov 21, 4:24 am, alex23 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Nov 21, 7:49 pm, Aaron Brady [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Nov 20, 11:26 pm, alex23 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Nov 21, 10:07 am, Aaron Brady [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Why, I would expect the interpreter to define the functions when
On Nov 19, 7:58 pm, alex23 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Nov 20, 10:14 am, Aaron Brady [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If you had a menu in a browser interface that had the items, say,
'Stop' and 'Reload', what would you expect to happen if you clicked on
them?
If you had a keyword called 'def',
On Nov 20, 10:42 pm, Aaron Brady [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
At first, I would expect it to define them at compile-time. Then,
when I learned there was no such thing, I would expect it to define
them at execute-time. What does that have to do with evaluating a
default argument?
It has
On Nov 20, 5:54 pm, alex23 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Nov 20, 10:42 pm, Aaron Brady [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
At first, I would expect it to define them at compile-time. Then,
when I learned there was no such thing, I would expect it to define
them at execute-time. What does that have to
On Wed, 19 Nov 2008 10:05:23 -0800, Dennis Lee Bieber wrote:
Do you really want a default argument that changes value depending
upon actions performed in the /surrounding/ scope?
And if you do, it is easy to get:
default_y = something
def parrot(x, y=None):
if y is None:
y =
On Wed, 19 Nov 2008 11:26:54 -0800, George Sakkis wrote:
On Nov 19, 1:05 pm, Dennis Lee Bieber [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, 19 Nov 2008 05:41:57 -0800 (PST), Rick Giuly
[EMAIL PROTECTED] declaimed the following in comp.lang.python:
(By better I mean that over many years of time
On Thu, 20 Nov 2008 04:42:24 -0800, Aaron Brady wrote:
On Nov 19, 7:58 pm, alex23 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Nov 20, 10:14 am, Aaron Brady [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If you had a menu in a browser interface that had the items, say,
'Stop' and 'Reload', what would you expect to happen if you
On Nov 21, 10:07 am, Aaron Brady [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Why, I would expect the interpreter to define the functions when it
first hits the def, that is, at the point of definition.
Then why are you arguing that the parameters should be re-defined at
the point of calling?
--
On Thu, Nov 20, 2008 at 9:26 PM, alex23 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Nov 21, 10:07 am, Aaron Brady [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Why, I would expect the interpreter to define the functions when it
first hits the def, that is, at the point of definition.
Then why are you arguing that the parameters
Thanks to all for your replies
All things considered, I vote for evaluating the arguments at runtime
(each time the function is called). Good reasons for this have already
been mentioned so I won't repeat them. A programming language is a
user interface of sorts. (Pretty much all languages are
On Nov 19, 8:41 am, Rick Giuly [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Python provides, for the most part, an *excellent* user
interface to the programmer. Why not make it even better
by evaluating the arguments each time the function is called?
It will be harder to change the language 10 years from now,
On Nov 19, 1:05 pm, Dennis Lee Bieber [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, 19 Nov 2008 05:41:57 -0800 (PST), Rick Giuly
[EMAIL PROTECTED] declaimed the following in comp.lang.python:
(By better I mean that over many years of time programmers will be
more productive because the language will
On Nov 19, 12:05 pm, Dennis Lee Bieber [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I wouldn't expect a language like Ada to somehow re-evaluate a
default argument on each call; why would I expect Python to do such?
Lots of people do.
If you had a menu in a browser interface that had the items, say,
On Nov 20, 10:14 am, Aaron Brady [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If you had a menu in a browser interface that had the items, say,
'Stop' and 'Reload', what would you expect to happen if you clicked on
them?
If you had a keyword called 'def', which defined functions, would you
expect it to define
On Wed, Nov 19, 2008 at 8:58 PM, alex23 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Nov 20, 10:14 am, Aaron Brady [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If you had a menu in a browser interface that had the items, say,
'Stop' and 'Reload', what would you expect to happen if you clicked on
them?
If you had a keyword
On Nov 16, 2:05 am, Arnaud Delobelle [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Steven D'Aprano [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Sat, 15 Nov 2008 01:40:04 -0800, Rick Giuly wrote:
Hello All,
Why is python designed so that b and c (according to code below)
actually share the same list object? It seems more
On Sun, 16 Nov 2008 07:05:51 +, Arnaud Delobelle wrote:
Steven D'Aprano [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Sat, 15 Nov 2008 01:40:04 -0800, Rick Giuly wrote:
Hello All,
Why is python designed so that b and c (according to code below)
actually share the same list object? It seems more
George Sakkis wrote:
On Nov 16, 2:05 am, Arnaud Delobelle [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Steven D'Aprano [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Sat, 15 Nov 2008 01:40:04 -0800, Rick Giuly wrote:
Hello All,
Why is python designed so that b and c (according to code below)
actually share the same list
Dennis Lee Bieber wrote:
On Sat, 15 Nov 2008 01:40:04 -0800 (PST), Rick Giuly
[EMAIL PROTECTED] declaimed the following in comp.lang.python:
Why is python designed so that b and c (according to code below)
actually share the same list object? It seems more natural to me that
each object
On Nov 16, 8:28 am, Steve Holden [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
+1. Understanding and accepting the current behavior (mainly because
of the extra performance penalty of evaluating the default expressions
on every call would incur) is one thing, claiming that it is somehow
natural is plain
On Sun, Nov 16, 2008 at 11:02 AM, George Sakkis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Nov 16, 8:28 am, Steve Holden [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
+1. Understanding and accepting the current behavior (mainly because
of the extra performance penalty of evaluating the default expressions
on every call would
On Nov 16, 2:30 pm, Chris Rebert [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sun, Nov 16, 2008 at 11:02 AM, George Sakkis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Nov 16, 8:28 am, Steve Holden [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Less obvious is entirely in the mind of the reader.
Without documentation or peeking into the
On Nov 16, 4:05 am, Steven D'Aprano [EMAIL PROTECTED]
cybersource.com.au wrote:
On Sun, 16 Nov 2008 07:05:51 +, Arnaud Delobelle wrote:
Steven D'Aprano [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Sat, 15 Nov 2008 01:40:04 -0800, Rick Giuly wrote:
Hello All,
Why is python designed so that b and c
On Nov 16, 7:28 am, Steve Holden [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
George Sakkis wrote:
On Nov 16, 2:05 am, Arnaud Delobelle [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Steven D'Aprano [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Sat, 15 Nov 2008 01:40:04 -0800, Rick Giuly wrote:
Hello All,
Why is python designed so that b and c
On Nov 16, 12:52 am, Steven D'Aprano [EMAIL PROTECTED]
cybersource.com.au wrote:
On Sat, 15 Nov 2008 21:29:22 -0800, Aaron Brady wrote:
...
If you want to be pedantic, then my answer (which you seem to approve
of) doesn't correspond to either of the original poster's questions. If
you're going
Aaron Brady wrote:
On Nov 16, 7:28 am, Steve Holden [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
George Sakkis wrote:
On Nov 16, 2:05 am, Arnaud Delobelle [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Steven D'Aprano [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Sat, 15 Nov 2008 01:40:04 -0800, Rick Giuly wrote:
Hello All,
Why is python designed
On Nov 17, 12:27 pm, Steve Holden [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If multiple statements are needed to perform the
argument initialization, how would you then propose the problem should
be solved?
Why, with another function of course!
def f(x, y=`f_arg_computation(x)`): ...
Or my personal
For the Nth time this year that this has come up, I'll point out yet
again that this issue has already been discussed to death before:
[Python-ideas] proto-PEP: Fixing Non-constant Default Arguments
http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-ideas/2007-January/000121.html
[Python-3000] pre-PEP:
On Nov 16, 8:16 pm, Aaron Brady [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Nov 16, 12:52 am, Steven D'Aprano [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I've given practical reasons why the
Python choice is better. If you want default argument to be created from
scratch when the function is called, you can get it with little
On Nov 17, 12:52 am, Aaron Brady [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Nov 16, 8:16 pm, Aaron Brady [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Nov 16, 12:52 am, Steven D'Aprano [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I've given practical reasons why the
Python choice is better. If you want default argument to be created from
Hello All,
Why is python designed so that b and c (according to code below)
actually share the same list object? It seems more natural to me that
each object would be created with a new list object in the points
variable.
class Blob:
def __init__(self, points=[]):
self._points =
Rick Giuly [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Hello All,
Hello,
Why is python designed so that b and c (according to code below)
actually share the same list object? It seems more natural to me that
each object would be created with a new list object in the points
variable.
class Blob:
def
On Sat, 15 Nov 2008 01:40:04 -0800, Rick Giuly wrote:
Hello All,
Why is python designed so that b and c (according to code below)
actually share the same list object? It seems more natural to me that
each object would be created with a new list object in the points
variable.
That's not
On Nov 15, 3:40 am, Rick Giuly [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hello All,
Why is python designed so that b and c (according to code below)
actually share the same list object? It seems more natural to me that
each object would be created with a new list object in the points
variable.
class Blob:
On Sat, 15 Nov 2008 21:29:22 -0800, Aaron Brady wrote:
I don't think Dennis or Steven read your post very well.
It's possible.
You said 'Why
does Python do X?', and 'It seems natural to you to do not X'. Dennis
and Steven both said, 'Python does X'.
I also disputed that it is natural to do
Steven D'Aprano [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Sat, 15 Nov 2008 01:40:04 -0800, Rick Giuly wrote:
Hello All,
Why is python designed so that b and c (according to code below)
actually share the same list object? It seems more natural to me that
each object would be created with a new list
38 matches
Mail list logo
