On Wed, Dec 10, 2014 at 9:01 PM, Steven D'Aprano st...@pearwood.info
wrote:
On Wed, 10 Dec 2014 09:46:55 -0700, Ian Kelly wrote:
I don't particularly have a problem with functions having attributes,
e.g. I think itertools.chain.from_iterable is just peachy. There is a
downside though,
Ian Kelly wrote:
A function, on the
other hand, is not well suited to be a namespace, because it's not
expected to provide one.
And that is exactly the point I am making about the inherent
conservativeness of Python developers.
Functions ARE namespaces, like instances of user-defined
On Thu, Dec 11, 2014 at 4:28 PM, Steven D'Aprano
steve+comp.lang.pyt...@pearwood.info wrote:
Ian Kelly wrote:
A function, on the
other hand, is not well suited to be a namespace, because it's not
expected to provide one.
And that is exactly the point I am making about the inherent
On Fri, Dec 12, 2014 at 10:28 AM, Steven D'Aprano
steve+comp.lang.pyt...@pearwood.info wrote:
I think that there is a legitimate debate to be had as to whether this
conservativeness and resistance to change is a good thing or a bad thing,
but I don't think that there should be any debate about
In article mailman.16880.1418342293.18130.python-l...@python.org,
Ian Kelly ian.g.ke...@gmail.com wrote:
I never said that functions can't be used as namespaces. I said that
functions are *bad* namespaces, and I gave reasons why I think this is true.
An excellent example of functions acting
On Thu, Dec 11, 2014 at 6:55 PM, Roy Smith r...@panix.com wrote:
In article mailman.16880.1418342293.18130.python-l...@python.org,
Ian Kelly ian.g.ke...@gmail.com wrote:
I never said that functions can't be used as namespaces. I said that
functions are *bad* namespaces, and I gave reasons
On Tue, 09 Dec 2014 21:44:54 -0500, Roy Smith wrote:
In article 54878f8a$0$13010$c3e8da3$54964...@news.astraweb.com,
Steven D'Aprano steve+comp.lang.pyt...@pearwood.info wrote:
I really think you guys are trying too hard to make this function seem
more complicated than it is. If you find
On Wed, Dec 10, 2014 at 8:24 PM, Steven D'Aprano st...@pearwood.info wrote:
And if anyone has got the impression that I'm calling you a dummy because
you don't see it my way, I'm not. I'm calling you nekulturny and somebody
who can't recognise elegant code when it's staring you right in the
Steven D'Aprano st...@pearwood.info:
I've noticed this deep-seated conservatism in Python programmers
before. Parts of the language are deeply under-utilised, because there
are simple idioms that people refuse to use because they're
confusing even though they are a trivial generalisation of
On Wed, Dec 10, 2014 at 2:24 AM, Steven D'Aprano st...@pearwood.info
wrote:
Example: In the statistics module in Python 3.4, I added a `median`
function to calculate the median by the traditional schoolbook algorithm.
But that's only one out of a number of ways to calculate medium, and
On 12/10/2014 11:46 AM, Ian Kelly wrote:
I don't particularly have a problem with functions having attributes,
e.g. I think itertools.chain.from_iterable is just peachy. There is a
downside though, which is that making those functions attributes of
another function rather than of the module
On Wed, Dec 10, 2014 at 10:48 AM, Terry Reedy tjre...@udel.edu wrote:
Likewise the generated help for the help() function,
unless care is taken to explicitly mention the existence of those
functions in either the doc string for the module
help(it.chain) lists
| from_iterable(...) from
On Wed, 10 Dec 2014 09:46:55 -0700, Ian Kelly wrote:
I don't particularly have a problem with functions having attributes,
e.g. I think itertools.chain.from_iterable is just peachy. There is a
downside though, which is that making those functions attributes of
another function rather than of
On 12/10/2014 3:32 PM, Ian Kelly wrote:
So Idle gets it right. At least for static methods of classes, which
isn't very surprising. Does it complete a function attribute of a
function?
def f(): pass
f.a='attr'
f. box with 'a' as possible completion.
Having used Komodo IDE for a number
On 12/9/2014 12:03 AM, Terry Reedy wrote:
Roy Smith wrote:
Chris Angelico wrote:
def myzip(*args):
iters = map(iter, args)
while iters:
res = [next(i) for i in iters]
yield tuple(res)
Ugh. When I see while foo, my brain says, OK, you're about to see a
loop
Terry Reedy wrote:
On 12/9/2014 12:03 AM, Terry Reedy wrote:
Roy Smith wrote:
Chris Angelico wrote:
def myzip(*args):
iters = map(iter, args)
while iters:
res = [next(i) for i in iters]
yield tuple(res)
Ugh. When I see while foo, my brain says, OK, you're
On Wed, Dec 10, 2014 at 11:10 AM, Steven D'Aprano
steve+comp.lang.pyt...@pearwood.info wrote:
On the other hand, *premature optimization*. In general, one shouldn't write
more complex code so the compiler can optimize it, one should write simpler
code and have a smarter compiler. If *we* are
On 10/12/2014 00:10, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
Wait... is this like the Four Yorkshire Men sketch from Monty Python, only
instead of complaining about how hard you had it as children, you're all
trying to outdo each other about how difficult you find it to read this
function? If so, well done, you
In article 54878f8a$0$13010$c3e8da3$54964...@news.astraweb.com,
Steven D'Aprano steve+comp.lang.pyt...@pearwood.info wrote:
I really think you guys are trying too hard to make this function seem more
complicated than it is. If you find it so hard to understand a simple
function with four
On Mon, 08 Dec 2014 11:35:36 +1100, Chris Angelico wrote:
On Mon, Dec 8, 2014 at 11:27 AM, Roy Smith r...@panix.com wrote:
Although, to be honest, I'm wondering if this is more straight-forward
(also not tested):
def myzip37(*args):
if not args:
return
iters =
On Mon, Dec 8, 2014 at 8:40 PM, Steven D'Aprano st...@pearwood.info wrote:
The first version is explicit and clear too. I'm sorry to say this, but
it is true: if you (generic you) don't recognise that
while iters:
...
skips the while block if iters is an empty list, then *you*
In article 5485721c$0$2817$c3e8da3$76491...@news.astraweb.com,
Steven D'Aprano st...@pearwood.info wrote:
On Mon, 08 Dec 2014 11:35:36 +1100, Chris Angelico wrote:
On Mon, Dec 8, 2014 at 11:27 AM, Roy Smith r...@panix.com wrote:
Although, to be honest, I'm wondering if this is more
Roy Smith wrote:
Chris Angelico wrote:
I'm actually glad PEP 479 will break this kind of code. Gives a good
excuse for rewriting it to be more readable.
Steven D'Aprano steve+comp.lang.pyt...@pearwood.info wrote:
What kind of code is that? Short, simple, Pythonic and elegant? :-)
On 12/8/2014 9:50 PM, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
Roy Smith wrote:
Chris Angelico wrote:
def myzip(*args):
iters = map(iter, args)
while iters:
res = [next(i) for i in iters]
yield tuple(res)
Ugh. When I see while foo, my brain says, OK, you're about to see a
loop
On Tue, 09 Dec 2014 00:03:33 -0500, Terry Reedy wrote:
On 12/8/2014 9:50 PM, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
Roy Smith wrote:
Chris Angelico wrote:
def myzip(*args):
iters = map(iter, args)
while iters:
res = [next(i) for i in iters]
yield tuple(res)
Ugh. When I
Hello everyone,
I'm currently in the process of self-study journey, so I have some questions
arisen from time to time.
Today I would like to talk about iterables and iterators,(ask for your help
actually ^_^).
Before I'll continue, just wanted to draw your attention to the fact that I
On Sun, Dec 7, 2014 at 3:44 AM, Ivan Evstegneev webmailgro...@gmail.com wrote:
(quoting from the book)
Because this code uses iter and next, it works on any type of iterable. Note
that there
is no reason to catch the StopIteration raised by the next(it) inside the
comprehension
here when any
-list@python.org
Subject: Re: Python Iterables struggling using map() built-in
On 12/6/14 11:44 AM, Ivan Evstegneev wrote:
And as I've promised the question section:
1.What actually map() trying to do in Python 3.X?
I mean, why is this works fine:
L = [1, 2, 3, 4]
k = iter(L)
next(k)
1
On Mon, Dec 8, 2014 at 2:29 AM, Ned Batchelder n...@nedbatchelder.com wrote:
3. The only operation supported on iterators is next(). You cannot start
them over, you cannot ask if there will be more values, you cannot find out
how many values there will be, you can't ask what the last value
On Dec 7, 2014 8:31 AM, Ned Batchelder n...@nedbatchelder.com wrote:
NOTE: THIS EXAMPLE IS HORRIBLE. This code is crazy-confusing, and should
never have been used as an example of iteration. It layers at least three
iterations on top of each other, making it very difficult to see what is
going
On Mon, Dec 8, 2014 at 5:27 AM, Ian Kelly ian.g.ke...@gmail.com wrote:
On Dec 7, 2014 8:31 AM, Ned Batchelder n...@nedbatchelder.com wrote:
NOTE: THIS EXAMPLE IS HORRIBLE. This code is crazy-confusing, and should
never have been used as an example of iteration. It layers at least three
Chris Angelico wrote:
On Mon, Dec 8, 2014 at 5:27 AM, Ian Kelly ian.g.ke...@gmail.com wrote:
On Dec 7, 2014 8:31 AM, Ned Batchelder n...@nedbatchelder.com wrote:
NOTE: THIS EXAMPLE IS HORRIBLE. This code is crazy-confusing, and
should never have been used as an example of iteration. It
On Mon, Dec 8, 2014 at 10:33 AM, Steven D'Aprano
steve+comp.lang.pyt...@pearwood.info wrote:
How would we re-write this to work in the future Python 3.7? Unless I have
missed something, I think we could write it like this:
def myzip37(*args):
iters = list(map(iter, args))
while
Chris Angelico wrote:
I'm actually glad PEP 479 will break this kind of code. Gives a good
excuse for rewriting it to be more readable.
Steven D'Aprano steve+comp.lang.pyt...@pearwood.info wrote:
What kind of code is that? Short, simple, Pythonic and elegant? :-)
Here's the code again,
In article mailman.16689.1417996247.18130.python-l...@python.org,
Chris Angelico ros...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Dec 8, 2014 at 10:33 AM, Steven D'Aprano
steve+comp.lang.pyt...@pearwood.info wrote:
How would we re-write this to work in the future Python 3.7? Unless I have
missed something,
On Mon, Dec 8, 2014 at 11:12 AM, Roy Smith r...@panix.com wrote:
Ugh. When I see while foo, my brain says, OK, you're about to see a
loop which is controlled by the value of foo being changed inside the
loop. That's not at all what's happening here, so my brain runs into a
wall.
I agree,
On Mon, Dec 8, 2014 at 11:27 AM, Roy Smith r...@panix.com wrote:
Although, to be honest, I'm wondering if this is more straight-forward
(also not tested):
def myzip37(*args):
if not args:
return
iters = list(map(iter, args))
Yes, I prefer this too. It's explicit and clear
On 12/7/2014 7:12 PM, Roy Smith wrote:
Chris Angelico wrote:
I'm actually glad PEP 479 will break this kind of code. Gives a good
excuse for rewriting it to be more readable.
Steven D'Aprano steve+comp.lang.pyt...@pearwood.info wrote:
What kind of code is that? Short, simple, Pythonic and
In article mailman.16690.1417998873.18130.python-l...@python.org,
Chris Angelico ros...@gmail.com wrote:
Next problem, what the heck is res? We're not back in the punch-card
days. We don't have to abbreviate variable names to save columns.
Variable names are supposed to describe what
On Mon, Dec 8, 2014 at 11:45 AM, Roy Smith r...@panix.com wrote:
I take it as result, which makes plenty of sense to me.
OK, so spell it out. Three more keystrokes (well, plus another three
when you use it on the next line). And one of them is a vowel; they
don't even cost much. The next
On 12/7/14 7:12 PM, Roy Smith wrote:
Chris Angelico wrote:
I'm actually glad PEP 479 will break this kind of code. Gives a good
excuse for rewriting it to be more readable.
Steven D'Aprano steve+comp.lang.pyt...@pearwood.info wrote:
What kind of code is that? Short, simple, Pythonic and
On 2014-12-08 01:00, Chris Angelico wrote:
On Mon, Dec 8, 2014 at 11:45 AM, Roy Smith r...@panix.com wrote:
I take it as result, which makes plenty of sense to me.
OK, so spell it out. Three more keystrokes (well, plus another three
when you use it on the next line). And one of them is a
Steven D'Aprano wrote:
I do not believe that good code must be obviously right. It's okay for code
to be subtly right.
If you write code as subtly as you can, you're not
subtle enough to debug it...
--
Greg
--
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Terry Reedy wrote:
However, this 'beautiful' code has a trap. If one gets rid of the
seemingly unneeded temporary list res by telescoping the last two lines
into a bit too much into
yield tuple(next(i) for i in iters)
we now have an infinite generator, because tuple() swallows
44 matches
Mail list logo
