On Feb 3, 2:01 pm, "J. Cliff Dyer" wrote:
> On Tue, 2009-02-03 at 08:33 -0700, Joe Strout wrote:
> > J. Cliff Dyer wrote:
>
> > > But what if your language allows functions to be used as first class
> > > objects? (Mine does :))
>
> > > x = Beep
>
> > > Does that assign the name x to the Beep o
J. Cliff Dyer wrote:
> On Tue, 2009-02-03 at 08:33 -0700, Joe Strout wrote:
>> J. Cliff Dyer wrote:
>>
>>> But what if your language allows functions to be used as first class
>>> objects? (Mine does :))
>>>
>>> x = Beep
>>>
>>> Does that assign the name x to the Beep object or does it assign th
On Tue, 2009-02-03 at 08:33 -0700, Joe Strout wrote:
> J. Cliff Dyer wrote:
>
> > But what if your language allows functions to be used as first class
> > objects? (Mine does :))
> >
> > x = Beep
> >
> > Does that assign the name x to the Beep object or does it assign the
> > result of a Bee
On Thu, 2009-01-22 at 09:07 -0700, Joe Strout wrote:
> >> Beep
> >>
> >> Doesn't get much more readable and syntax-free than that.
> >
> > readable doesn't mean smallest amount of syntax possible sometimes
> syntax
> > increases the readability of a text as you would see if we for
> example
Joe Strout wrote:
> Aaron Brady wrote:
>
>> Where functions are first-class objects, a bare function object isn't
>> distinguishable either from its call.
>
> That depends not on whether functions are first-class objects, but on
> the *syntax* of function invocation vs. function reference. It jus
Steven D'Aprano wrote:
Foo
Is that legal RB syntax?
You betcha!
How do you know? I haven't specified what Foo does.
You haven't specified whether "Foo" is a valid identifier at all, so I'm
assuming that it is both valid and used correctly here. The syntax is
certainly valid -- it m
On Jan 22, 2:17 am, Steven D'Aprano
wrote:
> On Wed, 21 Jan 2009 08:17:34 -0700, Joe Strout wrote:
> > But of course. Any method call is legal only if the form of the call
> > matches the method prototype -- if you try to call a function that
> > requires 4 parameters, and give it only 3, that's
On Jan 22, 1:46 am, Steven D'Aprano
wrote:
> On Wed, 21 Jan 2009 00:57:49 -0800, Aaron Brady wrote:
> > Natural language doesn't have the equivalent of parentheses,
>
> I take it you mean natural language doesn't have the equivalent of
> parentheses for *calling*, since NLs can (and do) use parent
On Wed, 21 Jan 2009 08:17:34 -0700, Joe Strout wrote:
> Steven D'Aprano wrote:
...
>> But even if RB doesn't have these things, I question that the syntax is
>> "beautiful". Consider some arbitrary method Foo. If you see this:
>>
>> Foo
>>
>> Is that legal RB syntax?
>
> You betcha!
How
On Wed, 21 Jan 2009 00:57:49 -0800, Aaron Brady wrote:
> Natural language doesn't have the equivalent of parentheses,
I take it you mean natural language doesn't have the equivalent of
parentheses for *calling*, since NLs can (and do) use parentheses for
grouping -- as well as various conventi
On Jan 21, 2:50 pm, Scott David Daniels wrote:
> Benjamin J. Racine wrote:
> > I think it would be a good step if you could make some sensible
> > interpretation of a typical statement without its parentheses.
>
> > f "abc" 123
> > -->
> > f( "abc", 123 )
>
> > It would be just the thing in a cou
On Jan 21, 9:24 am, Joe Strout wrote:
> Aaron Brady wrote:
> > Where functions are first-class objects, a bare function object isn't
> > distinguishable either from its call.
>
> That depends not on whether functions are first-class objects, but on
> the *syntax* of function invocation vs. functio
Benjamin J. Racine wrote:
I think it would be a good step if you could make some sensible interpretation
of a typical statement without its parentheses.
f "abc" 123
-->
f( "abc", 123 )
It would be just the thing in a couple of situations... though it does conflict with raw-string
literals as
Aaron Brady wrote:
Where functions are first-class objects, a bare function object isn't
distinguishable either from its call.
That depends not on whether functions are first-class objects, but on
the *syntax* of function invocation vs. function reference. It just so
happens than in Python,
Steven D'Aprano wrote:
LogError "Walk has gotten too silly", CurrentTime
Here, LogError is a method call that takes two arguments, and
CurrentTime is a method call that takes none.
That seems ambiguous to me. As a non-RealBasic programmer, I can see at
least four meanings it could have. Tr
On Jan 21, 2:36 am, Steven D'Aprano
wrote:
> On Tue, 20 Jan 2009 11:58:46 -0700, Joe Strout wrote:
> > Aaron Brady wrote:
>
> >> I think it would be a good step if you could make some sensible
> >> interpretation of a typical statement without its parentheses.
>
> >> f "abc" 123
> >> -->
> >> f( "
On Jan 20, 9:16 pm, MRAB wrote:
> Terry Reedy wrote:
> > Joe Strout wrote:
> >> Aaron Brady wrote:
>
> >>> I think it would be a good step if you could make some sensible
> >>> interpretation of a typical statement without its parentheses.
>
> >>> f "abc" 123
> >>> -->
> >>> f( "abc", 123 )
>
> >
On Tue, 20 Jan 2009 11:58:46 -0700, Joe Strout wrote:
> Aaron Brady wrote:
>
>> I think it would be a good step if you could make some sensible
>> interpretation of a typical statement without its parentheses.
>>
>> f "abc" 123
>> -->
>> f( "abc", 123 )
>>
>> It would be just the thing in a cou
Terry Reedy wrote:
Joe Strout wrote:
Aaron Brady wrote:
I think it would be a good step if you could make some sensible
interpretation of a typical statement without its parentheses.
f "abc" 123
-->
f( "abc", 123 )
How would you differentiate
f 'abc' + 'def'
as
f('abc') + 'def'
versus
f('a
Joe Strout wrote:
Aaron Brady wrote:
I think it would be a good step if you could make some sensible
interpretation of a typical statement without its parentheses.
f "abc" 123
-->
f( "abc", 123 )
How would you differentiate
f 'abc' + 'def'
as
f('abc') + 'def'
versus
f('abc' + 'def')
Such a
On Jan 16, 12:02 pm, The Music Guy wrote:
> Just out of curiousity, have there been any attempts to make a version
> of Python that looks like actual English text? I mean, so much of Python
> is already based on the English language that it seems like the next
> natural step would be to make a pro
Joe Strout wrote:
Aaron Brady wrote:
I think it would be a good step if you could make some sensible
interpretation of a typical statement without its parentheses.
f "abc" 123
-->
f( "abc", 123 )
It would be just the thing in a couple of situations...
Such a language is possible -- take a
Joe Strout wrote:
Aaron Brady wrote:
Unambiguity and readability are two different things. (This should be
a quasi-tangent, neither agreed, nor opposed, nor unrelated to what
you said.)
If you have
f "abc" 123
it's unambiguous, but, if you have
g f "abc" 123 "def"
there's no sure way to d
on.org] On Behalf Of Aaron
Brady
Sent: Tuesday, January 20, 2009 10:14 AM
To: python-list@python.org
Subject: Re: English-like Python
On Jan 17, 6:10 pm, The Music Guy wrote:
> Wow, impressive responses.
>
> It sounds like the general consensus is that English would not be a
> good choic
Aaron Brady wrote:
Unambiguity and readability are two different things. (This should be
a quasi-tangent, neither agreed, nor opposed, nor unrelated to what
you said.)
If you have
f "abc" 123
it's unambiguous, but, if you have
g f "abc" 123 "def"
there's no sure way to determine where the
On Jan 20, 12:58 pm, Joe Strout wrote:
> Aaron Brady wrote:
> > I think it would be a good step if you could make some sensible
> > interpretation of a typical statement without its parentheses.
>
> > f "abc" 123
> > -->
> > f( "abc", 123 )
>
> > It would be just the thing in a couple of situation
Python is English-like enough that everybody including non-programmers can
understand it.e.g
# Import the operating system module
import os
# define new function
def open_dir_tree(path):
for File in os.listdir(path):
file_or_dir = os.path.join(path, File)
# Read the line below
Aaron Brady wrote:
I think it would be a good step if you could make some sensible
interpretation of a typical statement without its parentheses.
f "abc" 123
-->
f( "abc", 123 )
It would be just the thing in a couple of situations...
Such a language is possible -- take a look at REALbasic so
On Jan 17, 6:10 pm, The Music Guy wrote:
> Wow, impressive responses.
>
> It sounds like the general consensus is that English would not be a good
> choice for programming even if there were an interpreter capable of
> turning human language into machine language. But that makes sense; even
> Engl
The Music Guy wrote:
Just out of curiousity, have there been any attempts to make a version
of Python that looks like actual English text?
Many have tried that in the decades, but IMHO the best approach is to
just rename the language. We cannot do that since it's already been
trademarked fo
Wow, impressive responses.
It sounds like the general consensus is that English would not be a good
choice for programming even if there were an interpreter capable of
turning human language into machine language. But that makes sense; even
English professionals have trouble understanding each oth
2009/1/16 has :
> http://www.alice.org/
Ooh, "JavaLikeSyntax.py" indeed! Why not "PythonLikeSyntax", since
that's apparently what they used!
--
Tim Rowe
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
2009/1/17 Kay Schluehr :
> On 16 Jan., 02:02, The Music Guy wrote:
>> Just out of curiousity, have there been any attempts to make a version
>> of Python that looks like actual English text?
>
> No, but I've once written a Python dialect that uses German text. Just
> look at how amazing this resul
On 16 Jan., 02:02, The Music Guy wrote:
> Just out of curiousity, have there been any attempts to make a version
> of Python that looks like actual English text?
No, but I've once written a Python dialect that uses German text. Just
look at how amazing this result is !!! But be warned it requires
On Jan 15, 7:02 pm, The Music Guy wrote:
> Just out of curiousity, have there been any attempts to make a version
> of Python that looks like actual English text? I mean, so much of Python
> is already based on the English language that it seems like the next
> natural step would be to make a prog
alex23 wrote:
On Jan 16, 5:39 pm, Erik Max Francis wrote:
Inform 7 has some
interesting ideas, but I think the general problem with English-like
programming language systems is that once you get into the nitty gritty
details, you end up having to know exactly the right things to type,
This ha
On 16 Jan, 05:42, Chris Rebert wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 15, 2009 at 5:02 PM, The Music Guy wrote:
>
>
>
> > Just out of curiousity, have there been any attempts to make a version
> > of Python that looks like actual English text?
> > [...]
> Does the name "AppleScript" mean anything to you? ;-)
[quo
2009/1/16 The Music Guy :
> Just out of curiousity, have there been any attempts to make a version
> of Python that looks like actual English text? I mean, so much of Python
> is already based on the English language that it seems like the next
> natural step would be to make a programming language
On Jan 16, 8:39 am, Erik Max Francis wrote:
> I was thinking of this as well when I saw his post. Inform 7 has some
> interesting ideas, but I think the general problem with English-like
> programming language systems is that once you get into the nitty gritty
> details, you end up having to kno
[Hit Reply instead of Reply All. Sorry alex23.]
alex23 wrote:
On Jan 16, 5:39 pm, Erik Max Francis wrote:
Inform 7 has some interesting ideas, but I think the general
problem with English-like programming language systems is that once
you get into the nitty gritty details, you end up having to
On Jan 16, 3:15 am, alex23 wrote:
> On Jan 16, 5:39 pm, Erik Max Francis wrote:
>
> > Inform 7 has some
> > interesting ideas, but I think the general problem with English-like
> > programming language systems is that once you get into the nitty gritty
> > details, you end up having to know exact
On Jan 16, 5:39 pm, Erik Max Francis wrote:
> Inform 7 has some
> interesting ideas, but I think the general problem with English-like
> programming language systems is that once you get into the nitty gritty
> details, you end up having to know exactly the right things to type,
This has always b
The Music Guy wrote:
Just out of curiousity, have there been any attempts to make a version
of Python that looks like actual English text? I mean, so much of Python
is already based on the English language that it seems like the next
natural step would be to make a programming language which is a
Tobias Andersson wrote:
The Music Guy skrev:
Just out of curiousity, have there been any attempts to make a version
of Python that looks like actual English text? I mean, so much of Python
is already based on the English language that it seems like the next
natural step would be to make a progra
The Music Guy skrev:
Just out of curiousity, have there been any attempts to make a version
of Python that looks like actual English text? I mean, so much of Python
is already based on the English language that it seems like the next
natural step would be to make a programming language which is a
The Music Guy writes:
> ...might be translated as...
> >>> Import the operating system module.
http://coboloncogs.org
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
On Thu, Jan 15, 2009 at 5:02 PM, The Music Guy wrote:
> Just out of curiousity, have there been any attempts to make a version
> of Python that looks like actual English text? I mean, so much of Python
> is already based on the English language that it seems like the next
> natural step would be t
On Fri, Jan 16, 2009 at 11:02 AM, The Music Guy wrote:
> Just out of curiousity, have there been any attempts to make a version
> of Python that looks like actual English text? I mean, so much of Python
> is already based on the English language that it seems like the next
> natural step would be
48 matches
Mail list logo
