On Feb 16, 10:41 pm, Andrej Mitrovic
wrote:
> On Feb 16, 7:38 pm, Casey Hawthorne
> wrote:
>
> > Interesting talk on Python vs. Ruby and how he would like Python to
> > have just a bit more syntactic flexibility.
>
> >http://blog.extracheese.org/2010/02/pyt
On Feb 23, 1:03 pm, "Alf P. Steinbach" wrote:
>
> Uhm, Paganini...
>
> As I understand it he invented the "destroy your instruments on stage". :-)
>
> Cheers,
>
> - Alf (off-topic)
You probably meant Franz Liszt, who regularly broke piano strings.
Paganini was also a "rock-star" virtuoso but he d
* Paul Rubin:
Steve Howell writes:
My gut instinct is that functional programming works well for lots of
medium sized problems and it is worth learning.
I think it's worth learning because it will make you a better programmer
even if you never use it for anything beyond academic exercises. I
On Feb 22, 9:06 pm, Paul Rubin wrote:
> Steve Howell writes:
> > My gut instinct is that functional programming works well for lots of
> > medium sized problems and it is worth learning.
>
> I think it's worth learning because it will make you a better programmer
> even if you never use it for an
On Feb 22, 9:11 pm, Steve Howell wrote:
> On Feb 22, 8:35 pm, Jonathan Gardner
> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Mon, Feb 22, 2010 at 12:31 PM, John Bokma wrote:
>
> > > In my class there where basically 2 groups of people: the ones who got
> > > functional programming and the ones who had a hard time with
Steve Howell writes:
> My gut instinct is that functional programming works well for lots of
> medium sized problems and it is worth learning.
I think it's worth learning because it will make you a better programmer
even if you never use it for anything beyond academic exercises. It's
just like
On Feb 22, 8:35 pm, Jonathan Gardner
wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 22, 2010 at 12:31 PM, John Bokma wrote:
>
> > In my class there where basically 2 groups of people: the ones who got
> > functional programming and the ones who had a hard time with it. The
> > latter group consisted mostly of people who h
On Mon, Feb 22, 2010 at 12:31 PM, John Bokma wrote:
>
> In my class there where basically 2 groups of people: the ones who got
> functional programming and the ones who had a hard time with it. The
> latter group consisted mostly of people who had been programming in
> languages like C and Pascal
In message
<3aa0205f-1e98-4376-92e4-607f96f13...@k19g2000yqc.googlegroups.com>, Michael
Sparks wrote:
> [1] This is perhaps more appropriate because '(a b c) is equivalent
> to (quote a b c), and quote a b c can be viewed as close to
> python's expression "lambda: a b c"
You got to be k
John Bokma writes:
> In my class there where basically 2 groups of people: the ones who got
> functional programming and the ones who had a hard time with it. The
> latter group consisted mostly of people who had been programming in
> languages like C and Pascal for years; they had a hard time thi
In message <1ecc71bf-54ab-45e6-a38a-d1861f092...@v25g2000yqk.googlegroups.com>,
sjdevn...@yahoo.com wrote:
> On Feb 20, 1:30 am, Lawrence D'Oliveiro
> wrote:
>
>> In message , Rhodri James wrote:
>>
>> > In classic Pascal, a procedure was distinct from a function in that it
>> > had no return v
Jonathan Gardner writes:
> On Sun, Feb 21, 2010 at 10:22 AM, John Bokma wrote:
>> Jonathan Gardner writes:
>>> On Fri, Feb 19, 2010 at 11:16 PM, Lie Ryan wrote:
Now, why don't we start a PEP to make python a fully-functional language
then?
>>>
>>> Because people don't think the
Jonathan Gardner writes:
> I won't deny that really smart people enjoy the challenge of
> programming in a functional style, and some even find it easier to
> work with. However, when it comes to readability and maintenance, I
> appreciate the statement-based programming style, simply because it's
On Sun, Feb 21, 2010 at 10:22 AM, John Bokma wrote:
> Jonathan Gardner writes:
>> On Fri, Feb 19, 2010 at 11:16 PM, Lie Ryan wrote:
>>>
>>> Now, why don't we start a PEP to make python a fully-functional language
>>> then?
>>
>> Because people don't think the same way that programs are written i
Jonathan Gardner writes:
> On Fri, Feb 19, 2010 at 11:16 PM, Lie Ryan wrote:
>>
>> Now, why don't we start a PEP to make python a fully-functional language
>> then?
>
> Because people don't think the same way that programs are written in
> functional languages.
Heh! When I learned Miranda it fe
On Feb 20, 6:13 am, Michael Sparks wrote:
> On Feb 18, 4:15 pm, Steve Howell wrote:
> ...
>
> > def print_numbers()
> > [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6].map { |n|
> > [n * n, n * n * n]
> > }.reject { |square, cube|
> > square == 25 || cube == 64
> > }.map {
On Feb 18, 4:15 pm, Steve Howell wrote:
...
> def print_numbers()
> [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6].map { |n|
> [n * n, n * n * n]
> }.reject { |square, cube|
> square == 25 || cube == 64
> }.map { |square, cube|
> cube
> }.each { |n|
>
On Fri, Feb 19, 2010 at 11:17 PM, sjdevn...@yahoo.com
wrote:
> On Feb 20, 1:30 am, Lawrence D'Oliveiro central.gen.new_zealand> wrote:
>> If Python doesn’t distinguish between procedures and functions, why should
>> it distinguish between statements and expressions?
>
> Because the latter are dif
On Fri, Feb 19, 2010 at 11:16 PM, Lie Ryan wrote:
>
> Now, why don't we start a PEP to make python a fully-functional language
> then?
>
Because people don't think the same way that programs are written in
functional languages.
--
Jonathan Gardner
jgard...@jonathangardner.net
--
http://mail.py
On Feb 19, 11:12 pm, Steve Holden wrote:
> Ben Finney wrote:
> > Lawrence D'Oliveiro writes:
>
> >> If Python doesn’t distinguish between procedures and functions, why
> >> should it distinguish between statements and expressions?
>
> > I don't see the connection between those two predicates. Why
On Feb 19, 10:30 pm, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
> In message , Rhodri James wrote:
>
> > In classic Pascal, a procedure was distinct from a function in that it had
> > no return value. The concept doesn't really apply in Python; there are no
> > procedures in that sense, since if a function termi
On 02/20/10 18:17, sjdevn...@yahoo.com wrote:
> On Feb 20, 1:30 am, Lawrence D'Oliveiro central.gen.new_zealand> wrote:
>> In message , Rhodri James wrote:
>>
>>> In classic Pascal, a procedure was distinct from a function in that it had
>>> no return value. The concept doesn't really apply in Py
On 02/20/10 17:30, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
> In message , Rhodri James wrote:
>
>> In classic Pascal, a procedure was distinct from a function in that it had
>> no return value. The concept doesn't really apply in Python; there are no
>> procedures in that sense, since if a function terminates
On Feb 20, 1:30 am, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
> In message , Rhodri James wrote:
>
> > In classic Pascal, a procedure was distinct from a function in that it had
> > no return value. The concept doesn't really apply in Python; there are no
> > procedures in that sense, since if a function termin
On Feb 20, 1:28 am, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
> In message <87eikjcuzk@benfinney.id.au>, Ben Finney wrote:
>
>
>
> > Lawrence D'Oliveiro writes:
>
> >> In message , cjw wrote:
>
> >> > Aren't lambda forms better described as function?
>
> >> Is this a function?
>
> >> lambda : None
>
> >
Ben Finney wrote:
> Lawrence D'Oliveiro writes:
>
>> If Python doesn’t distinguish between procedures and functions, why
>> should it distinguish between statements and expressions?
>
> I don't see the connection between those two predicates. Why does the
> former matter when determining the “sh
Lawrence D'Oliveiro writes:
> If Python doesn’t distinguish between procedures and functions, why
> should it distinguish between statements and expressions?
I don't see the connection between those two predicates. Why does the
former matter when determining the “should” of the latter?
--
\
Lawrence D'Oliveiro writes:
> So there is no distinction between functions and procedures, then?
In Python, no.
--
\ “When we pray to God we must be seeking nothing — nothing.” |
`\ —Saint Francis of Assisi |
_o__)
In message , Rhodri James wrote:
> In classic Pascal, a procedure was distinct from a function in that it had
> no return value. The concept doesn't really apply in Python; there are no
> procedures in that sense, since if a function terminates without supplying
> an explicit return value it retu
In message <84166541-c10a-47b5-ae5b-
b23202624...@q2g2000pre.googlegroups.com>, Steve Howell wrote:
> Some people make the definition of function more restrictive--"if it
> has side effects, it is not a function."
Does changing the contents of CPU cache count as a side-effect?
--
http://mail.pyt
In message <87eikjcuzk@benfinney.id.au>, Ben Finney wrote:
> Lawrence D'Oliveiro writes:
>
>> In message , cjw wrote:
>>
>> > Aren't lambda forms better described as function?
>>
>> Is this a function?
>>
>> lambda : None
>>
>> What about this?
>>
>> lambda : sys.stdout.write("hi the
On 02/19/10 14:57, Steve Howell wrote:
> In a more real world example, the intermediate results would be
> something like this:
>
>departments
>departments_in_new_york
>departments_in_new_york_not_on_bonus_cycle
>employees_in_departments_in_new_york_not_on_bonus_cycle
>names_of
On Feb 19, 9:30 am, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
> On Fri, 19 Feb 2010 08:32:53 -0800, Steve Howell wrote:
> > The extra expressiveness of Ruby comes from the fact that you can add
> > statements within the block, which I find useful sometimes just for
> > debugging purposes:
>
> > debug = true
> >
On Fri, 19 Feb 2010 08:32:53 -0800, Steve Howell wrote:
> The extra expressiveness of Ruby comes from the fact that you can add
> statements within the block, which I find useful sometimes just for
> debugging purposes:
>
> debug = true
> data = strange_dataset_from_third_party_code()
>
On Feb 19, 7:50 am, Roald de Vries wrote:
> > This pipeline idea has actually been implemented further, see > blog.onideas.ws/stream.py>.
>
> > from stream import map, filter, cut
> > range(10) >> map(lambda x: [x**2, x**3]) >> filter(lambda t: t[0]!
> > =25 and t[1]!=64) >> cut[1] >> list
> > [0
This pipeline idea has actually been implemented further, see .
from stream import map, filter, cut
range(10) >> map(lambda x: [x**2, x**3]) >> filter(lambda t: t[0]!
=25 and t[1]!=64) >> cut[1] >> list
[0, 1, 8, 27, 216, 343, 512, 729]
Wow, cool!
Just to show that you can easily add the itera
On Feb 19, 1:44 pm, Steve Howell wrote:
>
> > def coroutine(co):
> > def _inner(*args, **kwargs):
> > gen = co(*args, **kwargs)
> > gen.next()
> > return gen
> > return _inner
>
> > def squares_and_cubes(lst, target):
> > for n in lst:
> > target.send((n * n, n
On Feb 18, 9:52 pm, Gregory Ewing wrote:
> Steve Howell wrote:
> > Python may not support the broadest notion of anonymous functions, but
> > it definitely has anonymous blocks. You can write this in Python:
>
> > for i in range(10):
> > print i
> > print i * i
> > pri
On Feb 18, 9:37 pm, Kurt Smith wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 18, 2010 at 10:46 PM, Steve Howell wrote:
> > On Feb 18, 2:49 pm, Jonathan Gardner
> > wrote:
> >> On Feb 18, 8:15 am, Steve Howell wrote:
>
> >> > def print_numbers()
> >> > [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6].map { |n|
> >> > [n * n,
On Feb 18, 9:46 pm, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
> On Thu, 18 Feb 2010 19:57:35 -0800, Steve Howell wrote:
> > The names you give to the intermediate results here are terse--"tuples"
> > and "filtered"--so your code reads nicely.
>
> > In a more real world example, the intermediate results would be
> >
On Fri, 19 Feb 2010 18:52:20 +1300, Gregory Ewing wrote:
> The Ruby approach has the advantage of making it possible to implement
> user-defined control structures without requiring a macro facility. You
> can't do that in Python.
[...]
> Also, most people who advocate adding some form of block-p
On Feb 18, 9:41 pm, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
> On Thu, 18 Feb 2010 22:48:21 -0500, Steve Holden wrote:
> > Next week: Lesson 2 - Ad Hominem Attacks
>
> I wouldn't pay any attention to Steve, all Stevens are notorious liars.
>
> --
> Steven
Especially when their last name starts with H.
Cheers,
St
On Thu, 18 Feb 2010 19:57:35 -0800, Steve Howell wrote:
> The names you give to the intermediate results here are terse--"tuples"
> and "filtered"--so your code reads nicely.
>
> In a more real world example, the intermediate results would be
> something like this:
>
>departments
>depart
Steve Howell wrote:
Python may not support the broadest notion of anonymous functions, but
it definitely has anonymous blocks. You can write this in Python:
for i in range(10):
print i
print i * i
print i * i * i
There's a clear difference between this and a Ruby
On Thu, 18 Feb 2010 22:48:21 -0500, Steve Holden wrote:
> Next week: Lesson 2 - Ad Hominem Attacks
I wouldn't pay any attention to Steve, all Stevens are notorious liars.
--
Steven
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Steve Howell writes:
>> http://haskell.org/ghc/docs/6.10.4/html/users_guide/syntax-extns.html...
>> might be of interest. Maybe Ruby and/or Python could grow something similar.
> Can you elaborate?
List comprehensions are a Python feature you're probably familiar with,
and I think Ruby has somet
On Feb 18, 7:58 pm, Paul Rubin wrote:
> Steve Howell writes:
> >> But frankly, although there's no reason that you _have_ to name the
> >> content at each step, I find it a lot more readable if you do:
>
> >> def print_numbers():
> >> tuples = [(n*n, n*n*n) for n in (1,2,3,4,5,6)]
> >> fi
On Thu, Feb 18, 2010 at 10:46 PM, Steve Howell wrote:
> On Feb 18, 2:49 pm, Jonathan Gardner
> wrote:
>> On Feb 18, 8:15 am, Steve Howell wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> > def print_numbers()
>> > [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6].map { |n|
>> > [n * n, n * n * n]
>> > }.reject { |square, cu
On Feb 18, 8:27 pm, "sjdevn...@yahoo.com" wrote:
> On Feb 18, 10:58 pm, Paul Rubin wrote:
>
> Steve Howell writes:
> > >> But frankly, although there's no reason that you _have_ to name the
> > >> content at each step, I find it a lot more readable if you do:
>
> > >> def print_numbers():
> > >
On Feb 18, 7:58 pm, Paul Rubin wrote:
> Steve Howell writes:
> >> But frankly, although there's no reason that you _have_ to name the
> >> content at each step, I find it a lot more readable if you do:
>
> >> def print_numbers():
> >> tuples = [(n*n, n*n*n) for n in (1,2,3,4,5,6)]
> >> fi
On Feb 18, 2:49 pm, Jonathan Gardner
wrote:
> On Feb 18, 8:15 am, Steve Howell wrote:
>
>
>
> > def print_numbers()
> > [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6].map { |n|
> > [n * n, n * n * n]
> > }.reject { |square, cube|
> > square == 25 || cube == 64
> > }.map {
On Feb 18, 10:58 pm, Paul Rubin wrote:
> Steve Howell writes:
> >> But frankly, although there's no reason that you _have_ to name the
> >> content at each step, I find it a lot more readable if you do:
>
> >> def print_numbers():
> >> tuples = [(n*n, n*n*n) for n in (1,2,3,4,5,6)]
> >> f
Steve Howell writes:
>> But frankly, although there's no reason that you _have_ to name the
>> content at each step, I find it a lot more readable if you do:
>>
>> def print_numbers():
>> tuples = [(n*n, n*n*n) for n in (1,2,3,4,5,6)]
>> filtered = [ cube for (square, cube) in tuples if s
On Feb 18, 3:04 pm, "sjdevn...@yahoo.com" wrote:
> On Feb 18, 11:15 am, Steve Howell wrote:
>
> > def print_numbers()
> > [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6].map { |n|
> > [n * n, n * n * n]
> > }.reject { |square, cube|
> > square == 25 || cube == 64
> > }.map
Steven D'Aprano wrote:
> On Thu, 18 Feb 2010 06:15:20 -0800, Steve Howell wrote:
[...]
> There really ought to be a special level of Hell for people who misuse
> "strawman" to mean "a weak or invalid argument" instead of what it
> actually means, which is a weak or invalid argument NOT HELD by yo
On Feb 18, 3:00 pm, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
> [...]
> You wouldn't name your functions:
>
> f01, f02, f03, f04, ... f99
>
Exactly.
> (say), unless you were trying to deliberately obfuscate your code.
> Anonymous functions are even more obfuscated than that. You can get away
> with it so long as y
On Feb 18, 3:04 pm, "sjdevn...@yahoo.com" wrote:
>
> You could do it without intermediate names or lambdas in Python as:
> def print_numbers():
> for i in [ cube for (square, cube) in
> [(n*n, n*n*n) for n in [1,2,3,4,5,6]]
> if square!=25 and cube!=64 ]
John Bokma writes:
> Jonathan Gardner writes:
>
>> On Feb 18, 8:15 am, Steve Howell wrote:
>>>
>>> def print_numbers()
>>> [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6].map { |n|
>>> [n * n, n * n * n]
>>> }.reject { |square, cube|
>>> square == 25 || cube == 64
>>> }.m
Jonathan Gardner writes:
> On Feb 18, 8:15 am, Steve Howell wrote:
>>
>> def print_numbers()
>> [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6].map { |n|
>> [n * n, n * n * n]
>> }.reject { |square, cube|
>> square == 25 || cube == 64
>> }.map { |square, cube|
>>
On Feb 18, 11:15 am, Steve Howell wrote:
> def print_numbers()
> [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6].map { |n|
> [n * n, n * n * n]
> }.reject { |square, cube|
> square == 25 || cube == 64
> }.map { |square, cube|
> cube
> }.each { |n|
>
On Thu, 18 Feb 2010 08:15:46 -0800, Steve Howell wrote:
> Just to be clear, I'm not saying it's unforgivable to occasionally ship
> software with bugs. It happens.
"Occasionally"? Oh, if only.
I would say that there probably isn't a non-trivial application in the
world that is entirely bug-fre
On Feb 18, 8:15 am, Steve Howell wrote:
>
> def print_numbers()
> [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6].map { |n|
> [n * n, n * n * n]
> }.reject { |square, cube|
> square == 25 || cube == 64
> }.map { |square, cube|
> cube
> }.each { |n|
>
On Thu, 18 Feb 2010 06:15:20 -0800, Steve Howell wrote:
> On Feb 18, 1:23 am, Duncan Booth wrote:
>> Jonathan Gardner wrote:
>> > On Feb 17, 12:02 am, Lawrence D'Oliveiro > > central.gen.new_zealand> wrote:
>> >> In message
>> >> <8ca440b2-6094-4b35-80c5-81d000517...@v20g2000prb.googlegroups.com
On Feb 18, 7:50 am, Duncan Booth wrote:
> Steve Howell wrote:
> > If this is an argument against using anonymous functions, then it is a
> > quadruple strawman.
>
> > Shipping buggy code is a bad idea, even with named functions.
>
> I doubt very much whether I have ever shipped any bug-free code
Steve Howell wrote:
> If this is an argument against using anonymous functions, then it is a
> quadruple strawman.
>
> Shipping buggy code is a bad idea, even with named functions.
I doubt very much whether I have ever shipped any bug-free code but
even if it was fit for purpose when shipped it
On Feb 18, 1:23 am, Duncan Booth wrote:
> Jonathan Gardner wrote:
> > On Feb 17, 12:02 am, Lawrence D'Oliveiro > central.gen.new_zealand> wrote:
> >> In message
> >> <8ca440b2-6094-4b35-80c5-81d000517...@v20g2000prb.googlegroups.com>,
>
> >> Jonathan Gardner wrote:
> >> > I used to think anonymo
Jonathan Gardner wrote:
> On Feb 17, 12:02 am, Lawrence D'Oliveiro central.gen.new_zealand> wrote:
>> In message
>> <8ca440b2-6094-4b35-80c5-81d000517...@v20g2000prb.googlegroups.com>,
>>
>> Jonathan Gardner wrote:
>> > I used to think anonymous functions (AKA blocks, etc...) would be a
>> > nic
On Feb 17, 10:39 am, John Bokma wrote:
> Jonathan Gardner writes:
> > Then I looked at a stack trace from a different programming language
> > with lots of anonymous functions. (I believe it was perl.)
>
> > I became enlightened.
>
> If it was Perl [1], I doubt it. Because line numbers are report
On Feb 16, 4:19 pm, Jonathan Gardner
wrote:
> On Feb 16, 11:41 am, Andrej Mitrovic
> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Feb 16, 7:38 pm, Casey Hawthorne
> > wrote:
>
> > > Interesting talk on Python vs. Ruby and how he would like Python to
> > > have ju
On Feb 17, 5:39 pm, Steven D'Aprano
wrote:
> On Wed, 17 Feb 2010 17:04:00 -0800, Jonathan Gardner wrote:
> > (What the heck is a procedure, anyway? Is this different from a
> > subroutine, a method, or a block?)
>
> The name is used in Pascal, which probably means it originated from
> Fortran or A
Steven D'Aprano writes:
> On Wed, 17 Feb 2010 12:39:30 -0600, John Bokma wrote:
[..]
>> If it was Perl [1], I doubt it. Because line numbers are reported, and
>> if that doesn't help you, you can annotate anonymous functions with a
>> nick name using
>>
>> local *__ANON__ = 'nice name';
> [..
On Wed, 17 Feb 2010 17:04:00 -0800, Jonathan Gardner wrote:
> (What the heck is a procedure, anyway? Is this different from a
> subroutine, a method, or a block?)
The name is used in Pascal, which probably means it originated from
Fortran or Algol.
A subroutine is a generic piece of code which
On Thu, 18 Feb 2010 01:04:00 -, Jonathan Gardner
wrote:
On Feb 17, 12:02 am, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
In message <60b1abce-4381-46ab-91ed-
f2ab2154c...@g19g2000yqe.googlegroups.com>, Andrej Mitrovic wrote:
> Also, lambda's are expressions, not statements ...
Is such a distinction Py
On Wed, 17 Feb 2010 12:39:30 -0600, John Bokma wrote:
> Jonathan Gardner writes:
>
>> Then I looked at a stack trace from a different programming language
>> with lots of anonymous functions. (I believe it was perl.)
>>
>> I became enlightened.
>
> If it was Perl [1], I doubt it. Because line n
On Feb 17, 12:02 am, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
> In message <60b1abce-4381-46ab-91ed-
>
> f2ab2154c...@g19g2000yqe.googlegroups.com>, Andrej Mitrovic wrote:
> > Also, lambda's are expressions, not statements ...
>
> Is such a distinction Pythonic, or not? For example, does Python distinguish
> be
On Feb 17, 12:02 am, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
> In message
> <8ca440b2-6094-4b35-80c5-81d000517...@v20g2000prb.googlegroups.com>,
>
> Jonathan Gardner wrote:
> > I used to think anonymous functions (AKA blocks, etc...) would be a
> > nice feature for Python.
>
> > Then I looked at a stack trace
On Feb 17, 10:39 am, John Bokma wrote:
> Jonathan Gardner writes:
> > Then I looked at a stack trace from a different programming language
> > with lots of anonymous functions. (I believe it was perl.)
>
> > I became enlightened.
>
> If it was Perl [1], I doubt it. Because line numbers are report
On Thu, 18 Feb 2010 11:46:52 +1300, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
> In message , cjw wrote:
>
>> Aren't lambda forms better described as function?
>
> Is this a function?
>
> lambda : None
>
> What about this?
>
> lambda : sys.stdout.write("hi there!\n")
Of course they are; the first is
Lawrence D'Oliveiro writes:
> In message , cjw wrote:
>
> > Aren't lambda forms better described as function?
>
> Is this a function?
>
> lambda : None
>
> What about this?
>
> lambda : sys.stdout.write("hi there!\n")
They are both lambda forms in Python. As a Python expression, they
eva
On 2/17/2010 5:46 PM, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
In message, cjw wrote:
Aren't lambda forms better described as function?
Is this a function?
lambda : None
What about this?
lambda : sys.stdout.write("hi there!\n")
To repeat: Python lambda expressions evaluate to function object
In message , cjw wrote:
> Aren't lambda forms better described as function?
Is this a function?
lambda : None
What about this?
lambda : sys.stdout.write("hi there!\n")
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
On 2/17/2010 1:51 PM, cjw wrote:
On 17-Feb-10 05:48 AM, Bruno Desthuilliers wrote:
Lawrence D'Oliveiro a écrit :
In message <60b1abce-4381-46ab-91ed-
f2ab2154c...@g19g2000yqe.googlegroups.com>, Andrej Mitrovic wrote:
Also, lambda's are expressions, not statements ...
Is such a distinction P
On 17-Feb-10 05:48 AM, Bruno Desthuilliers wrote:
Lawrence D'Oliveiro a écrit :
In message <60b1abce-4381-46ab-91ed-
f2ab2154c...@g19g2000yqe.googlegroups.com>, Andrej Mitrovic wrote:
Also, lambda's are expressions, not statements ...
Is such a distinction Pythonic, or not?
Python is (by d
Jonathan Gardner writes:
> Then I looked at a stack trace from a different programming language
> with lots of anonymous functions. (I believe it was perl.)
>
> I became enlightened.
If it was Perl [1], I doubt it. Because line numbers are reported, and
if that doesn't help you, you can annotate
Lawrence D'Oliveiro a écrit :
In message <60b1abce-4381-46ab-91ed-
f2ab2154c...@g19g2000yqe.googlegroups.com>, Andrej Mitrovic wrote:
Also, lambda's are expressions, not statements ...
Is such a distinction Pythonic, or not?
Python is (by design) a statement-based language, so yes, this
d
Aahz a écrit :
In article <8ca440b2-6094-4b35-80c5-81d000517...@v20g2000prb.googlegroups.com>,
Jonathan Gardner wrote:
I used to think anonymous functions (AKA blocks, etc...) would be a
nice feature for Python.
Then I looked at a stack trace from a different programming language
with lots of
In message
<8ca440b2-6094-4b35-80c5-81d000517...@v20g2000prb.googlegroups.com>,
Jonathan Gardner wrote:
> I used to think anonymous functions (AKA blocks, etc...) would be a
> nice feature for Python.
>
> Then I looked at a stack trace from a different programming language
> with lots of anonym
In message <60b1abce-4381-46ab-91ed-
f2ab2154c...@g19g2000yqe.googlegroups.com>, Andrej Mitrovic wrote:
> Also, lambda's are expressions, not statements ...
Is such a distinction Pythonic, or not? For example, does Python distinguish
between functions and procedures?
--
http://mail.python.org/m
On Wed, Feb 17, 2010 at 4:41 AM, Andrej Mitrovic
wrote:
>
> Gary's friend Geoffrey Grosenbach says in his blog post (which Gary
> linked to): "Python has no comparable equivalent to Ruby’s do end
> block. Python lambdas are limited to one line and can’t contain
> statements (for, if, def, etc.). W
In article <8ca440b2-6094-4b35-80c5-81d000517...@v20g2000prb.googlegroups.com>,
Jonathan Gardner wrote:
>
>I used to think anonymous functions (AKA blocks, etc...) would be a
>nice feature for Python.
>
>Then I looked at a stack trace from a different programming language
>with lots of anonymous
On Feb 16, 11:41 am, Andrej Mitrovic
wrote:
> On Feb 16, 7:38 pm, Casey Hawthorne
> wrote:
>
> > Interesting talk on Python vs. Ruby and how he would like Python to
> > have just a bit more syntactic flexibility.
>
> >http://blog.extracheese.org/2010/02/pyt
On Feb 16, 7:38 pm, Casey Hawthorne
wrote:
> Interesting talk on Python vs. Ruby and how he would like Python to
> have just a bit more syntactic flexibility.
>
> http://blog.extracheese.org/2010/02/python-vs-ruby-a-battle-to-the-de...
> --
> Regards,
> Casey
Gary's
Interesting talk on Python vs. Ruby and how he would like Python to
have just a bit more syntactic flexibility.
http://blog.extracheese.org/2010/02/python-vs-ruby-a-battle-to-the-death.html
--
Regards,
Casey
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
93 matches
Mail list logo
