I missed this reply earlier.
Fredrik Lundh wrote:
there might be cognitive theories that argue that the length of the
symbols used to describe something is more important than the symbols
you use and how they can be chunked by the brain
Expert communication is known to work differently. For
Ravi Teja wrote:
You blogged on Django. Let's use that. Don't you think model creation
in Django can be represented better, given that it is done often
enough?
nope, because 1) it's not done very often, and 2) the existing syntax is
already very minimal, and defined in terms of a language
Paul Boddie wrote:
Anton Vredegoor wrote:
Yes, but also what some other posters mentioned, making Pythons internal
parsing tree available to other programs (and to Python itself) by using
a widely used standard like XML as its datatype.
http://pysch.sourceforge.net/ast.html
Very
Anton Vredegoor [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
However, I knew of the existence of such languages but I am
mostly interested in standardized code interchange, like for
example with JSONP which fetches some external javascriptcode
from another server using JSON and places the translated
Anton Vredegoor wrote:
Paul Boddie wrote:
Anton Vredegoor wrote:
Yes, but also what some other posters mentioned, making Pythons internal
parsing tree available to other programs (and to Python itself) by using
a widely used standard like XML as its datatype.
Anton Vredegoor wrote:
(snip)
However, I knew of the existence of such languages but I am mostly
interested in standardized code interchange, like for example with JSONP
which fetches some external javascriptcode from another server using
JSON and places the translated javascript into a
Anton Vredegoor wrote:
Paul Boddie wrote:
I was going to write a long reply to one of your previous messages, but
the above link references a project which may intersect with some of
your expectations. Meanwhile, it should be noted that the availability
Somehow I get the impression of
Anton Vredegoor wrote:
Bruno Desthuilliers wrote:
You mean like 'converting' javascript to python or python to ruby (or
converting any home-grown DSL to Python, etc) ?
Yes, but also what some other posters mentioned, making Pythons internal
parsing tree available to other programs (and to
I don't think that distinction is very meaningful. As a programmer I
have to understand both.
I understand the Python compiler well, and it gives me reasonably good
feedback when I
get things wrong, and it has a lot of flexibility along several
orthogonal lines.
We're talking about
Bruno Desthuilliers wrote:
You mean like 'converting' javascript to python or python to ruby (or
converting any home-grown DSL to Python, etc) ?
Yes, but also what some other posters mentioned, making Pythons internal
parsing tree available to other programs (and to Python itself) by using
a
Kay Schluehr wrote:
If it is just a different kind of representation of common data
structures
but how do you know ?
/F
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Fredrik Lundh a écrit :
Laurent Pointal wrote:
The idea is to have a way to transform a Python (.py) module into XML
and then do source code manipulations in XML-space using ElementTree.
My my my... I'm not against the idea of dynamic source code
transformation, but for heaven's sake,
Fredrik Lundh wrote:
Kay Schluehr wrote:
If it is just a different kind of representation of common data
structures
but how do you know ?
/F
The semantics is specified by the syntax transformer so it is actually
compile-time semantics relative to the base language Python . For any
Diez B. Roggisch wrote:
because lots of people know how to describe XML transformations, and
there are plenty of tools that implement such transformations
efficiently ?
Efficiently enough for dynamic (runtime) use ?
Using XML-transformation for AST manipulation isn't my first choice
bruno at modulix wrote:
Diez B. Roggisch wrote:
because lots of people know how to describe XML transformations, and
there are plenty of tools that implement such transformations
efficiently ?
Efficiently enough for dynamic (runtime) use ?
Using XML-transformation for AST manipulation
Diez B. Roggisch wrote:
bruno at modulix wrote:
Diez B. Roggisch wrote:
because lots of people know how to describe XML transformations, and
there are plenty of tools that implement such transformations
efficiently ?
Efficiently enough for dynamic (runtime) use ?
Using XML-transformation
While the _result_ of a transformation might be a less efficient piece of
code (e.g. introducing a lock around each call to enable concurrent
access), the transformation itself is very - if not totally - static -
really ?
See below.
Nope, it's runned each time the module is loaded (with
bruno at modulix wrote:
Anton Vredegoor wrote:
bruno at modulix wrote:
I still don't get the point.
Well, I've got to be careful here, lest I'd be associated with the
terr.., eh, the childp..., eh the macro-enablers.
The idea is to have a way to transform a Python (.py) module into XML
Diez B. Roggisch wrote:
...
The whole point of a code transformation mechanism like the one Anton is
talking about is to be dynamic. Else one just needs a preprocessor...
No, it is not the whole point. The point is
The idea is that we now have a fast parser (ElementTree) with a
Anton Vredegoor wrote:
Diez B. Roggisch wrote:
...
The whole point of a code transformation mechanism like the one Anton is
talking about is to be dynamic. Else one just needs a preprocessor...
No, it is not the whole point. The point is
The idea is that we now have a fast parser
Or... maybe to be more specific, the hard work later on goes into
*code*. If you are enhancing your model, you do so with methods on the
model classes, and those methods don't effect the DSL, they are just
code. You create some raw XML in the beginning, but quickly it's
just a matter of
Ravi Teja wrote:
Or... maybe to be more specific, the hard work later on goes into
*code*. If you are enhancing your model, you do so with methods on the
model classes, and those methods don't effect the DSL, they are just
code. You create some raw XML in the beginning, but quickly it's
Anton Vredegoor wrote:
With the inclusion of ElementTree (an XML-parser) in Python25 and recent
developments concerning JSON (a very Pythonesque but somewhat limited
XML notation scheme, let's call it statically typed XML)
JSON stands for JavaScript Object Notation, and has *nothing* to do
BJörn Lindqvist wrote:
Personally, I would like to see macros in Python (actually Logix
succeeding is good enough). But I am no language designer and the
community has no interest in it. When I absolutely need macros, I will
go elsewhere.
One must wonder, when is that? When do you
Ravi Teja wrote:
BJörn Lindqvist wrote:
Personally, I would like to see macros in Python (actually Logix
succeeding is good enough). But I am no language designer and the
community has no interest in it. When I absolutely need macros, I will
go elsewhere.
One must wonder, when is that? When do
Ravi Teja wrote:
(snip)
Annoted variables, symbols and code
layout visually cue more efficiently to the object nature than do
explicit text definitions. Of course, this is only sensible when there
aren't too many of any of those. In that case, the cognitive cost of
notation outweighs the
bruno at modulix wrote:
I still don't get the point.
Well, I've got to be careful here, lest I'd be associated with the
terr.., eh, the childp..., eh the macro-enablers.
The idea is to have a way to transform a Python (.py) module into XML
and then do source code manipulations in XML-space
John Roth wrote:
I saw the make statement as a breath of fresh air.
Then it got shot down for what were, to me, totally
trivial reasons.
Which reasons? I as I recall, Guido cut it out without giving any
reason.
Of course Guido has the right to do so, but it is not respectful of
all the work
Anton Vredegoor wrote:
bruno at modulix wrote:
I still don't get the point.
Well, I've got to be careful here, lest I'd be associated with the
terr.., eh, the childp..., eh the macro-enablers.
The idea is to have a way to transform a Python (.py) module into XML
and then do source
bruno at modulix a écrit :
Anton Vredegoor wrote:
bruno at modulix wrote:
I still don't get the point.
Well, I've got to be careful here, lest I'd be associated with the
terr.., eh, the childp..., eh the macro-enablers.
The idea is to have a way to transform a Python (.py) module into XML
Laurent Pointal wrote:
The idea is to have a way to transform a Python (.py) module into XML
and then do source code manipulations in XML-space using ElementTree.
My my my... I'm not against the idea of dynamic source code
transformation, but for heaven's sake, *why* would one put XML in
Ravi Teja wrote:
People have however written various language interpreters (Scheme,
Forth and yes, even Basic) in Python, just for kicks. Still does not
make it a DSL language anymore than it makes C a DSL language.
At present, the closest thing to writing a DSL in Python is Logix
Fredrik Lundh wrote:
Laurent Pointal wrote:
Bruno Desthuilliers wrote:
Anton Vredegoor wrote:
The idea is to have a way to transform a Python (.py) module into XML
and then do source code manipulations in XML-space using ElementTree.
My my my... I'm not against the idea of dynamic
BJörn Lindqvist wrote:
community has no interest in it. When I absolutely need macros, I will
go elsewhere.
I *like* 1..5 (ada, ruby) instead of range(5). If I had macros, I would
have done it myself for *my* code.
I think this example more is a symptom of a childish need to get
Kay Schluehr wrote:
Ravi Teja wrote:
People have however written various language interpreters (Scheme,
Forth and yes, even Basic) in Python, just for kicks. Still does not
make it a DSL language anymore than it makes C a DSL language.
At present, the closest thing to writing a DSL in
because lots of people know how to describe XML transformations, and
there are plenty of tools that implement such transformations efficiently ?
Efficiently enough for dynamic (runtime) use ?
Using XML-transformation for AST manipulation isn't my first choice
either - yet efficiency
Ravi Teja wrote:
Fredrik Lundh wrote:
Ravi Teja wrote:
Web frameworks, which seem to be the rage now in Python community could
have benefited tremendously from Macro capabilities since they have a
lot of boiler plate.
they do? methinks you haven't done much web programming
Fredrik Lundh wrote:
because lots of people know how to describe XML transformations, and
there are plenty of tools that implement such transformations efficiently ?
why would XML be inefficient ?
XML Transformations (XSLT) would *certainly* be an overkill here.
They've invented a whole new
Ian Bicking wrote:
I don't use Django and I made this up quickly, so please don't pick on
subtleties.
@Poll:
question: char length 200
pub_date('date published'): date
@Choice:
poll - Poll
choice: char length 200
votes: int
That doesn't look that much
Ravi Teja wrote:
BJörn Lindqvist wrote:
Personally, I would like to see macros in Python (actually Logix
succeeding is good enough). But I am no language designer and the
community has no interest in it. When I absolutely need macros, I will
go elsewhere.
One must wonder, when is
Paddy wrote:
Ravi Teja wrote:
BJörn Lindqvist wrote:
Personally, I would like to see macros in Python (actually Logix
succeeding is good enough). But I am no language designer and the
community has no interest in it. When I absolutely need macros, I will
go elsewhere.
One
Ravi Teja wrote:
Web frameworks, which seem to be the rage now in Python community could
have benefited tremendously from Macro capabilities since they have a
lot of boiler plate.
they do? methinks you haven't done much web programming lately...
/F
--
Fredrik Lundh wrote:
Ravi Teja wrote:
Web frameworks, which seem to be the rage now in Python community could
have benefited tremendously from Macro capabilities since they have a
lot of boiler plate.
they do? methinks you haven't done much web programming lately...
/F
You blogged
Ravi Teja [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
I *like* 1..5 (ada, ruby) instead of range(5). If I had macros, I would
have done it myself for *my* code.
You can write your own preprocessor to handle things like that.
--
Roberto Bonvallet
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
community has no interest in it. When I absolutely need macros, I will
go elsewhere.
I *like* 1..5 (ada, ruby) instead of range(5). If I had macros, I would
have done it myself for *my* code.
I think this example more is a symptom of a childish need to get
things your way than of a
With the inclusion of ElementTree (an XML-parser) in Python25 and recent
developments concerning JSON (a very Pythonesque but somewhat limited
XML notation scheme, let's call it statically typed XML) Python seems to
have reached a stage where it now seems to be possible to completely
swallow
Anton Vredegoor wrote:
With the inclusion of ElementTree (an XML-parser) in Python25 and recent
developments concerning JSON (a very Pythonesque but somewhat limited
XML notation scheme, let's call it statically typed XML) Python seems to
have reached a stage where it now seems to be possible
Anton Vredegoor wrote:
With the inclusion of ElementTree (an XML-parser) in Python25 and recent
developments concerning JSON (a very Pythonesque but somewhat limited
XML notation scheme, let's call it statically typed XML)
SNIP
Your thoughts please.
Anton
Hi Anton.
If you mean this JSON:
Paddy wrote:
Anton Vredegoor wrote:
With the inclusion of ElementTree (an XML-parser) in Python25 and recent
developments concerning JSON (a very Pythonesque but somewhat limited
XML notation scheme, let's call it statically typed XML)
SNIP
Your thoughts please.
Anton
Hi Anton.
Anton Vredegoor wrote:
With the inclusion of ElementTree (an XML-parser) in Python25 and recent
developments concerning JSON (a very Pythonesque but somewhat limited
XML notation scheme, let's call it statically typed XML) Python seems to
have reached a stage where it now seems to be possible
Personally, I would like to see macros in Python (actually Logix
succeeding is good enough). But I am no language designer and the
community has no interest in it. When I absolutely need macros, I will
go elsewhere.
One must wonder, when is that? When do you absolutely need macros?
--
mvh
BJörn Lindqvist wrote:
Personally, I would like to see macros in Python (actually Logix
succeeding is good enough). But I am no language designer and the
community has no interest in it. When I absolutely need macros, I will
go elsewhere.
One must wonder, when is that? When do you
52 matches
Mail list logo
