Op 04-03-14 12:47, Steven D'Aprano schreef:
On Tue, 04 Mar 2014 11:56:07 +0100, Antoon Pardon wrote:
Op 04-03-14 09:56, Steven D'Aprano schreef:
If you
explicitly say that this is an int, then yes, that should be
disallowed;
It's that explicitly part that doesn't follow. Having to manage
Op 04-03-14 16:18, Steven D'Aprano schreef:
Depends on the type: I suppose you can draw an analogy between records or
structs and classes with no methods.
But I'm not talking about creating types, I'm talking about type
declarations.
int x=2; # 2 is an int? Who would have guessed!
How
Steven D'Aprano steve+comp.lang.pyt...@pearwood.info wrote in message
news:5315eec0$0$29985$c3e8da3$54964...@news.astraweb.com...
On Tue, 04 Mar 2014 13:30:04 +, BartC wrote:
Isn't creating classes in Python similar to creating types elsewhere?
Depends on the type: I suppose you can
On Wed, Mar 5, 2014 at 10:28 PM, BartC b...@freeuk.com wrote:
But I agree that in many cases, an initialised declaration *could* often be
used to infer the likely type without too much trouble:
var x=2 # integer
var y=3.0 # real
var z=A # probably, a C-style string pointer ('char*')
Chris Angelico ros...@gmail.com:
C++ has something very like this, with the 'auto' keyword. It's not
particularly useful for the examples you give, but can be much more so
when you have templates, iterators, and so on - where the exact type
declaration might be a couple dozen characters of
On Tue, 04 Mar 2014 17:04:55 +1100, Chris Angelico wrote:
On Tue, Mar 4, 2014 at 4:35 PM, Steven D'Aprano st...@pearwood.info
wrote:
On Tue, 04 Mar 2014 05:37:27 +1100, Chris Angelico wrote:
x = 23 # Compiler goes: Okay, x takes ints. x += 5 # Compiler: No
prob, int += int -- int x = str(x)
Steven D'Aprano steve+comp.lang.pyt...@pearwood.info wrote in message
news:5314bb96$0$29985$c3e8da3$54964...@news.astraweb.com...
Think about the sort of type declarations you have to do in (say) Pascal,
and consider how stupid the compiler must be:
function add_one(x: integer):integer;
begin
Op 04-03-14 09:56, Steven D'Aprano schreef:
If you
explicitly say that this is an int, then yes, that should be disallowed;
It's that explicitly part that doesn't follow. Having to manage types
is the most tedious, boring, annoying, *unproductive* part of languages
like Java, C and
On Tue, 04 Mar 2014 11:56:07 +0100, Antoon Pardon wrote:
Op 04-03-14 09:56, Steven D'Aprano schreef:
If you
explicitly say that this is an int, then yes, that should be
disallowed;
It's that explicitly part that doesn't follow. Having to manage types
is the most tedious, boring,
On Tue, Mar 4, 2014 at 10:47 PM, Steven D'Aprano
steve+comp.lang.pyt...@pearwood.info wrote:
Not even close. I'd like to see the compiler that can work out for itself
that this function is buggy:
def sine_rule(side_a, side_b, angle_a):
Return the angle opposite side_b.
return
Steven D'Aprano st...@pearwood.info wrote in message
news:53159540$0$2923$c3e8da3$76491...@news.astraweb.com...
It's that explicitly part that doesn't follow. Having to manage types
is the most tedious, boring, annoying, *unproductive* part of languages
like Java, C and Pascal. Almost always,
On Wed, Mar 5, 2014 at 12:30 AM, BartC b...@freeuk.com wrote:
But declaring variables is not just about specifying a type; it registers
the name too so that misspelled names can be picked up very early rather
than at runtime (and that's if you're lucky).
The two are separate. I don't know of
On 04/03/2014 13:30, BartC wrote:
But declaring variables is not just about specifying a type; it registers
the name too so that misspelled names can be picked up very early rather
than at runtime (and that's if you're lucky).
I've said before that this, to me, is one of the major downsides
On Wed, Mar 5, 2014 at 1:05 AM, Mark Lawrence breamore...@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
On 04/03/2014 13:30, BartC wrote:
But declaring variables is not just about specifying a type; it registers
the name too so that misspelled names can be picked up very early rather
than at runtime (and that's if
On Wed, 05 Mar 2014 00:01:01 +1100, Chris Angelico wrote:
On Tue, Mar 4, 2014 at 10:47 PM, Steven D'Aprano
steve+comp.lang.pyt...@pearwood.info wrote:
Not even close. I'd like to see the compiler that can work out for
itself that this function is buggy:
def sine_rule(side_a, side_b,
On 2014-03-04 14:25, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
Ask-me-about-versine-and-haversine-ly y'rs,
More interested in a karosine, cuisine, and a limousine. ;-)
-tkc
--
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
On 04/03/2014 14:37, Tim Chase wrote:
On 2014-03-04 14:25, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
Ask-me-about-versine-and-haversine-ly y'rs,
More interested in a karosine, cuisine, and a limousine. ;-)
-tkc
What do you get if you differentiate versines, haversines, karosines,
cuisines and limosines?
On Tue, 04 Mar 2014 14:05:44 +, Mark Lawrence wrote:
Once a statically typed language has been compiled the programmer can
head down to the pub.
It compiles? Quick! Ship it!
Well, that certainly explains the quality of some programs...
--
Steven D'Aprano
On 2014-03-03, Ben Finney ben+pyt...@benfinney.id.au wrote:
Gregory Ewing greg.ew...@canterbury.ac.nz writes:
Just because the compiler *can* infer the return type doesn't
necessarily mean it *should*. When I was playing around with
functional languages, I ended up adopting the practice of
On Wed, Mar 5, 2014 at 1:25 AM, Steven D'Aprano
steve+comp.lang.pyt...@pearwood.info wrote:
The Sine Rule, or Law of Sines, tells us that the ratio of the
length of a side and the sine of the angle opposite that side is constant
for any triangle. That is:
a/sin(A) == b/sin(B) == c/sin(C)
On Wed, Mar 5, 2014 at 1:55 AM, Steven D'Aprano
steve+comp.lang.pyt...@pearwood.info wrote:
On Tue, 04 Mar 2014 14:05:44 +, Mark Lawrence wrote:
Once a statically typed language has been compiled the programmer can
head down to the pub.
It compiles? Quick! Ship it!
Well, that certainly
On Tue, 04 Mar 2014 13:30:04 +, BartC wrote:
Steven D'Aprano st...@pearwood.info wrote in message
news:53159540$0$2923$c3e8da3$76491...@news.astraweb.com...
It's that explicitly part that doesn't follow. Having to manage types
is the most tedious, boring, annoying, *unproductive* part
On 2014-03-04 14:42, Mark Lawrence wrote:
What do you get if you differentiate versines, haversines,
karosines, cuisines and limosines?
Well, with cuisines, you can usually differentiate by seasoning:
your Tex/Mex is spicier and tends to have chili cumin, while your
Indian tends to lean more
On Tue, 04 Mar 2014 14:59:51 +, Grant Edwards wrote:
After a couple decades of working in software development, I've decided
that comments like that are not correct often enough to be useful.
You've got to reverse-engineer the code if there's no such comment. If
there _is_ a comment, you
On Wed, Mar 5, 2014 at 2:18 AM, Steven D'Aprano
steve+comp.lang.pyt...@pearwood.info wrote:
You don't need to have static typing to have declared variables. The two
are independent. E.g. one might have a system like Python, except you
have to declare your variables before using them:
global x
On Wed, 05 Mar 2014 02:28:17 +1100, Chris Angelico wrote:
On Wed, Mar 5, 2014 at 2:18 AM, Steven D'Aprano
steve+comp.lang.pyt...@pearwood.info wrote:
You don't need to have static typing to have declared variables. The
two are independent. E.g. one might have a system like Python, except
you
On Wed, Mar 5, 2014 at 2:45 AM, Steven D'Aprano
steve+comp.lang.pyt...@pearwood.info wrote:
Aside: If you declare your locals, you shouldn't need to declare your
globals. Though I could imagine a rule that global rebinding still needs
to be declared, but you certainly shouldn't need to declare
On 2014-03-04 15:13, Chris Angelico wrote:
On Wed, Mar 5, 2014 at 1:55 AM, Steven D'Aprano
steve+comp.lang.pyt...@pearwood.info wrote:
On Tue, 04 Mar 2014 14:05:44 +, Mark Lawrence wrote:
Once a statically typed language has been compiled the programmer can
head down to the pub.
It
Antoon Pardon antoon.par...@rece.vub.ac.be:
In the same way writing unit tests is the most tedious, boring,
annoying, *unproductive* part. Amost always you are giving the program
results it can work out for itself.
Undoubtedly, explicit type declarations add a dimension of quality to
On Wed, Mar 5, 2014 at 6:49 AM, Marko Rauhamaa ma...@pacujo.net wrote:
public ConnectionPool(int maxConnections, String url) throws SQLException {
try {
super(() - {
try {
return DriverManager.getConnection(url);
} catch ( SQLException ex )
Chris Angelico ros...@gmail.com:
On Wed, Mar 5, 2014 at 6:49 AM, Marko Rauhamaa ma...@pacujo.net wrote:
public ConnectionPool(int maxConnections, String url) throws SQLException {
try {
super(() - {
try {
return DriverManager.getConnection(url);
On Wed, Mar 5, 2014 at 7:50 AM, Marko Rauhamaa ma...@pacujo.net wrote:
The rigmarole is trying to get around Java's mandatory exception
handling limitations, which Python doesn't have.
You are not allowed to pass a lambda to the super constructor that
throws an SQLException. To get around the
Chris Angelico ros...@gmail.com:
Oh, it's THAT problem. Well, it's still not really a fair comparison
of declared types. It shows how Python's much easier to work with, but
what you're showing off is the simpler exception handling :)
The other example I gave is really bread-and-butter Java.
On Wed, Mar 5, 2014 at 8:21 AM, Marko Rauhamaa ma...@pacujo.net wrote:
Chris Angelico ros...@gmail.com:
Oh, it's THAT problem. Well, it's still not really a fair comparison
of declared types. It shows how Python's much easier to work with, but
what you're showing off is the simpler exception
Chris Angelico ros...@gmail.com:
C++ at least has typedefs, and in the newer standards, the 'auto'
keyword was repurposed.
Last I checked, C++ had no satisfactory way to express
callbacks/functors/listeners/lambdas. That's why Qt came up with a
metacompiler to supplement C++'s facilities.
No,
On Wed, Mar 5, 2014 at 8:43 AM, Marko Rauhamaa ma...@pacujo.net wrote:
Chris Angelico ros...@gmail.com:
C++ at least has typedefs, and in the newer standards, the 'auto'
keyword was repurposed.
Last I checked, C++ had no satisfactory way to express
callbacks/functors/listeners/lambdas.
Marko Rauhamaa wrote:
Python doesn't have anonymous inner classes, but it has named inner
classes, and that's quite sufficient.
I would say it's Python's closures that make up for
not having Java's inner classes.
Or to put it another way, inner classes are Java's
kludgy way of working around
Gregory Ewing greg.ew...@canterbury.ac.nz:
Marko Rauhamaa wrote:
Python doesn't have anonymous inner classes, but it has named inner
classes, and that's quite sufficient.
I would say it's Python's closures that make up for not having Java's
inner classes.
Or to put it another way, inner
On Mon, 03 Mar 2014 06:14:09 +0700, musicdenotation wrote:
If Python is not a fnctional language, then which programming paradigmis
dominant?
Python follows the Pythonic paradigm :-)
--
Hope this helps some, sorry for not being able to do a brain dump.
- Mike Stump helping a
in 718085 20140302 231409 musicdenotat...@gmail.com wrote:
If Python is not a fnctional language, then which programming paradigmis dom=
inant?=
Labels are always misleading.
--
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
On Monday, March 3, 2014 6:57:15 AM UTC+5:30, Ned Batchelder wrote:
On 3/2/14 6:14 PM, musicdenotation wrote:
If Python is not a fnctional language, then which programming paradigmis
dominant?
is_a_functional_language() is not a binary condition, yes or no. It's a
continuum. Python has
On Mon, Mar 3, 2014 at 10:45 PM, Rustom Mody rustompm...@gmail.com wrote:
- cannot do a 'type-incorrect' expression like
[1,2] + [[3,4],[5]]
[1, 2, [3, 4], [5]]
What do you mean by type-incorrect? This is adding two lists and
getting back a list. Seems perfectly correct to me.
ChrisA
--
On Monday, March 3, 2014 5:50:37 PM UTC+5:30, Chris Angelico wrote:
On Mon, Mar 3, 2014 at 10:45 PM, Rustom Mody wrote:
- cannot do a 'type-incorrect' expression like
[1,2] + [[3,4],[5]]
[1, 2, [3, 4], [5]]
What do you mean by type-incorrect? This is adding two lists and
getting back a
On Monday, March 3, 2014 7:18:00 PM UTC+5:30, Rustom Mody wrote:
Unfortunately modern versions give a less helpful error message
'++' is list-append, '?' is the prompt
? [1,2] + [[3,4],[5]]
Whoops Wrong cut-paste!
? [1,2] ++ [[3,4],[5]]
ERROR: Type error in application
On Tue, Mar 4, 2014 at 12:48 AM, Rustom Mody rustompm...@gmail.com wrote:
? [1,2] + [[3,4],[5]]
ERROR: Type error in application
*** expression : [1,2] + [[3,4],[5]]
*** term : [1,2]
*** type : [Int]
*** does not match : [[Int]]
IOW [1,2,[3,4],[5]]
is a type-wise
On Monday, March 3, 2014 7:30:17 PM UTC+5:30, Chris Angelico wrote:
On Tue, Mar 4, 2014 at 12:48 AM, Rustom Mody wrote:
? [1,2] + [[3,4],[5]]
ERROR: Type error in application
*** expression : [1,2] + [[3,4],[5]]
*** term : [1,2]
*** type : [Int]
*** does not
On Tue, Mar 4, 2014 at 1:08 AM, Rustom Mody rustompm...@gmail.com wrote:
How do you know that [1,2] is a list that must contain nothing but
integers? By extension, it's also a list that must contain positive
integers less than three, so adding [5] violates that. And [] is a
list that must
On Monday, March 3, 2014 7:53:01 PM UTC+5:30, Chris Angelico wrote:
On Tue, Mar 4, 2014 at 1:08 AM, Rustom Mody wrote:
How do you know that [1,2] is a list that must contain nothing but
integers? By extension, it's also a list that must contain positive
integers less than three, so adding
On Tue, Mar 4, 2014 at 1:38 AM, Rustom Mody rustompm...@gmail.com wrote:
If you want the (semantic) equivalent of python's [1,2,'foo']
you need to make an explicit union Int and String and its that
*single* union type's elements that must go in.
In all cases its always a single type. And so
On Monday, March 3, 2014 8:31:47 PM UTC+5:30, Chris Angelico wrote:
On Tue, Mar 4, 2014 at 1:38 AM, Rustom Mody wrote:
If you want the (semantic) equivalent of python's [1,2,'foo']
you need to make an explicit union Int and String and its that
*single* union type's elements that must go
On Tue, 04 Mar 2014 02:01:47 +1100, Chris Angelico wrote:
This is why it's tricky to put rules in based on type inference. The
programmer's intent isn't in the picture.
Of course it is. If I assign 23 to variable x, that signals my intent to
assign an int to x. By Occam's razor, it is
On Tue, Mar 4, 2014 at 4:27 AM, Steven D'Aprano
steve+comp.lang.pyt...@pearwood.info wrote:
On Tue, 04 Mar 2014 02:01:47 +1100, Chris Angelico wrote:
This is why it's tricky to put rules in based on type inference. The
programmer's intent isn't in the picture.
Of course it is. If I assign 23
Steven D'Aprano wrote:
Given that x is an integer, and that you add 1 (also an integer) to it,
is it really necessary to tell the compiler that add_one returns an
integer? What else could the output type be?
Just because the compiler *can* infer the return type
doesn't necessarily mean it
On Tue, Mar 4, 2014 at 9:31 AM, Ben Finney ben+pyt...@benfinney.id.au wrote:
def frobnicate(flang, splets, queeble=False):
Righteously frobnicate the flang.
:param flang: A file-like object, opened for reading.
I had to read that a few times before I was sure that you
Gregory Ewing greg.ew...@canterbury.ac.nz writes:
Just because the compiler *can* infer the return type doesn't
necessarily mean it *should*. When I was playing around with
functional languages, I ended up adopting the practice of always
declaring the types of my functions, because it helps
Chris Angelico ros...@gmail.com writes:
On Tue, Mar 4, 2014 at 9:31 AM, Ben Finney ben+pyt...@benfinney.id.au wrote:
def frobnicate(flang, splets, queeble=False):
Righteously frobnicate the flang.
:param flang: A file-like object, opened for reading.
I had to
On Monday, March 3, 2014 10:08:11 PM UTC+8, Rustom Mody wrote:
On Monday, March 3, 2014 7:30:17 PM UTC+5:30, Chris Angelico wrote:
On Tue, Mar 4, 2014 at 12:48 AM, Rustom Mody wrote:
? [1,2] + [[3,4],[5]]
ERROR: Type error in application
*** expression : [1,2] + [[3,4],[5]]
On Tue, 04 Mar 2014 05:37:27 +1100, Chris Angelico wrote:
On Tue, Mar 4, 2014 at 4:27 AM, Steven D'Aprano
steve+comp.lang.pyt...@pearwood.info wrote:
On Tue, 04 Mar 2014 02:01:47 +1100, Chris Angelico wrote:
This is why it's tricky to put rules in based on type inference. The
programmer's
On Tuesday, March 4, 2014 11:05:24 AM UTC+5:30, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
On Tue, 04 Mar 2014 05:37:27 +1100, Chris Angelico wrote:
It's not possible to
sub-specify a type (like the string('a'..'x') type in Pike that will
take only strings with nothing but the first 24 lower-case letters -
On Tue, Mar 4, 2014 at 4:35 PM, Steven D'Aprano st...@pearwood.info wrote:
On Tue, 04 Mar 2014 05:37:27 +1100, Chris Angelico wrote:
x = 23 # Compiler goes: Okay, x takes ints. x += 5 # Compiler: No prob,
int += int -- int x = str(x) # Compiler: NO WAY! str(int) -- str, not
allowed!
It's
On Tuesday, March 4, 2014 11:34:55 AM UTC+5:30, Chris Angelico wrote:
On Tue, Mar 4, 2014 at 4:35 PM, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
I have not used Haskell enough to tell you whether you can specify
subtypes. I know that, at least for numeric (integer) types, venerable
old Pascal allows you to
On 3/2/2014 6:14 PM, musicdenotat...@gmail.com wrote:
If Python is not a fnctional language, then which programming paradigmis
dominant?
Python is an object based procedural language with builtin classes and
many functional features. Arguing about the precise wording of such a
statement is
musicdenotat...@gmail.com writes:
If Python is not a fnctional language, then which programming
paradigmis dominant?
Python uses a mixture of programming paradigms. Object-oriented,
procedural, functional, and probably some I don't recall.
So it's not accurate to say “Python is not a
In article mailman.7605.1393805404.18130.python-l...@python.org,
Terry Reedy tjre...@udel.edu wrote:
On 3/2/2014 6:14 PM, musicdenotat...@gmail.com wrote:
If Python is not a fnctional language, then which programming paradigmis
dominant?
Python is an object based procedural language
On 3/2/14 6:14 PM, musicdenotat...@gmail.com wrote:
If Python is not a fnctional language, then which programming paradigmis
dominant?
is_a_functional_language() is not a binary condition, yes or no. It's a
continuum. Python has more functional constructs than Pascal, and fewer
than
On Mon, 03 Mar 2014 06:14:09 +0700, musicdenotation wrote:
If Python is not a fnctional language, then which programming paradigmis
dominant?
Object oriented and procedural are about equally dominant, with a strong
influence from functional paradigm.
There are small amounts of imperative
On Tue, Oct 1, 2013 at 11:36 AM, rusi rustompm...@gmail.com wrote:
(But I do sometimes yearn for a goto.)
Ha! In Scheme, a tail call IS a goto with parameter re-assignment
Precisely. In fact, tail call optimization basically consists of that
exact rewrite. I'm absolutely fine with it being
On 2013-10-01, Steven D'Aprano steve+comp.lang.pyt...@pearwood.info wrote:
On Mon, 30 Sep 2013 18:36:28 +, Neil Cerutti quoted:
Why can??t lambda forms contain statements?
Gah! Please fix your news client! (I see you're using slrn.)
The \x92 bytes found in your message are
Antoon Pardon antoon.par...@rece.vub.ac.be writes:
Op 30-09-13 20:55, Piet van Oostrum schreef:
Franck Ditter nob...@nowhere.org writes:
Good approach of FP in Python, but two points make me crazy :
1. Tail recursion is not optimized. We are in 2013, why ? This is known
technology (since
In article ba94102b-18b6-4850-ac85-032b0fe2f...@googlegroups.com,
rusi rustompm...@gmail.com wrote:
Combining your two questions -- Recently:
What minimum should a person know before saying I know Python
And earlier this
On Sunday, August 4, 2013 10:00:35 PM UTC+5:30, Aseem Bansal wrote:
On Tue, Oct 1, 2013 at 3:04 AM, Franck Ditter nob...@nowhere.org wrote:
1. Tail recursion is not optimized. We are in 2013, why ? This is known
technology (since 1960).
And don't answer with good programmers don't use recursion, this is
bullshit.
I've yet to see any value in having the
On 2013-09-30, Franck Ditter nob...@nowhere.org wrote:
In article ba94102b-18b6-4850-ac85-032b0fe2f...@googlegroups.com,
rusi rustompm...@gmail.com wrote:
I touched upon these in two blog-posts:
1. http://blog.languager.org/2013/06/functional-programming-invades.html
2.
Franck Ditter nob...@nowhere.org writes:
Good approach of FP in Python, but two points make me crazy :
1. Tail recursion is not optimized. We are in 2013, why ? This is known
technology (since 1960).
And don't answer with good programmers don't use recursion, this is
bullshit.
Tail
Op 30-09-13 19:04, Franck Ditter schreef:
Good approach of FP in Python, but two points make me crazy :
1. Tail recursion is not optimized. We are in 2013, why ? This is known
technology (since 1960).
And don't answer with good programmers don't use recursion, this is bullshit.
Guido
Op 30-09-13 20:55, Piet van Oostrum schreef:
Franck Ditter nob...@nowhere.org writes:
Good approach of FP in Python, but two points make me crazy :
1. Tail recursion is not optimized. We are in 2013, why ? This is known
technology (since 1960).
And don't answer with good programmers don't use
On 2013-09-30 19:04, Franck Ditter wrote:
two points make me crazy :
1. Tail recursion is not optimized. We are in 2013, why ? This is
known technology (since 1960). And don't answer with good
programmers don't use recursion,
I seem to recall hearing that the primary reason it hadn't been
On Mon, 30 Sep 2013 18:36:28 +, Neil Cerutti quoted:
Why cant lambda forms contain statements?
Gah! Please fix your news client! (I see you're using slrn.) The \x92
bytes found in your message are apostrophes (technically: right single
quotation marks), encoded using the legacy
On Mon, 30 Sep 2013 19:04:32 +0200, Franck Ditter wrote:
Good approach of FP in Python, but two points make me crazy : 1. Tail
recursion is not optimized. We are in 2013, why ? This is known
technology (since 1960). And don't answer with good programmers don't
use recursion, this is bullshit.
On 9/30/2013 5:02 PM, Tim Chase wrote:
On 2013-09-30 19:04, Franck Ditter wrote:
two points make me crazy :
1. Tail recursion is not optimized. We are in 2013, why ? This is
known technology (since 1960). And don't answer with good
programmers don't use recursion,
I seem to recall hearing
On 1/10/2013 3:04 AM, Franck Ditter wrote:
1. Tail recursion is not optimized. We are in 2013, why ? This is known
technology (since 1960).
And don't answer with good programmers don't use recursion, this is bullshit.
Here's an article Guido wrote explaining his reasoning:
On Tuesday, October 1, 2013 6:11:18 AM UTC+5:30, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
On Mon, 30 Sep 2013 19:04:32 +0200, Franck Ditter wrote:
2. Lambda-expression body is limited to one expression. Why ?
Nobody has come up with syntax that is unambiguous, would allow multiple
statements in an
Vito De Tullio writes:
rusi wrote:
[Not everything said there is correct; eg python supports currying
better [than haskell which is surprising considering that
Haskell's surname is [Curry!]
AFAIK python does not support currying at all (if not via some
decorators or something like
On Monday, September 23, 2013 11:54:53 PM UTC+5:30, Vito De Tullio wrote:
rusi wrote:
[Not everything said there is correct; eg python supports currying better
[than haskell which is surprising considering that Haskell's surname is
[Curry!]
AFAIK python does not support currying at
rusi writes:
Without resorting to lambdas/new-functions:
With functools.partial one can freeze any subset of a
function(callable's) parameters.
In Haskell one can only freeze the first parameter or at most with
a right section the second
You have an f of type A - B - C - D - E in
On Tuesday, September 24, 2013 1:12:51 PM UTC+5:30, Jussi Piitulainen wrote:
rusi writes:
Without resorting to lambdas/new-functions:
With functools.partial one can freeze any subset of a
function(callable's) parameters.
In Haskell one can only freeze the first parameter or at
rusi writes:
On Tuesday, September 24, 2013 1:12:51 PM UTC+5:30, Jussi Piitulainen wrote:
rusi writes:
Without resorting to lambdas/new-functions:
With functools.partial one can freeze any subset of a
function(callable's) parameters.
In Haskell one can only freeze the first
On Tuesday, September 24, 2013 8:21:19 PM UTC+5:30, Jussi Piitulainen wrote:
Would the type system get in the way of providing some analogous
function in Haskell? I don't know.
Yes.
The haskell curry
curry f x y = f (x,y)
is really only curry2
curry3 would be
curry3 f x y z = f (x,y,z)
and so
On Wed, Sep 25, 2013 at 1:07 AM, rusi rustompm...@gmail.com wrote:
And this is an old conundrum in programming language design:
In C printf is easy to write and NOT put into the language but into external
libraries
In Pascal, writeln cannot be outside the language because as a user defined
On Tuesday, September 24, 2013 8:56:21 PM UTC+5:30, Chris Angelico wrote:
On Wed, Sep 25, 2013 at 1:07 AM, rusi wrote:
And this is an old conundrum in programming language design:
In C printf is easy to write and NOT put into the language but into
external libraries
In Pascal,
rusi wrote:
[Not everything said there is correct; eg python supports currying better
[than haskell which is surprising considering that Haskell's surname is
[Curry!]
AFAIK python does not support currying at all (if not via some decorators or
something like that).
Instead every function in
90 matches
Mail list logo
