Home
Reading
Searching
Subscribe
Sponsors
Statistics
Posting
Contact
Spam
Lists
Links
About
Hosting
Filtering
Features Download
Marketing
Archives
FAQ
Blog
 
Gmane
From: cool-RR <cool-rr <at> cool-rr.com>
Subject: Re: [pyweb-il:1050] Python coding question
Newsgroups: gmane.comp.python.israel
Date: Thursday 1st July 2010 14:39:15 UTC (over 6 years ago)
Wow, this is pretty cool.

For what it's worth, Mathematica does a bit of this. (But it's not really
like Python.)

On Thu, Jul 1, 2010 at 4:35 PM, Dov Grobgeld 
wrote:

> The use of assigment through left arrow (←) would solve this. Which
reminds
> me of the fact that I would have loved having a language like python that
> uses more of unicode for its syntax.
>
> Then "python" might look like:
>
>     ∀ n ∈ names:
>       if n ≠ "foo":
>         α ← n
>         ß = re∘search〈"foo", α〉
>
> No more overloading of parens, decimal dots, minus signs, etc.
>
> Of course it would take some time to learn how to type all these chars on
> the keyboard, but by some clever editors macro tricks, you would quickly
get
> over this.
>
> Here's another pythonic construct that imo would look nicer.
>
>     f← λ x: x↑2
>     a←f〈2〉
>
> But I'm dreaming. Nobody will ever do anything as crazy as this... ☺
>
> Cheers,
> Dov
>
> On Thu, Jul 1, 2010 at 15:28, Amit Aronovitch
wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>>
>>> On Thu, Jul 1, 2010 at 2:48 PM, Ahik Man  wrote:
>>>
>>>> What do you think about this code:
>>>>
>>>> for n in range(2, 10):...     for x in range(2, n):...         if n %
x == 0:...             print n, 'equals', x, '*', n/x...            
break...     else:...         # loop fell through without finding a
factor...         print n, 'is a prime number'
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I don't like this 'for - else' trick. IMHO it's confusing and not
>>>> readable.
>>>>
>>>>
>> ‎I really like this (very natural) programmatial construct.
>> I use it all the time, and feel handicapped in languages such as C,
where
>> you have to define an extra boolean flag and manually set/check it to
>> achieve the same result.
>>
>>   As for the choice of keywords, it is not that bad (maybe just got used
>> to it after years of usage), but I agree the semantics might not be
obvious
>> to unaware readers. Certainly not up to Python's praised readability
>> standards.
>>   Personally, I don't like the choice of '=' as the syntactical marker
for
>> name-binding. It makes people think it is an operator, and expect c-like
>> semantics. Source of endless bugs for newbies and repeated
misunderstandings
>> in mailing lists.
>>
>>  Well, the advantage of having a BDFL is that someone is in charge of
>> making such choices and we do not have to argue about this any more.
Only
>> other option is to try to keep everyone happy by supporting several
versions
>> of the syntax (works fine in Perl, but takes its toll in readability
and/or
>> learning-curve).
>>
>>    AA
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Python-il mailing list
>> [email protected]
>> http://hamakor.org.il/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/python-il
>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Python-il mailing list
> [email protected]
> http://hamakor.org.il/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/python-il
>
>


-- 
Sincerely,
Ram Rachum
 
CD: 14ms