Talin wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>>talin> ... whereas with 'given' you can't be certain when to stop
>>talin> parsing the argument list.
>>
>> So require parens around the arglist:
>>
>>(x*y given (x, y))
>>
>> Skip
>>
>>
> I would not be opposed to mandating the parens, and
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>talin> ... whereas with 'given' you can't be certain when to stop
>talin> parsing the argument list.
>
>So require parens around the arglist:
>
>(x*y given (x, y))
>
>Skip
>
>
I would not be opposed to mandating the parens, and its an easy enough
change to
talin> ... whereas with 'given' you can't be certain when to stop
talin> parsing the argument list.
So require parens around the arglist:
(x*y given (x, y))
Skip
___
Python-Dev mailing list
Python-Dev@python.org
http://mail.python.org/mail
All right, the patch is up on SF. Sorry for the delay, I accidentally
left my powerbook about an hour's drive away from home, and had to drive
to go get it this morning :)
To those who were asking what advantage the new syntax has - well, from
a technical perspective there are none, since the u
Steve> It appears to hang together, but I'm not sure I see how it
Steve> overcomes objections to lambda by replacing it with another
Steve> keyword.
Well, it does replace it with a word which has meaning in common English.
FWIW, I would require the parens around the arguments and avo
Talin wrote:
> First off, let me apologize for bringing up a topic that I am sure that
> everyone is sick of: Lambda.
>
> I broached this subject to a couple of members of this list privately,
> and I got wise feedback on my suggestions which basically amounted to
> "don't waste your time."
>
Paul Moore wrote:
> > > I definately don't want to start a flame war, although I suspect I already
> > > have :/
> >
> > I think most about everything has already been said wrt lambda already,
> > but I guess we could have a little war on spelling issues ;-)
>
> Agreed, but credit to Talin for act
Paul Moore wrote:
> > I think most about everything has already been said wrt lambda already,
> > but I guess we could have a little war on spelling issues ;-)
>
> Agreed, but credit to Talin for actually implementing his suggestion.
> And it's nice to see that the AST makes this sort of experimen
Paul Moore wrote:
> On 2/16/06, Fredrik Lundh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Talin wrote:
>>> I definately don't want to start a flame war, although I suspect I already
>>> have :/
>> I think most about everything has already been said wrt lambda already,
>> but I guess we could have a little war on
On Feb 16, 2006, at 2:05 AM, Talin wrote:
>
> Anyway, if anyone wants to play around with the patch, it is rather
> small - a couple of lines in Grammar, and a small new function in
> ast.c,
> plus a few mods to other functions to get them to call it. The context
> diff is less than two printed
On 2/16/06, Fredrik Lundh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Talin wrote:
> > I definately don't want to start a flame war, although I suspect I already
> > have :/
>
> I think most about everything has already been said wrt lambda already,
> but I guess we could have a little war on spelling issues ;-)
Talin wrote:
> So the general notion is similar to the various proposals on the Wiki -
> an inline keyword which serves the function of lambda. I chose the
> keyword "given" because it reminds me of math textbooks, e.g. "given x,
> solve for y". And I like the idea of syntactical structures that m
12 matches
Mail list logo
