Greg Ewing wrote:
> Boris Borcic wrote:
>
>> I believe that in this case native linguistic intuition made the decision...
>
> The reason has nothing to do with language. Guido didn't
> want sum() to become an attractive nuisance by *appearing*
> to be an obvious way
Gareth McCaughan wrote:
> (Attention conservation notice: the following is concerned almost entirely
> with exegesis of an old python-dev thread. Those interested in improving
> Python
> and not in history and exegesis should probably ignore it.)
>
> On Tuesday 2006-07-11 1
..was not Guido's first intervention in the
> thread, but who cares about facts?)
I do, and I stand corrected.
Best regards, Boris Borcic
--
"On naît tous les mètres du même monde"
___
Python-Dev mailing list
Python-Dev@python.org
http://ma
Fredrik Lundh wrote:
>
> in what language the word "sum" an appropriate synonym for "concatenate" ?
any that admits a+b to mean ''.join([a,b]), I'd say.
- BB
___
Python-Dev mailing list
Python-Dev@python.org
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/pyt
Fredrik Lundh wrote:
> Boris Borcic wrote:
>
>>> in what language [is] the word "sum" an appropriate synonym for
>>> "concatenate" ?
>> any that admits a+b to mean ''.join([a,b]), I'd say.
>
> and what human language
Fredrik Lundh wrote:
> Just van Rossum wrote:
>
>> Why couldn't at least augmented assignment be implicitly rebinding? It
>> has been suggested before (in the context of a rebinding operator), but
>> I'm wondering, is this also off the table?
>>
>> def counter(num):
>> def inc():
>>
Terry Reedy wrote:
> "Boris Borcic" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> I agree with you (and argued it in "scopes vs augmented assignment vs
>> sets"
>> recently) that mutating would be sufficient /if/ the compil
Guido van Rossum wrote:
...
>
> This is an illustration of the dilemma of maintaining a popular
> language: Everybody hates change (me too!) but everybody also has one
> thing that's bothering them so much they absolutely want it to be
> changed. If you were to implement all those personal pet pee
[Fredrik Lundh]
def counter(num):
num = mutable_int(num)
def inc():
num += 1
return num
return inc
>>
>> feel free to replace that += with an .add(1) method call; the point
>> wasn't the behaviour of
> as a new standard to address the problem of too many conflicting
> standard. Get it? :-)
>
> --Guido
>
> On 7/14/06, Boris Borcic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Guido van Rossum wrote:
>> ...
>>> This is an illustration of the dilemma of maintaining
Josiah Carlson wrote:
> Boris Borcic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Guido van Rossum wrote:
>>> You must be misunderstanding.
>> I don't think so. You appeared to say that the language changes too much
>> because
>> everyone wants different cha
Josiah Carlson wrote:
> Boris Borcic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Of course, and that's why in my initial post I was talking of transparent
>> reversible transforms and central control of "styles" through the standard.
>> Means not to fall into the tra
Mike Klaas wrote:
Another thing to consider is that the def() pattern is only possible
when the bound variable has no dots. A common pattern for me is to
replace an instances method with a lambda to add monitoring hooks or
disable certain functionality:
inst.get_foo = lambda: FakeFoo()
Go
Armin Ronacher wrote:
Basically *the* problematic situation with iterable strings is something like
a `flatten` function that flattens out every iterable object except of strings.
To flesh out the span of your "something like", recently I had a WSGI-based app
that to some request mistakenly r
manifestation of a bug in
the BDFL's famed time machine ? (I am saying this because Guido recently argued
that sets should integrate as if they had been designed into Python from the
beginning, what the above flagrantly contradicts imho).
Cheers,
Boris Borcic
--
"On naît tous les mèt
Josiah Carlson wrote:
> Boris Borcic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Hello,
>>
>> Armin Rigo wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> On Wed, Jun 07, 2006 at 02:07:48AM +0200, Thomas Wouters wrote:
>>>> I just submitted http://python.org/sf/1501934 a
Terry Reedy wrote:
> "Boris Borcic" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>> being transformed to profit from simplifications I expected sets to allow.
>> There, itemwise augmented assigments in loops very naturally transform
lexically nested scopes.
I see. Thanks for the background. Background for backround, let me just say
that
python hadn't yet grown a lambda when I first played with it. May I read your
last statement as acknowledging that I am not so much asking for a door to be
created, than asking for a
am wrong would be to show me examples
of
object methods of the standard library that are recursive, and cut out for
recursion.
Regards,
Boris Borcic
--
"On naît tous les mètres du même monde"
___
Python-Dev mailing list
Python-Dev@py
f the flurry of workarounds you've cited since, who knows why)
To pythondevers, my concluding message will go thus, in mixed metaphors :
beware
of not throwing away with the "bathwater" - the cultural intrusion of hordes of
Scheme immigrants who take closures for the first word of Crea
) with the result of /adding/ to
the cognitive dissonance of using + to concatenate strings (for all programming
newbies).
Best regards to all,
Boris Borcic
--
"On naît tous les mètres du même monde"
___
Python-Dev mailing list
Python
21 matches
Mail list logo
