[Python-il] [pyweb-il:1050] Python coding question

guy keren choo at actcom.co.il
Thu Jul 1 17:57:55 IDT 2010


next you'll be advocating special keyboards with extra keys for these 
symbols.

what do you want to turn us into, IBM mainframe APL programmers?

--guy

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 <aronovitch at gmail.com 
> <mailto:aronovitch at gmail.com>> wrote:
> 
>      
> 
> 
>         On Thu, Jul 1, 2010 at 2:48 PM, Ahik Man <ahik.man at gmail.com
>         <mailto:ahik.man at gmail.com>> 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
>     Python-il at hamakor.org.il <mailto:Python-il at hamakor.org.il>
>     http://hamakor.org.il/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/python-il
> 
> 
> 
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Python-il mailing list
> Python-il at hamakor.org.il
> http://hamakor.org.il/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/python-il



More information about the Python-il mailing list