Guido van Rossum <guido@beopen.com>: > Yes, I agree. Main reason: it's trivial to combine this with list > comprehensions, while the ';' notation had real problems there. Perhaps this frees up semicolon for use in the list-comprehension constructor syntax. BTW, I think whoever it was that suggested lazy eval for comprehensions was right on -- but that ties into the larger issue of generators and continuations. Really, a list comprehension ought to be syntactic sugar for an Icon-like generator object. > My bid for a name: splice(). Wearing my English-usage-pedant hat, I must regretfully judge this inferior to weave(). The reason has to do with the spatial geometry implied by the verbs. You *splice* two ropes together end-to-end; the proper data-structure analogy is with concatenation, and indeed splice() in Perl is a sort of generalized slice'n'dicer for sequences. On the other hand, you *weave* two threads together side by side to form a parallel bundle. Much closer image. OTOH, MAL's group of related constructors is pretty cool. -- <a href="http://www.tuxedo.org/~esr">Eric S. Raymond</a> The real point of audits is to instill fear, not to extract revenue; the IRS aims at winning through intimidation and (thereby) getting maximum voluntary compliance -- Paul Strassel, former IRS Headquarters Agent Wall St. Journal 1980
RetroSearch is an open source project built by @garambo | Open a GitHub Issue
Search and Browse the WWW like it's 1997 | Search results from DuckDuckGo
HTML:
3.2
| Encoding:
UTF-8
| Version:
0.7.4