On Monday 20 October 2003 04:37 pm, Nick Coghlan wrote:
...
> Well, I think we've established that at least two people on the planet love
Right, hopefully 3 with Greg (though it's not unheard of for posters to this
list to change their minds about their own proposals. So I told myself I
should stay out of the thread to let others voice their opinion, BUT...:
> for x in sorted_copy of reversed_copy of my_list:
Ooops -- sorting a reversed copy of my_list is just like sorting my_list...
I think
for x in sorted_copy(reverse=True) of my_list:
...
(again borrowing brand-new keyword syntax from lists' sort method) is
likely to work better...:-)
> Hmm, just had a strange thought:
>
> y = copy of x
>
> How would that be for executable pseudocode? It's entirely possible to do
Awesomely pseudocoder (what a comparative...!-) wrt the current "y =
copy.copy(x)". You WOULD need to "from copy import copy" first, presumably,
but still...
> all the iterator related things without having this last example work. But
> what if it did?
Then the special method would have to be passed the right-hand operand
verbatim, NOT an iterator on it, for the "NAME 'of' test" case; otherwise,
this would be a terrible "attractive nuisance" in such cases as
x = copy of my_dict
(if the hypothetical special method was passed iter(my_dict), it would only
get the KEYS -- shudder -- so x would presumably end up as a list -- a trap
for the unwary, and one I wouldn't want to have to explain to newbies!-).
However, if I had to choose, I would forego this VERY attractive syntax
sugar, and go for Greg's original suggestion -- 'of' for iterator
comprehensions only. Syntax sugar is all very well (at least in this case),
but if it _only_ amounts to a much neater-looking way of doing what is already
quite possible, it's a "more-than-one-way-to-do-itis".
[Just to make sure I argue both sides: introducing "if key in mydict:" as a
better way to express "if mydict.has_key(key):" was a HUGE win, and so
was letting "if needle in haystack:" be used as a better way to express
"haystack.find(needle) >= 0" for substring checks -- so, 'mere' syntax
sugar DOES sometimes make an important difference...]
Alex
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