On 07.07.2018 2:58, Ivan Pozdeev via Python-Dev wrote: > On 07.07.2018 2:31, Guido van Rossum wrote: >> On Fri, Jul 6, 2018 at 4:19 PM Terry Reedy <tjreedy at udel.edu >> <mailto:tjreedy at udel.edu>> wrote: >> >> Since Guido, the first respondent, did not immediately shoot the >> idea >> down, I intend to flesh it out and make it more concrete. >> >> >> Maybe I should have shot it down. The term is entrenched in multiple >> languages by now (e.g. >> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_comprehension). Regarding "list >> builder" one could argue that it would just add more confusion, since >> there's already an unrelated Builder Pattern >> (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Builder_pattern) commonly used in >> Java. (Though I worry about the presence of a Python example in that >> Wikipedia page. :-) > > According to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_comprehension#History, > the term's known from at least 1977 and comes from such influential > languages as NPL, Miranda and Haskell. So it's not you to blame for it :-) > >> >> Also, "generator builder" is not much more expressive than "generator >> expression", > > "generator builder" is simply incorrect. The GE doesn't "build" > generators, it's a generator itself. It's a generator _and_ an > expression. What could be a more obvious name? > This suggestion looks like coming from someone who hasn't quite > grasped generators yet. > >> and the key observation that led to this idea was that it's such a >> mouthful to say "comprehensions and generator expressions". > > Since "X comprehensions" are advertised as and intended to be > functionally equivalent to `X(generator expression)', I use just > "generator expressions" to refer to all. > That's accurate because the common part with the distinctive syntax -- > which is the thing referred to when addressing them all -- effectively > _is_ a generator expression (the syntax differences in the leading > term are insignificant), what wraps it is of no concern. > > So, no new terms are necessary, but someone who cares may add a note > to the docs to this effect. > >> Maybe it's not too late to start calling the latter "generator >> comprehensions" so that maybe by the year 2025 we can say >> "comprehensions" and everyone will understand we mean all four types? >> https://docs.python.org/3/reference/expressions.html?highlight=comprehension#displays-for-lists-sets-and-dictionaries Oh, I see. So, "comprehension" is actually the official term for this "distinctive syntax", and the fact that "generator expressions" came to use it is but a coincidence. In that case, we can do a Solomon's decision: mention _both_ that "comprehension" is the official term for the syntax in GE's reference entry, _and_ the fact that "X comprehensions" are effectively wrapped GEs in their reference entries. Then everyone will learn both terminologies and could choose which is more convenient to use. >> FWIW more people should start using "list display" etc. for things >> like [a, b, c]. >> -- >> --Guido van Rossum (python.org/~guido <http://python.org/%7Eguido>) >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Python-Dev mailing list >> Python-Dev at python.org >> https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev >> Unsubscribe:https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/vano%40mail.mipt.ru > > > > _______________________________________________ > Python-Dev mailing list > Python-Dev at python.org > https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev > Unsubscribe: https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/vano%40mail.mipt.ru -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/attachments/20180707/2ab37e8f/attachment.html>
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