C Syntax

[cody]

Re: [OT] Re: C Syntax

> Well, I had to place more IMO's, but check this:[color=blue]
>
> foo = lambda x, y: [str (i+j) for (i,j) in zip(x,y)]
>
> Well, it's not very clear, but how many lines of code in C
> would be required to reproduce it? Types of x and y can be
> either lists of lists, lists of strings, lists of numbers
> or strings. And it maybe used for all that stuff.
>
> I don't understand, how several dozens lines of code can be
> better than ONE line of code in non-esoteric language.[/color]


Now one question arises: What exactly does this piece of code do?

--
cody

[Freeware, Games and Humor]
www.deutronium.de.vu || www.deutronium.tk

[Keith Thompson]

Re: [OT] Re: C Syntax

Dan.Pop@cern.ch (Dan Pop) writes:
[...[color=blue]
> 2. Even if you don't, some text processing utilities may do it behind your
> back. A typical example is vi, which "optimises" the storage of the
> saved text by replacing multiple spaces by HTs according to the ts
> variable setting. Since I have found no portable way of disabling this
> feature, I'm setting ts to 100 in my .exrc.[/color]

I'm not quite willing to do that, but I do have the following in my
$HOME/.exrc:

map ]^V^I :%!expand^M

where the carets denote the obvious cotro characters.

As I enter code, vi (I use nvi) insists on changing each 8 columns of
indentation to a tab, but before saving the file I can hit a
right-bracket followed by a tab and expand everything to spaces
(unless I'm writing a Makefile, of course).

--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keit h) kst-u@mib.org <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
San Diego Supercomputer Center <*> <http://users.sdsc.edu/~kst>
We must do something. This is something. Therefore, we must do this.

[I. Appel]

Re: [OT] Re: C Syntax

"Mike" <noone@hotmail. com> wrote in message
news:#yg7N9XSEH A.3476@tk2msftn gp13.phx.gbl...[color=blue][color=green][color=darkred]
> > > >foo = lambda x, y: [str (i+j) for (i,j) in zip(x,y)]
> > > >
> > > >I don't understand, how several dozens lines of code can be
> > > >better than ONE line of code in non-esoteric language.
> > >
> > > As you said, it's not very clear ;-) Actually, you'll have to define
> > > "better" before you're qualified to offer an opinion.[/color]
> >
> > What is the reason to have syntax that is clearer-per-line, if it
> > requires to write several times more lines of code?[/color]
>
> The functional versional would be compact and neat, but almost certainly
> slower to exectue; the imperative version would be bigger, uglier, but[/color]
most[color=blue]
> probably faster. No one can claim that one is better than another, as it
> completely depends on what you are trying to achieve.[/color]

I agree with you, but the discussion is about _clear_ syntaxes.

Ivan.