Python is Considered Harmful

[Christos TZOTZIOY Georgiou]

Re: Python is Considered Harmful

On Mon, 27 Oct 2003 19:39:40 +0100, rumours say that "Jegenye 2001 Bt"
<jegenye2001@fw .hu> might have written:
[color=blue]
>Thank you, Alex, for clarifing this issue for me..
>
>So this was actually like the famous equation
>"9*6=42"
>:-)[/color]

Nope, the left part of the equation is yet to be defined.
--
TZOTZIOY, I speak England very best,
Ils sont fous ces Redmontains! --Harddix

[Alex Martelli]

Re: Python is Considered Harmful

Jegenye 2001 Bt wrote:
[color=blue]
> Thank you, Alex, for clarifing this issue for me..
>
> So this was actually like the famous equation
> "9*6=42"
> :-)
> It is correct (or incorrect) if you look at it in the right (or wrong)
> way.[/color]

Do you mean, implicitly using base 13? I know of no programming
language that lets you set the number base to be used for literals
(except presumably ones with particularly 'powerful' macros...?-)
and I hope I never have to contend with one.


Alex

[Justin Pearson]

Re: Python is Considered Harmful

Alex Martelli <aleax@aleax.it > writes:
[color=blue]
>
> Do you mean, implicitly using base 13? I know of no programming
> language that lets you set the number base to be used for literals[/color]
Forth.[color=blue]
> (except presumably ones with particularly 'powerful' macros...?-)[/color]

[color=blue]
> and I hope I never have to contend with one.
>[/color]
You might be lucky :-).

/Justin
[color=blue]
>
> Alex
>[/color]

--

[Heather Coppersmith]

Re: Python is Considered Harmful

On Tue, 28 Oct 2003 11:35:25 GMT,
Alex Martelli <aleax@aleax.it > wrote:
[color=blue]
> Do you mean, implicitly using base 13? I know of no programming
> language that lets you set the number base to be used for
> literals (except presumably ones with particularly 'powerful'
> macros...?-) and I hope I never have to contend with one.[/color]

Lisp, through the variable *read-base*. It's handy if you already
have data (e.g., in a file generated by someone else) in a non-10
base.

Regards,
Heather

--
Heather Coppersmith
That's not right; that's not even wrong. -- Wolfgang Pauli

[Alex Martelli]

Re: Python is Considered Harmful

Justin Pearson wrote:
[color=blue]
> Alex Martelli <aleax@aleax.it > writes:
>[color=green]
>>
>> Do you mean, implicitly using base 13? I know of no programming
>> language that lets you set the number base to be used for literals[/color]
> Forth.[color=green]
>> (except presumably ones with particularly 'powerful' macros...?-)[/color]
>
>[color=green]
>> and I hope I never have to contend with one.
>>[/color]
> You might be lucky :-).[/color]

Actually, I did work in Forth (it was the in-ROM language of a
neat computer I once bought, called "Jupiter ACE"; and also of a
special-purpose image processing PC card I once used at work),
but never came across that "feature" (assuming those dialects of
Forth in those ROMs supported it, that is). Guess I was lucky
that in those special cases I wasn't sharing code w/others:-).


Alex

[Jerzy Karczmarczuk]

Re: Python is Considered Harmful

Alex Martelli wrote:[color=blue]
> Jegenye 2001 Bt wrote:[/color]
[color=blue][color=green]
>>So this was actually like the famous equation
>>"9*6=42"
>>:-)
>>It is correct (or incorrect) if you look at it in the right (or wrong)
>>way.[/color]
>[/color]
[color=blue]
> Do you mean, implicitly using base 13? I know of no programming
> language that lets you set the number base to be used for literals
> (except presumably ones with particularly 'powerful' macros...?-)
> and I hope I never have to contend with one.[/color]

In Icon you can write 13r9 * 13r6. Icon is a decent, although weakly known
language, without any "particular ly 'powerful' macros", which permits to
choose the base of literals. Nothing horrible.


Jerzy Karczmarczuk

[Alex Martelli]

Re: Python is Considered Harmful

Jerzy Karczmarczuk wrote:
[color=blue]
> Alex Martelli wrote:[color=green]
>> Jegenye 2001 Bt wrote:[/color]
>[color=green][color=darkred]
>>>So this was actually like the famous equation
>>>"9*6=42"[/color][/color][/color]
...[color=blue][color=green]
>> Do you mean, implicitly using base 13? I know of no programming[/color][/color]
...[color=blue]
> In Icon you can write 13r9 * 13r6. Icon is a decent, although weakly known
> language, without any "particular ly 'powerful' macros", which permits to
> choose the base of literals. Nothing horrible.[/color]

Yes, I used to love Icon (the coroutines and backtracking and all, cool!)
but notice it uses EXPLICIT indications of non-10 base. There is, indeed,
nothing at all horrible with that.

Besides, the problem is not with 9 or 6, which happen to have the same
value in either base 10 or 13:-). The problem is with that result...:)


Alex

[Stefan Axelsson]

Re: Python is Considered Harmful

In article <yjvnb.367268$R 32.12107331@new s2.tin.it>, Alex Martelli wrote:[color=blue]
>
> Actually, I did work in Forth (it was the in-ROM language of a
> neat computer I once bought, called "Jupiter ACE"; and also of a
> special-purpose image processing PC card I once used at work),
> but never came across that "feature" (assuming those dialects of
> Forth in those ROMs supported it, that is). Guess I was lucky
> that in those special cases I wasn't sharing code w/others:-).[/color]

Well the Jupiter ACE (of which I'm still a proud owner) suppored it,
it's in the '79 standard after all. E.g. just do '16 base !', for
hexadecimal input for example. Makes writing an assembler in Forth,
or the usual combination of Forth and assembly simpler if nothing else.

As everything Forth, judicious use is key.

Stefan,
--
Stefan Axelsson (email at http://www.cs.chalmers.se/~sax)

[Alan Offer]

Re: Python is Considered Harmful

Isaac To <kkto@csis.hku. hk> wrote in message news:<7ioew3xjh 1.fsf@enark.csi s.hku.hk>...
[color=blue]
> I believe the behaviour can be fixed rather easily by some directives, say
> making it
>
> map(lambda f: f(1), [lambda x: x+(*i) for i in range(3)])
>
> where the * construct would get the reference of i at function definition
> time rather than at function invocation time (anyone can point me to an
> PEP?).[/color]

We can essentially do this by passing i to a function that then returns the
desired function. So to make flist with the functions that mike420 wanted,
we can use:

flist = map(lambda i: (lambda x: x+i), range(3))

Now [f(1) for f in flist] is [1, 2, 3] as he expected.

[Marco Antoniotti]

Re: Python is Considered Harmful



Alan Offer wrote:
[color=blue]
> Isaac To <kkto@csis.hku. hk> wrote in message news:<7ioew3xjh 1.fsf@enark.csi s.hku.hk>...
>
>[color=green]
>>I believe the behaviour can be fixed rather easily by some directives, say
>>making it
>>
>> map(lambda f: f(1), [lambda x: x+(*i) for i in range(3)])
>>
>>where the * construct would get the reference of i at function definition
>>time rather than at function invocation time (anyone can point me to an
>>PEP?).[/color]
>
>
> We can essentially do this by passing i to a function that then returns the
> desired function. So to make flist with the functions that mike420 wanted,
> we can use:
>
> flist = map(lambda i: (lambda x: x+i), range(3))
>
> Now [f(1) for f in flist] is [1, 2, 3] as he expected.[/color]

This is good and I stand corrected then. At least you can achieve this
with Python.

Cheers
--
marco

[Isaac To]

Re: Python is Considered Harmful

>>>>> "Alan" == Alan Offer <alan_offer@hot mail.com> writes:

Alan> Isaac To <kkto@csis.hku. hk> wrote in message
Alan> news:<7ioew3xjh 1.fsf@enark.csi s.hku.hk>...[color=blue][color=green]
>> I believe the behaviour can be fixed rather easily by some
>> directives, say making it
>>
>> map(lambda f: f(1), [lambda x: x+(*i) for i in range(3)])
>>
>> where the * construct would get the reference of i at function
>> definition time rather than at function invocation time (anyone can
>> point me to an PEP?).[/color][/color]

Alan> We can essentially do this by passing i to a function that then
Alan> returns the desired function. So to make flist with the functions
Alan> that mike420 wanted, we can use:

Alan> flist = map(lambda i: (lambda x: x+i), range(3))

Alan> Now [f(1) for f in flist] is [1, 2, 3] as he expected.

Ah... that means

map(lambda f: f(1), [(lambda i: lambda x: x+i)(i) for i in range(3)])

Seems make sense to me.

Regards,
Isaac.