Talk:Abbreviations, automatic: Difference between revisions
m
→Solution for Python
(5 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
Line 91:
The author of the original functional version posted both his and mine versions. So, I guess, problem solved! --[[User:Georgy|Georgy]] ([[User talk:Georgy|talk]]) 13:12, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
: Always good to see more functional Python here. Perhaps just add an explanatory gloss on what your variant is optimising for. (Mine, for example, aims to minimize the number of new lines of code that need to be written and tested, and to enable fast and flexible refactoring.) Most coders are
:: PS the pious incantation of PEP 20 ''"There should be one-- and preferably only one --obvious way to do it"'' looks charming on paper, and goes '''very''' well with flutes and wind-chimes (as long as you can hold your meditation posture and keep a straight face) but it is, of course, just a pious hope – very much like looking out of the school-room window and wishing that there were only two numbers that could be multiplied to obtain 60, only two that could be added to obtain 100, and only one integer ratio that could roughly approximate Pi. An understandable aspiration, but mathematically and practically it makes no sense at all :-) [[User:Hout|Hout]] ([[User talk:Hout|talk]]) 18:06, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
|