Talk:Abbreviations, automatic: Difference between revisions

: 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 not football-rattle tribalists – they are polyglot professionals with a varied hinterland, who carry a flexible toolkit of abstractions and languages. My variant will probably be more readable to those who happen to be familiar with the ML (or Bird & Wadler 1988) tradition of functional programming, which shares names for universal functions across a number of different languages, and has a particular interest in denotational semantics, and the underlying mathematical necessities of function composition. It's a tradition which has flowed into quite a few function names in Python, and also into its list and set comprehensions. [[User:Hout|Hout]] ([[User talk:Hout|talk]]) 14:44, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

:: 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 your facea 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)