User talk:Hout: Difference between revisions

Line 278:

:: I've been deferring in this way to the linters in search of middle ground, and in the hope of averting pietist and deletionary attention (now incipiently resurgent I notice) [[User:Hout|Hout]] ([[User talk:Hout|talk]]) 14:19, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

::: (All a matter of context, I suppose – we have all seen workplaces in which evidence of elocution lessons appears to be more highly prized than mere reliability or effectiveness :-) [[User:Hout|Hout]] ([[User talk:Hout|talk]]) 15:23, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

==None Pythonic code==

Hi Hout, having read your comments it seems that:

# Your style has been ''rejected'' by the Python community . (From your attack on Guido and his views on functional Python).

# Your writing style, far from omitting, or selecting from what would be Pythonic, actively goes against it in some instances:

:# Use of function comments when docstrings were introduced into the language to replace them ''and'' add functionality.

:# Of course, a central part of your style is the adoption of a type comment system at odds with the newly introduced Python type hint system.

'''I propose that you ''clearly mark your style of code with its name'' so readers know that it is special and follows alternate style rules and is not merely un-styled; or badly styled.'''<br>

You might also want to add a separate page explaining or linking to those style rules.

That way people may add both styles of functional Python examples to the site, and read examples without confusion as to what is idiomatic.

I would suggest you use a sub-heading of:

: <h4>Python: Hindley-Miller style</h4>.

--[[User:Paddy3118|Paddy3118]] ([[User talk:Paddy3118|talk]]) 23:46, 7 March 2019 (UTC)