User talk:Hout: Difference between revisions
Do stop this childish campaign of harassment - give yourself a break
(→None Pythonic code: Response to further evasion.) |
(Do stop this childish campaign of harassment - give yourself a break) |
||
Line 283:
# Your style has been ''rejected'' by the Python community . (From your attack on Guido and his views on functional Python).
:: You think so ? Why did the PEP process reject Guido's proposals to remove map and reduce ? Presumably because of a recognition of their usefulness. [[User:Hout|Hout]] ([[User talk:Hout|talk]]) 01:57, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
# 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.
:: I use both. Docstrings are very useful, especially when complemented by type comments above the line [[User:Hout|Hout]] ([[User talk:Hout|talk]]) 01:57, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
:# 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.
::: 'Of course' ? Perhaps you are confusing type hints for the compiler with type comments for the reader. When you deleted all my comments and replaced them with type hints, you apparently didn't realise that you had introduced a number of bugs. You don't feel that that speaks for itself ? [[User:Hout|Hout]] ([[User talk:Hout|talk]]) 01:57, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
'''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.
::: I disagree. '''Functional''' or '''Composition of pure functions''' is more than enough. [[User:Hout|Hout]] ([[User talk:Hout|talk]]) 01:57, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
That way people may add both styles of functional Python examples to the site, and read examples without confusion as to what is idiomatic.
::: There are various idioms. The 'Pythonic' subset of Python was never intended for functional programming, and is only partially applicable to it. PEP 8 warns strongly against confusing 'foolish consistency' with code quality. The former is no substitute for (or guide to) the latter [[User:Hout|Hout]] ([[User talk:Hout|talk]]) 01:57, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
I would suggest you use a sub-heading of:
: <h4>Python: Hindley-Miller style</h4>.
::: I disagree. '''Functional''' or '''Composition of pure functions''' is more than enough. [[User:Hout|Hout]] ([[User talk:Hout|talk]]) 01:57, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
--[[User:Paddy3118|Paddy3118]] ([[User talk:Paddy3118|talk]]) 23:46, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
| |||