Anonymous user
User talk:Hout: Difference between revisions
→None Pythonic code: comment
(→None Pythonic code: comment) |
|||
Line 284:
# 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)
::: Deflection. You have been givenevery opportunity to show your styles accepatance and do not. --[[User:Paddy3118|Paddy3118]] ([[User talk:Paddy3118|talk]]) 04:24, 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)
::: Subvert one with the other. --[[User:Paddy3118|Paddy3118]] ([[User talk:Paddy3118|talk]]) 04:24, 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)
:::: You failed to persuade the community that your comments should be adopted. You were able to both debug and correct the type hints it seems. --[[User:Paddy3118|Paddy3118]] ([[User talk:Paddy3118|talk]]) 04:24, 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.
Line 299 ⟶ 301:
::: 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)
:::: Your style is cross-language and you refuse to follow idioms that apply. Fine, but don't try and pass such off as idiomatic Python, in fact state what style it adheres to because you put your style above the Pythonic. Stop the subterfuge.--[[User:Paddy3118|Paddy3118]] ([[User talk:Paddy3118|talk]]) 04:24, 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)
:::: Further hiding your personal style. Name your style and state that it is an alternative and let the community decide rather than hiding it. --[[User:Paddy3118|Paddy3118]] ([[User talk:Paddy3118|talk]]) 04:24, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
--[[User:Paddy3118|Paddy3118]] ([[User talk:Paddy3118|talk]]) 23:46, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
:: Hindley-Miller (sic?) Is not a style of coding. Please learn a little more about functional programming before you make these unhelpful and uninformed interventions.
::: Then name to disambiguate. --[[User:Paddy3118|Paddy3118]] ([[User talk:Paddy3118|talk]]) 04:24, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
:: I am using PEP linters.
::: From the code you produce, ineffectively. --[[User:Paddy3118|Paddy3118]] ([[User talk:Paddy3118|talk]]) 04:24, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
:: Functional programming in Python is a minority use, but useful and legitimate. I am sorry that you find it threatening and disempowering. There is no need for you to feel that way.
:: If you prefer a different style of coding please use it, but please also stop this childish campaign of harassment. [[User:Hout|Hout]] ([[User talk:Hout|talk]])
::: I don't have an issue with functional programming, (I use that style of Python and other languages myself); You raise this to deflect the reader from the issue that you want to promote a distinctive, non-idiomatic style of coding as idiomatic. You use a poor substitute for function docstrings and replace idiomatic type hints with your type comments, without notice/warning.
::: If you prefer a different style of coding please use it, but please also stop this childish campaign of hiding it. Write it up! Shout it out! Are you not proud of the claimed superiority of your changes? Don't be sly. --[[User:Paddy3118|Paddy3118]] ([[User talk:Paddy3118|talk]]) 04:24, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
<br><br>So you chose not to disagree with my assesment that your style of coding was rejected by the community.<br>
Line 327 ⟶ 336:
:: Such a silly and eccentric comment that I'm not sure it really needs an answer [[User:Hout|Hout]] ([[User talk:Hout|talk]])
::: Hmmm. Thhe comment's correct then. --[[User:Paddy3118|Paddy3118]] ([[User talk:Paddy3118|talk]]) 04:24, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
* Name and disambiguate your non-idiomatic Python examples.
| |||