User talk:Hout: Difference between revisions

User talk:Hout (view source)

194 bytes added , 5 years ago

You mean Hindley-Milner ? (Not Miller, and not a coding style). Just a type system underlying the rough notation in my comments.

9,655

edits

Revision as of 09:38, 8 March 2019 (view source) Hout (talk \| contribs) (→‎Would RC really carry much weight as the sword-bearing last defence of sacred stylistic flames ?) ← Older edit		Revision as of 09:45, 8 March 2019 (view source) Hout (talk \| contribs) (You mean Hindley-Milner ? (Not Miller, and not a coding style). Just a type system underlying the rough notation in my comments.) Newer edit →
Line 304: I would suggest you use a sub-heading of: : <h4>Python: Hindley-Miller [sic?] 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) Line 324: I asked you to name your style and after many months, you gave a link to Hindley-Miller. :: You mean Hindley-Milner ? Not a coding style. Just a type system underlying the rough notation in my comments. [[User:Hout\|Hout]] ([[User talk:Hout\|talk]]) 09:44, 8 March 2019 (UTC) You state that you use "PEP linters" but make no mention of my specific points on good Python style that you flout. Tools and/or there use can be subverted or mentioned as misdirection.