User talk:Hout: Difference between revisions
m
→Functional Python and pythonic Python
No edit summary |
|||
Line 235:
::Some imperative languages eschew Break and Continue. Plaese, please, no seriously please tell me that [[Sexy_primes#Imperative_.28iffy_.26_loopy.29_Style]] isn't Pythonic--[[User:Nigel Galloway|Nigel Galloway]] ([[User talk:Nigel Galloway|talk]]) 13:56, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
::: Indeed, in fact Python itself is not Pythonic – it contains (and many actively use) reduce, map and filter. There was a move from the ex-BDFL to reduce Python to the Pythonic dialect, but the PEP processes rejected it, and he is, in any case, after other frictions, now gone.
::: Set comprehensions are exactly the kind of thing that we need – practical and mathematically well-founded enough to inspire complete confidence, as well as powerful and elegant. In the word-break example (and sometimes elsewhere) I have shown the desugared underlying list monad version, not just because it can be interesting or more flexible to understand what's going on under the hood or bonnet, but also because my experience has been that the insight helps my intuition in using even the sugared version (in Python, Haskell or elsewhere) more fluently, and with more clarity. [[User:Hout|Hout]] ([[User talk:Hout|talk]]) 14:11, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
| |||