Path: csiph.com!newsfeed.hal-mli.net!feeder3.hal-mli.net!newsfeed.hal-mli.net!feeder1.hal-mli.net!newsfeed.xs4all.nl!newsfeed1.news.xs4all.nl!xs4all!newsgate.cistron.nl!newsgate.news.xs4all.nl!post.news.xs4all.nl!not-for-mail
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <50d593e1$0$29967$c3e8da3$5496439d@news.astraweb.com>
References: <c0be76ec-d55b-4f6c-9892-a80b482ff5bb@googlegroups.com> <mailman.1082.1355964916.29569.python-list@python.org> <96edb672-dabd-4ab8-9e7c-3fa7f4a91437@googlegroups.com> <mailman.1143.1356089120.29569.python-list@python.org> <c1663198-d1b0-4e7d-b8d8-e1b6d63b4f55@googlegroups.com> <mailman.1146.1356094682.29569.python-list@python.org> <44335f22-555a-4806-b24a-7d4cb1d8e529@googlegroups.com> <mailman.1154.1356104892.29569.python-list@python.org> <4ddee631-b5b5-4cb4-82b0-00ca403b773e@googlegroups.com> <CAPTjJmo-int9pT3iO+bGC9i4GgeeydHGD=Z94DtZKgiS9MhyWQ@mail.gmail.com> <CALwzidm0Q3wYESnMGQzBcdUhMXgwmnXFHgieJ_AhtWTECxO2Pg@mail.gmail.com> <CALwzidmh25wsKopUcpCGLy2fpZQeEq=NF2SWVv9=m3wvrgfMoQ@mail.gmail.com> <mailman.1179.1356134903.29569.python-list@python.org> <30bf668f-56e5-482f-b540-5cfa136348d1@googlegroups.com> <mailman.1188.1356165094.29569.python-list@python.org> <62459a43-88e7-4619-9742-a88021bb06ee@googlegroups.com> <mailman.1191.1356167308.29569.python-list@python.org> <50d593e1$0$29967$c3e8da3$5496439d@news.astraweb.com>
Date: Sat, 22 Dec 2012 23:11:00 +1100
Subject: Re: Brython - Python in the browser
From: Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com>
To: python-list@python.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Precedence: list
Newsgroups: comp.lang.python
Message-ID: <mailman.1195.1356178264.29569.python-list@python.org>
Lines: 68
NNTP-Posting-Host: 2001:888:2000:d::a6
Xref: csiph.com comp.lang.python:35356

On Sat, Dec 22, 2012 at 10:05 PM, Steven D'Aprano
<steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> wrote:
> On Sat, 22 Dec 2012 20:08:25 +1100, Chris Angelico wrote:
>
>> I don't see "string % tuple" as a good syntax; I prefer to spell it
>> sprintf("format",arg,arg,arg).
>
> Very possibly one of the worst names ever from a language that excels at
> bad names. "Sprint f"? WTF?
>
> Certainly not appropriate for Python, where a sprintf equivalent would
> return a new string, rather than automatically print the result. Oh
> wait... C's sprintf doesn't automatically print either.
>
> *wink*

Sure, it's not ideal, but it's the string-returning form of printf,
which prints formatted text, so it's not completely inappropriate. But
my point stands: it's an easy thing to search for.

>> When it
>> comes to operators on strings, what I'd prefer to see is something that
>> does more-or-less what the operator does with integers - for instance:
>>
>> "This is a string" / " " ==> ["This","is","a","string"]
>
> I don't see the connection between the above and numeric division. If it
> were this:
>
> "This is a string" / 3 ==> ["This ", "is a ", "strin", "g"]
>
> (and presumably // 3 would be the same except the "g" would be dropped)
> then I could see the connection. But there's no relationship between
> numeric division, which divides a number up into N equal-sized parts, and
> string splitting as you show above.

Sure, but it's still dividing. It's a different form of division, but
it still makes sense. "Oh, you're dividing that string by a delimiter.
I'd prefer to call it 'on' a delimiter, but 'by' works." Your
description makes perfectly good sense too, though; however, if:

"This is a string" / 3 ==> ["This ", "is a ", "strin", "g"]
and
"This is a string" // 3 ==> ["This ", "is a ", "strin"]
then
"This is a string" % 3 ==> ["g"] or possibly "g"

which is incompatible with current usage. But that's a meaning that
makes reasonable sense as "modulo".

>> Taking a string modulo a tuple doesn't make any sense in itself,
>
> Taking an integer cross an integer doesn't make any sense if you haven't
> learned the meaning of the + operator. Why insist that only string
> operators must make inherent sense to somebody who doesn't know what the
> operator means? If we're allowed to learn the meaning of + * and &, why
> not % as well?

Sure, but + and * have meaning in mathematics, not just programming,
and it's a similar meaning. Even the much-maligned = assignment, which
has quite a different meaning to = equality, which itself isn't the
same as the = equality in mathematics, is sufficiently close that it's
grokkable. But someone coming from a mathematical background has no
particular advantage in figuring out that % means formatting, or that
<= means add child. That doesn't mean they shouldn't be done, just
that the justification hump is that bit higher.

ChrisA