Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.lang.python > #46544

Re: How clean/elegant is Python's syntax?

Show key headers only | View raw

On Fri, May 31, 2013 at 4:51 AM, Ian Kelly <ian.g.kelly@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, May 30, 2013 at 12:44 PM, Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Fri, May 31, 2013 at 4:36 AM, Ian Kelly <ian.g.kelly@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> I don't object to changing the join method (one of the more
>>> shoe-horned string methods) back into a function, but to my eyes
>>> you've got the arguments backward.  It should be:
>>>
>>> def join(sep, iterable): return sep.join(iterable)
>>
>> Trouble is, it makes some sense either way. I often put the larger
>> argument first - for instance, I would write 123412341324*5 rather
>> than the other way around - and in this instance, it hardly seems as
>> clear-cut as you imply. But the function can't be written to take them
>> in either order, because strings are iterable too. (And functions that
>> take args either way around aren't better than those that make a
>> decision.)
>
> The reason I like having the shorter argument first (at least for
> function calls) is for when I'm reading the code.  If I'm interested
> in the second argument, then to find it I have to scan over the first
> argument.  I would rather scan over something short like '\n' than
> something longer like a list comprehension.  It sounds like a trivial
> thing, but it really does make it easier to find where an expression
> starts and ends when the expression is short.

Yes, I do agree with that argument. But there's more to picking
argument order than simply "sort by predicted length" :) I'm not
saying it's *wrong* to put sep first, just that it's not as
clearly-and-obviously-the-one-right-way as you suggested.

ChrisA

Back to comp.lang.python | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

Re: How clean/elegant is Python's syntax? Ma Xiaojun <damage3025@gmail.com> - 2013-05-30 09:14 +0800
  Re: How clean/elegant is Python's syntax? rusi <rustompmody@gmail.com> - 2013-05-29 19:49 -0700
    Re: How clean/elegant is Python's syntax? Ian Kelly <ian.g.kelly@gmail.com> - 2013-05-30 12:36 -0600
      Re: How clean/elegant is Python's syntax? rusi <rustompmody@gmail.com> - 2013-05-30 11:47 -0700
      Re: How clean/elegant is Python's syntax? John Ladasky <john_ladasky@sbcglobal.net> - 2013-05-30 15:01 -0700
    Re: How clean/elegant is Python's syntax? Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2013-05-31 04:44 +1000
    Re: How clean/elegant is Python's syntax? Ian Kelly <ian.g.kelly@gmail.com> - 2013-05-30 12:51 -0600
    Re: How clean/elegant is Python's syntax? MRAB <python@mrabarnett.plus.com> - 2013-05-30 20:38 +0100
    Re: How clean/elegant is Python's syntax? Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2013-05-31 07:28 +1000
    Re: How clean/elegant is Python's syntax? Ian Kelly <ian.g.kelly@gmail.com> - 2013-05-31 09:43 -0600
    Re: How clean/elegant is Python's syntax? Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2013-06-01 04:52 +1000

csiph-web