Path: csiph.com!usenet.pasdenom.info!aioe.org!news.stack.nl!newsfeed.xs4all.nl!newsfeed5.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: <CAPTjJmry6FX_xBwrABjEEDF1N0V=OiAc0qXBSzViwHLA_+jB3g@mail.gmail.com>
References: <mailman.3018.1351524004.27098.python-list@python.org> <7xsj8xl1ct.fsf@ruckus.brouhaha.com> <CAPTjJmry6FX_xBwrABjEEDF1N0V=OiAc0qXBSzViwHLA_+jB3g@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2012 16:33:03 +0000
Subject: Re: Immutability and Python
From: andrea crotti <andrea.crotti.0@gmail.com>
To: Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Cc: python-list@python.org
Precedence: list
Newsgroups: comp.lang.python
Message-ID: <mailman.3026.1351528391.27098.python-list@python.org>
Lines: 43
NNTP-Posting-Host: 2001:888:2000:d::a6
Xref: csiph.com comp.lang.python:32392

2012/10/29 Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com>:
> On Tue, Oct 30, 2012 at 2:55 AM, Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>> andrea crotti <andrea.crotti.0@gmail.com> writes:
>>> and we want to change its state incrementing the number ...
>>>  the immutability purists would instead suggest to do this:
>>>     def increment(self):
>>>         return NumWrapper(self.number + 1)
>>
>> Immutability purists would say that numbers don't have "state" and if
>> you're trying to change a number's state by incrementing it, that's not
>> immutability.  You end up with a rather different programming style than
>> imperative programming, for example using tail recursion (maybe wrapped
>> in an itertools-like higher-order function) instead of indexed loops to
>> iterate over a structure.
>
> In that case, rename increment to next_integer and TYAOOYDAO. [1]
> You're not changing the state of this number, you're locating the
> number which has a particular relationship to this one (in the same
> way that GUI systems generally let you locate the next and previous
> siblings of any given object).
>
> ChrisA
> [1] "there you are, out of your difficulty at once" - cf WS Gilbert's "Iolanthe"
> --
> http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list


Yes the name should be changed, but the point is that they are both
ways to implement the same thing.

For example suppose I want to have 10 objects (for some silly reason)
that represent the next number, in the first case I would do:

numbers = [NumWrapper(orig.number)] * 10
for num in numbers:
    num.increment()

while in the second is as simple as:
numbers = [orig.next_number()] * 10

composing things become much easier, but as a downside it's not always
so easy and convienient to write code in this way, it probably depends
on the use case..