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

Groups > comp.lang.python > #17378

Re: Making the case for "typed" lists/iterators in python

Show key headers only | View raw

> 2. One comprehension:
>
> L2 = [Z(X(Y(e))) for e in L1]
> or
> L2 = [e.X().Y().Z() for e in L1]

I want to say that maybe this is better done by functions like map()
(although, Python is missing a composition operator which might be
handy, and mapping method calls isn't pretty).

I don't know that it belongs as a method on lists, especially since
that means you can't do the same thing on, for example, generators.

Or I guess, the easy answer to that lattermost objection is to make it
typed iterators rather than typed lists.

-- Devin

On Fri, Dec 16, 2011 at 12:48 PM, Nathan Rice
<nathan.alexander.rice@gmail.com> wrote:
> I realize this has been discussed in the past, I hope that I am
> presenting a slightly different take on the subject that will prove
> interesting.  This is primarily motivated by my annoyance with using
> comprehensions in certain circumstances.
>
> Currently, if you want to perform successive transformations on the
> elements of a list, a couple of options:
>
> 1. Successive comprehensions:
>
> L2 = [X(e) for e in L1]
> L3 = [Y(e) for e in L2]
> L4 = [Z(e) for e in L3]
> or
> L2 = [e.X() for e in L1]
>
> This gets the job done and gives you access to all the intermediate
> values, but isn't very succinct, particularly if you are in the habit
> of using informative identifiers.
>
> 2. One comprehension:
>
> L2 = [Z(X(Y(e))) for e in L1]
> or
> L2 = [e.X().Y().Z() for e in L1]
>
> This gets the job done, but doesn't give you access to all the
> intermediate values, and tends to be pretty awful to read.
>
> Having "typed" lists let you take preexisting string/int/etc methods
> and expose them in a vectorized context and provides an easy way for
> developers to support both vectors and scalars in a single function
> (you could easily "fix" other people's functions dynamically to
> support both).  Additionally, "typed" lists/iterators will allow
> improved code analysis and optimization.  The PyPy people have already
> stated that they are working on implementing different strategies for
> lists composed of a single type, so clearly there is already community
> movement in this direction.
>
> Just compare the above examples to their type-aware counterparts:
>
> L2 = X(L1)
> L2 = L1.X()
>
> L2 = Z(Y(X(L1)))
> L2 = L1.X().Y().Z()
>
> Also, this would provide a way to clean up stuff like:
>
> "\n".join(l.capitalize() for l in my_string.split("\n"))
>
> into:
>
> my_string.split("\n").capitalize().join_this("\n")
>
> Before anyone gets up in arms at the idea of statically typed python,
> what I am suggesting here would be looser than that.  Basically, I
> believe it would be a good idea in instances where it is known that a
> list of single type is going to be returned, to return a list subclass
> (for example, StringList, IntegerList, etc).  To avoid handcuffing
> people with types, the standard list modification methods could be
> hooked so that if an object of an incorrect type is placed in the
> list, a warning is raised and the list converts to a generic object
> list.  The only stumbling block is that you can't use __class__ to
> convert from stack types to heap types in CPython.  My workaround for
> this would be to have a factory that creates generic "List" classes,
> modifying the bases to produce the correct behavior.  Then, converting
> from a typed list to a generic object list would just be a matter of
> removing a member from the bases for a class.  This of course
> basically kills the ability to perform type specific list optimization
> in CPython, but that isn't necessarily true for other implementations.
>  The additional type information would be preserved for code analysis
> in any case.  The case would be even simpler for generators and other
> iterators, as you don't have to worry about mutation.
>
> I'd like to hear people's thoughts on the subject.  Currently we are
> throwing away useful information in many cases that could be used for
> code analysis, optimization and simpler interfaces.  I believe that
> "typed" lists that get "demoted" to normal lists with a warning on out
> of type operations preserve this information while providing complete
> backwards compatibility and freedom.
>
> Nathan
> --
> http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list

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

Thread

Re: Making the case for "typed" lists/iterators in python Devin Jeanpierre <jeanpierreda@gmail.com> - 2011-12-16 14:03 -0500

csiph-web