Path: csiph.com!usenet.pasdenom.info!dedibox.gegeweb.org!gegeweb.eu!nntpfeed.proxad.net!feeder1-2.proxad.net!proxad.net!feeder1-1.proxad.net!ecngs!feeder2.ecngs.de!newsfeed.freenet.ag!news2.euro.net!newsfeed.xs4all.nl!newsfeed6.news.xs4all.nl!xs4all!newsgate.cistron.nl!newsgate.news.xs4all.nl!post.news.xs4all.nl!not-for-mail Return-Path: X-Original-To: python-list@python.org Delivered-To: python-list@mail.python.org X-Spam-Status: OK 0.000 X-Spam-Evidence: '*H*': 1.00; '*S*': 0.00; 'python.': 0.02; 'example:': 0.03; 'argument': 0.04; 'compiler': 0.05; 'say,': 0.05; '#define': 0.07; 'converts': 0.07; 'function,': 0.07; 'semantic': 0.07; 'python': 0.09; 'macros': 0.09; 'optimizing': 0.09; 'sep': 0.09; 'cc:addr:python-list': 0.10; 'language': 0.14; 'languages.': 0.15; 'ah,': 0.16; 'constants': 0.16; 'in-line': 0.16; 'macro': 0.16; 'macros.': 0.16; 'silly': 0.16; 'subject:variable': 0.16; 'twice.': 0.16; 'wed,': 0.16; 'wrote:': 0.17; 'instance,': 0.17; 'tend': 0.17; '(in': 0.18; '>>>': 0.18; 'question.': 0.20; "i'd": 0.22; 'cc:2**0': 0.23; 'cc:no real name:2**0': 0.24; 'cc:addr:python.org': 0.25; 'header:In-Reply- To:1': 0.25; 'am,': 0.27; 'guess': 0.27; 'separate': 0.27; 'c++': 0.27; 'functions.': 0.27; 'in.': 0.27; 'message- id:@mail.gmail.com': 0.27; "doesn't": 0.28; 'lines': 0.28; 'chris': 0.28; "d'aprano": 0.29; 'overhead': 0.29; 'steven': 0.29; 'definition': 0.29; 'handled': 0.29; 'no,': 0.29; 'probably': 0.29; "i'm": 0.29; 'that.': 0.30; 'evaluation': 0.30; 'keyword': 0.30; 'function': 0.30; 'sense': 0.31; 'gets': 0.32; 'could': 0.32; 'hopefully': 0.33; 'int': 0.33; 'problem': 0.33; 'knowledge': 0.33; 'languages': 0.33; 'version': 0.34; 'received:google.com': 0.34; 'along': 0.35; 'received:209.85': 0.35; 'something': 0.35; 'add': 0.36; 'but': 0.36; 'wanted': 0.36; '12,': 0.36; 'received:209': 0.37; 'subject:: ': 0.38; 'mean': 0.38; 'things': 0.38; 'sure': 0.38; 'performance': 0.39; 'apply': 0.39; 'header:Received:5': 0.40; 'end': 0.40; 'your': 0.60; 'skip:u 10': 0.60; 'most': 0.61; 'side': 0.61; "you'll": 0.62; 'solve': 0.62; 'day.': 0.63; 'more': 0.63; 'fun': 0.64; 'differences': 0.65; 'wanting': 0.65; 'fact,': 0.69; 'overhead,': 0.84; 'valid,': 0.84; 'write:': 0.91 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=FrDu2LP62zZ1tUOvefj47q1FgbE7bOz1r17DlB+30gQ=; b=X5LMOSNlt1bFHm37+QnIUT7nMesGnhXjjWmH+DJOhcvepJZw4KHvcDYV8GJ/sAaL7g TEpJpBnD+QKRvNQN5DbKupsh4oAWBgHWwhFZABURmMj+7LLQYRdTr3t0ybfCMulaq21C jmVwquHHiKmWcQjD953wkUXwvUkix/QfMsfTWnMvlqyRhqBGeXwD3g3UkOR0aBj0aWrf n402Y/ER/Am1zpwSP8KbWPEoBftBfba8jIfvbYRTfY+/KTs0U99mDYmp4cjbitWip7n2 PIcI4vcUkO6EtIwZrHW1QIG+TFrg+Q76JEKtuOiF6hGzgyZmhppBnaEOugUIYvKYuudZ XpaA== MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: References: <504fe1e7$0$29981$c3e8da3$5496439d@news.astraweb.com> Date: Wed, 12 Sep 2012 10:55:58 +0100 Subject: Re: Double sided double underscored variable names From: Joshua Landau To: Chris Angelico Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Cc: python-list@python.org X-BeenThere: python-list@python.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: General discussion list for the Python programming language List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Newsgroups: comp.lang.python Message-ID: Lines: 66 NNTP-Posting-Host: 2001:888:2000:d::a6 X-Trace: 1347443761 news.xs4all.nl 6855 [2001:888:2000:d::a6]:34967 X-Complaints-To: abuse@xs4all.nl Xref: csiph.com comp.lang.python:28940 On 12/09/2012, Chris Angelico wrote: > On Wed, Sep 12, 2012 at 11:38 AM, Joshua Landau > wrote: >> On 12 September 2012 02:14, Steven D'Aprano >> wrote: >>> >>> On Wed, 12 Sep 2012 08:52:10 +1000, Chris Angelico wrote: >>> >>> > Inline functions? I like this idea. I tend to want them in pretty much >>> > any language I write in. >>> >>> What do you mean by in-line functions? If you mean what you literally >>> say, I would answer that Python has that with lambda. >>> >>> But I guess you probably mean something more like macros. >> >> No, just multi-line lambda. Macros, if my knowledge of lower-level >> languages >> is valid, would be sorta' silly in Python. > > Ah, okay. I was thinking more along the lines of what you call macros, > but in the C++ sense of inline functions. In C, macros are handled at > precompilation stage, and are dangerous. Classic example: > > #define squared(x) x*x > > x_squared = squared(6+7) > > So your macros end up littered with parentheses, and it still doesn't > solve anything, as the argument still gets evaluated twice. (A problem > if it has side effects - eg if it's a function call.) > > What I'm thinking of, though, is like C++ functions. You can put the > 'inline' keyword onto any function, and the compiler will do its best > to inline it (in fact, a good optimizing compiler will inline things > regardless, but that's a separate point). I can write: > > inline int squared(int x) {return x*x;} > > and C++ will add no function overhead, but will still do all the > proper evaluation order etc. > > Of course, C++ doesn't allow monkeypatching, so you'll never have > semantic differences from inlining. It's just a performance question. > But I use inline functions like constants - for instance, I could > create a function that converts a database ID into an internal > reference number, and I can change the definition of that function in > one place and have it apply everywhere, just like if I wanted to > change the definition of math.PI to 3.142857 for fun one day. Of > course I can use a normal (out-of-line) function for this, but that > has overhead in most languages. Hence, wanting inline functions. Interesting. I'd overestimated macros and underestimated inline functions. I am not sure how to make a version of that with scope-compatibility. Inlining inline_def f(y): x = y +1 would hopefully not change the outside scope*, but I'm not sure how to make that. I could make it work by banning "=", but then it's almost a macro but with internal_a = input_a internal_b = input_b ... at the start... * If I understand rightly