Path: csiph.com!usenet.pasdenom.info!weretis.net!feeder1.news.weretis.net!feeder.erje.net!newsfeed.xs4all.nl!newsfeed6.news.xs4all.nl!xs4all!post.news.xs4all.nl!not-for-mail
MIME-Version: 1.0
Sender: chris@rebertia.com
In-Reply-To: <6af70db0-dc4a-48ee-9ee2-1a934846d5f2@r2g2000pbs.googlegroups.com>
References: <4f612b19$0$1379$4fafbaef@reader2.news.tin.it> <50e9ceec-40f1-4ead-b2b6-87328b30d084@ow8g2000pbc.googlegroups.com> <cafdcc3e-96e4-4fb5-8885-a3f8115bc903@x10g2000pbi.googlegroups.com> <CAPTjJmrEovHCk_pu9fRY51uO2+QD3OaGmQnBSLe1y_HpNQ_ZQg@mail.gmail.com> <CAOFbRmKQGcK4=1nsRzZfikGTX2wPD-NAs2HmRyHsH7dd0RgHyg@mail.gmail.com> <jkah4j$rrv$1@dough.gmane.org> <mailman.838.1332271709.3037.python-list@python.org> <4f691f3d$0$29981$c3e8da3$5496439d@news.astraweb.com> <b1b53639-05fd-45a9-81be-3f19213d17d8@ur9g2000pbc.googlegroups.com> <87d386lmai.fsf@benfinney.id.au> <8a77bf8d-b12f-442b-a1a3-479b5d66d366@tx8g2000pbc.googlegroups.com> <mailman.851.1332303399.3037.python-list@python.org> <e43dbdbf-2e6b-420a-b66a-7f5f756a5cb5@pg2g2000pbb.googlegroups.com> <mailman.853.1332308421.3037.python-list@python.org> <6af70db0-dc4a-48ee-9ee2-1a934846d5f2@r2g2000pbs.googlegroups.com>
Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2012 00:16:49 -0700
Subject: Re: Python is readable
From: Chris Rebert <clp2@rebertia.com>
To: Steve Howell <showell30@yahoo.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Cc: python-list@python.org
Precedence: list
Newsgroups: comp.lang.python
Message-ID: <mailman.855.1332314212.3037.python-list@python.org>
Lines: 49
NNTP-Posting-Host: 2001:888:2000:d::a6
Xref: csiph.com comp.lang.python:21975

On Tue, Mar 20, 2012 at 11:52 PM, Steve Howell <showell30@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Mar 20, 10:40=C2=A0pm, Chris Angelico <ros...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Wed, Mar 21, 2012 at 3:58 PM, Steve Howell <showel...@yahoo.com> wrot=
e:
>> > So saying "push(stack, item)" or "push(item, stack)" seems very
>> > unsophisticated, almost assembly-like in syntax, albeit at a higher
>> > level conceptually than assembly.
>>
>> Perhaps it does, but "push(stack, item)" and "stack.push(item)" are so
>> close to identical as makes no odds (in a number of languages, the
>> latter is just syntactic sugar for something like the former) - yet
>> they "read" quite differently, one with verb first, one with noun
>> first.
>
> On the one hand, you say that "push(stack, item)" reads quite
> differently from "stack.push(item)".
>
> On the other hand, you say they are "so close to identical as makes no
> odds."
>
> I'm trying to make sense of that. =C2=A0Are you saying that the way the t=
wo
> idioms read makes no odds, despite reading quite differently?
>
>> Code doesn't follow the same grammar as English prose, and forcing it
>> to usually makes it sound odd. Reader.can_comprehend(code) is True.
>
> Code shouldn't necessarily follow the example of English prose, but it
> seems that English has had some influence:
>
> =C2=A01 =C2=A0push(stack, item) # Push on the stack the item
> =C2=A02 =C2=A0push(item, stack) # Push the item on the stack
>  3  stack.push(item)  # On the stack, push the item
<snip>
> =C2=A06 =C2=A0item push stack =C2=A0 # Take the item; push it on the stac=
k.
<snip>
> #4 and #5 are sort of Forth-like, maybe? =C2=A0#6 is just downright
> strange.

#6 is just an infix binary operator (likewise with its cousin #3, just
remove the punctuation). If you change the name slightly, it becomes
more sensical. One could easily write in Haskell:
    item `pushOnto` stack
which would just be syntactic sugar for #2. Not that I endorse #6,
merely saying it's less weird than you think.

Cheers,
Chris