Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.python > #89005 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Blake McBride <blake1024@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2015-04-15 21:07 -0700 |
| Last post | 2015-04-16 18:45 +0000 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 119 — 32 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.python
New to Python - block grouping (spaces) Blake McBride <blake1024@gmail.com> - 2015-04-15 21:07 -0700
Re: New to Python - block grouping (spaces) Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2015-04-15 21:48 -0700
Re: New to Python - block grouping (spaces) Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2015-04-16 14:51 +1000
Re: New to Python - block grouping (spaces) Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2015-04-16 15:49 +1000
Re: New to Python - block grouping (spaces) Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2015-04-15 23:11 -0700
Re: New to Python - block grouping (spaces) William Ray Wing <wrw@mac.com> - 2015-04-16 09:00 -0400
Re: New to Python - block grouping (spaces) BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-04-16 11:51 +0100
Re: New to Python - block grouping (spaces) Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2015-04-17 03:10 +1000
Re: New to Python - block grouping (spaces) Tim Chase <python.list@tim.thechases.com> - 2015-04-16 12:49 -0500
Re: New to Python - block grouping (spaces) BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-04-16 22:04 +0100
Re: New to Python - block grouping (spaces) Antoon Pardon <antoon.pardon@rece.vub.ac.be> - 2015-04-17 11:37 +0200
Re: New to Python - block grouping (spaces) Serhiy Storchaka <storchaka@gmail.com> - 2015-04-16 22:14 +0300
Re: New to Python - block grouping (spaces) alister <alister.nospam.ware@ntlworld.com> - 2015-04-16 07:46 +0000
Re: New to Python - block grouping (spaces) Antoon Pardon <antoon.pardon@rece.vub.ac.be> - 2015-04-16 10:47 +0200
Re: New to Python - block grouping (spaces) Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2015-04-16 19:34 +1000
Re: New to Python - block grouping (spaces) Antoon Pardon <antoon.pardon@rece.vub.ac.be> - 2015-04-16 12:09 +0200
Re: New to Python - block grouping (spaces) Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2015-04-16 20:43 +1000
Re: New to Python - block grouping (spaces) Antoon Pardon <antoon.pardon@rece.vub.ac.be> - 2015-04-16 13:07 +0200
Re: New to Python - block grouping (spaces)yhoni alister <alister.nospam.ware@ntlworld.com> - 2015-04-16 13:18 +0000
Re: New to Python - block grouping (spaces)yhoni BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-04-16 14:44 +0100
Re: New to Python - block grouping (spaces)yhoni Mark Lawrence <breamoreboy@yahoo.co.uk> - 2015-04-16 18:46 +0100
Re: New to Python - block grouping (spaces)yhoni alister <alister.nospam.ware@ntlworld.com> - 2015-04-16 18:03 +0000
Re: New to Python - block grouping (spaces)yhoni Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2015-04-16 23:50 +1000
Re: New to Python - block grouping (spaces)yhoni Antoon Pardon <antoon.pardon@rece.vub.ac.be> - 2015-04-16 16:09 +0200
Re: New to Python - block grouping (spaces)yhoni alister <alister.nospam.ware@ntlworld.com> - 2015-04-16 18:04 +0000
Re: New to Python - block grouping (spaces) Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2015-04-16 23:41 +1000
Re: New to Python - block grouping (spaces) Antoon Pardon <antoon.pardon@rece.vub.ac.be> - 2015-04-16 15:57 +0200
Re: New to Python - block grouping (spaces) Mark Lawrence <breamoreboy@yahoo.co.uk> - 2015-04-16 13:17 +0100
Re: New to Python - block grouping (spaces) Antoon Pardon <antoon.pardon@rece.vub.ac.be> - 2015-04-16 14:48 +0200
Re: New to Python - block grouping (spaces) Simmo <square.steve@gmail.com> - 2015-04-16 14:37 +0100
Re: New to Python - block grouping (spaces) Blake McBride <blake1024@gmail.com> - 2015-04-16 07:52 -0700
Re: New to Python - block grouping (spaces) Blake McBride <blake1024@gmail.com> - 2015-04-16 08:01 -0700
Re: New to Python - block grouping (spaces) alister <alister.nospam.ware@ntlworld.com> - 2015-04-16 18:08 +0000
Re: New to Python - block grouping (spaces) memilanuk <memilanuk@gmail.com> - 2015-04-16 11:28 -0700
Re: New to Python - block grouping (spaces) Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.co.uk> - 2015-04-16 15:05 +0000
Re: New to Python - block grouping (spaces) edmondo.giovannozzi@gmail.com - 2015-04-20 03:00 -0700
Re: New to Python - block grouping (spaces) memilanuk <memilanuk@gmail.com> - 2015-04-16 08:05 -0700
Re: New to Python - block grouping (spaces) Mark Lawrence <breamoreboy@yahoo.co.uk> - 2015-04-16 16:05 +0100
Re: New to Python - block grouping (spaces) CHIN Dihedral <dihedral88888@gmail.com> - 2015-04-19 11:46 -0700
Re: New to Python - block grouping (spaces) Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2015-04-17 01:03 +1000
Re: New to Python - block grouping (spaces) Grant Edwards <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2015-04-16 15:21 +0000
Re: New to Python - block grouping (spaces) Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2015-04-17 03:41 +1000
Re: New to Python - block grouping (spaces) Ron Adam <ron3200@gmail.com> - 2015-04-16 14:54 -0400
EditorConfig for cross-editor consistent code style (was: New to Python - block grouping (spaces)) Ben Finney <ben+python@benfinney.id.au> - 2015-04-17 06:10 +1000
Re: New to Python - block grouping (spaces) Michael Torrie <torriem@gmail.com> - 2015-04-17 09:44 -0600
Re: New to Python - block grouping (spaces) Grant Edwards <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2015-04-17 16:28 +0000
Re: New to Python - block grouping (spaces) BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-04-17 18:05 +0100
Re: New to Python - block grouping (spaces) Rustom Mody <rustompmody@gmail.com> - 2015-04-17 10:13 -0700
Re: New to Python - block grouping (spaces) sohcahtoa82@gmail.com - 2015-04-17 11:13 -0700
Re: New to Python - block grouping (spaces) Marko Rauhamaa <marko@pacujo.net> - 2015-04-17 23:28 +0300
Re: New to Python - block grouping (spaces) Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2015-04-18 07:10 +1000
Re: New to Python - block grouping (spaces) Dan Sommers <dan@tombstonezero.net> - 2015-04-18 01:18 +0000
Re: New to Python - block grouping (spaces) Rustom Mody <rustompmody@gmail.com> - 2015-04-17 19:22 -0700
Re: New to Python - block grouping (spaces) BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-04-19 12:44 +0100
Re: New to Python - block grouping (spaces) Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2015-04-19 23:23 +1000
Re: New to Python - block grouping (spaces) wxjmfauth@gmail.com - 2015-04-19 07:22 -0700
Re: New to Python - block grouping (spaces) Rustom Mody <rustompmody@gmail.com> - 2015-04-19 07:01 -0700
Re: New to Python - block grouping (spaces) Michael Torrie <torriem@gmail.com> - 2015-04-17 20:14 -0600
Re: New to Python - block grouping (spaces) Marko Rauhamaa <marko@pacujo.net> - 2015-04-18 09:53 +0300
Re: New to Python - block grouping (spaces) Ben Finney <ben+python@benfinney.id.au> - 2015-04-18 12:22 +1000
Re: New to Python - block grouping (spaces) Larry Hudson <orgnut@yahoo.com> - 2015-04-17 22:28 -0700
Re: New to Python - block grouping (spaces) Marko Rauhamaa <marko@pacujo.net> - 2015-04-18 10:00 +0300
Re: New to Python - block grouping (spaces) Rustom Mody <rustompmody@gmail.com> - 2015-04-18 00:13 -0700
Re: New to Python - block grouping (spaces) Marko Rauhamaa <marko@pacujo.net> - 2015-04-18 10:42 +0300
Re: New to Python - block grouping (spaces) Michael Torrie <torriem@gmail.com> - 2015-04-19 11:15 -0600
Re: New to Python - block grouping (spaces) Marko Rauhamaa <marko@pacujo.net> - 2015-04-19 23:41 +0300
Re: New to Python - block grouping (spaces) Rustom Mody <rustompmody@gmail.com> - 2015-04-19 19:00 -0700
Re: New to Python - block grouping (spaces) Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2015-04-20 12:54 +1000
Re: New to Python - block grouping (spaces) Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2015-04-20 13:05 +1000
Re: New to Python - block grouping (spaces) Marko Rauhamaa <marko@pacujo.net> - 2015-04-20 08:09 +0300
Re: New to Python - block grouping (spaces) BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-04-19 12:38 +0100
Re: New to Python - block grouping (spaces) Ben Finney <ben+python@benfinney.id.au> - 2015-04-19 22:59 +1000
Re: New to Python - block grouping (spaces) BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-04-19 22:42 +0100
Re: New to Python - block grouping (spaces) Ron Adam <ron3200@gmail.com> - 2015-04-19 19:28 -0400
Re: New to Python - block grouping (spaces) Ben Finney <ben+python@benfinney.id.au> - 2015-04-20 09:59 +1000
Re: New to Python - block grouping (spaces) BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-04-20 01:30 +0100
Re: New to Python - block grouping (spaces) Dave Angel <davea@davea.name> - 2015-04-19 09:18 -0400
Re: New to Python - block grouping (spaces) Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2015-04-19 23:22 +1000
Re: New to Python - block grouping (spaces) Mark Lawrence <breamoreboy@yahoo.co.uk> - 2015-04-19 14:30 +0100
Re: New to Python - block grouping (spaces) Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2015-04-20 01:15 +1000
Re: New to Python - block grouping (spaces) Rustom Mody <rustompmody@gmail.com> - 2015-04-19 09:03 -0700
Re: New to Python - block grouping (spaces) Mel Wilson <mwilson@the-wire.com> - 2015-04-19 17:38 +0000
Re: New to Python - block grouping (spaces) Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2015-04-20 03:53 +1000
Re: New to Python - block grouping (spaces) Mel Wilson <mwilson@the-wire.com> - 2015-04-19 18:25 +0000
Re: New to Python - block grouping (spaces) Rustom Mody <rustompmody@gmail.com> - 2015-04-19 19:08 -0700
Re: New to Python - block grouping (spaces) Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2015-04-20 12:24 +1000
Re: New to Python - block grouping (spaces) Rustom Mody <rustompmody@gmail.com> - 2015-04-19 19:43 -0700
Re: New to Python - block grouping (spaces) Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2015-04-20 13:03 +1000
Re: New to Python - block grouping (spaces) Rustom Mody <rustompmody@gmail.com> - 2015-04-19 20:28 -0700
Re: New to Python - block grouping (spaces) Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2015-04-20 13:44 +1000
Re: New to Python - block grouping (spaces) Rustom Mody <rustompmody@gmail.com> - 2015-04-20 19:18 -0700
Re: New to Python - block grouping (spaces) Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2015-04-20 20:30 +1000
Re: New to Python - block grouping (spaces) Rustom Mody <rustompmody@gmail.com> - 2015-04-20 04:51 -0700
Re: New to Python - block grouping (spaces) albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) - 2015-04-25 17:42 +0000
Re: New to Python - block grouping (spaces) BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-04-20 13:05 +0100
Re: New to Python - block grouping (spaces) wxjmfauth@gmail.com - 2015-04-24 01:50 -0700
Re: New to Python - block grouping (spaces) Mark Lawrence <breamoreboy@yahoo.co.uk> - 2015-04-20 03:38 +0100
Re: New to Python - block grouping (spaces) llanitedave <llanitedave@birdandflower.com> - 2015-04-21 08:29 -0700
Re: New to Python - block grouping (spaces) Rustom Mody <rustompmody@gmail.com> - 2015-04-21 10:49 -0700
Re: New to Python - block grouping (spaces) llanitedave <llanitedave@birdandflower.com> - 2015-04-21 14:35 -0700
Re: New to Python - block grouping (spaces) Rustom Mody <rustompmody@gmail.com> - 2015-04-21 20:11 -0700
Re: New to Python - block grouping (spaces) llanitedave <llanitedave@birdandflower.com> - 2015-04-21 21:05 -0700
Re: New to Python - block grouping (spaces) Rustom Mody <rustompmody@gmail.com> - 2015-04-22 04:37 -0700
Re: New to Python - block grouping (spaces) Mark Lawrence <breamoreboy@yahoo.co.uk> - 2015-04-22 13:05 +0100
Re: New to Python - block grouping (spaces) Gregory Ewing <greg.ewing@canterbury.ac.nz> - 2015-04-20 20:38 +1200
Re: New to Python - block grouping (spaces) Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2015-04-20 20:15 +1000
Re: New to Python - block grouping (spaces) Dan Sommers <dan@tombstonezero.net> - 2015-04-19 18:07 +0000
Re: New to Python - block grouping (spaces) Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2015-04-20 06:03 +1000
Re: New to Python - block grouping (spaces) Rustom Mody <rustompmody@gmail.com> - 2015-04-19 18:46 -0700
Re: New to Python - block grouping (spaces) Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2015-04-20 12:42 +1000
Re: New to Python - block grouping (spaces) Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2015-04-20 03:46 +1000
Re: New to Python - block grouping (spaces) Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2015-04-19 13:36 -0700
Re: New to Python - block grouping (spaces) Rustom Mody <rustompmody@gmail.com> - 2015-04-24 22:06 -0700
Re: New to Python - block grouping (spaces) Marko Rauhamaa <marko@pacujo.net> - 2015-04-25 10:27 +0300
Re: New to Python - block grouping (spaces) Rustom Mody <rustompmody@gmail.com> - 2015-04-25 09:52 -0700
Re: New to Python - block grouping (spaces) Mark Lawrence <breamoreboy@yahoo.co.uk> - 2015-04-24 08:31 +0100
Re: New to Python - block grouping (spaces) Michael Torrie <torriem@gmail.com> - 2015-04-24 08:03 -0600
Re: New to Python - block grouping (spaces) Rustom Mody <rustompmody@gmail.com> - 2015-04-16 10:59 -0700
Re: New to Python - block grouping (spaces) Rob Gaddi <rgaddi@technologyhighland.invalid> - 2015-04-16 18:45 +0000
Page 3 of 6 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 Next page →
| From | Grant Edwards <invalid@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-04-16 15:21 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <mgok2m$mf5$1@reader1.panix.com> |
| In reply to | #89031 |
On 2015-04-16, Blake McBride <blake1024@gmail.com> wrote:
> Thanks for all the responses. I especially like the Pike pointer.
> To be clear:
>
> 1. I don't think languages should depend on invisible elements to
> determine logic.
I had the same attitude when I first tried Python 15 years ago. But,
Python was the only free language implimentation I could find for
Windows that had all the features to allow me to easily write a
program to suck e-mail messages out of Outlook via DCOM and shove them
over to an SMTP server.
After a few days of use, I was a firm believer in semantically
significant indentation (and have been ever since).
> 2. Having been an employer, it is difficult to force programmers to
> use any particular editor or style. Different editors handle tabs
> and spaces differently. This is all a bloody nightmare with Python.
It's an even _worse_ problem for C, PHP, Javascript, et al. At least
Python requires some semblance of order and method. Those other
languages allow complete anarchy, and any time developer A has to
read/edit code from devloper B, it wastes all sorts of time.
> 3. Languages that use braces (or the like) can be run through a
> program beautifier to correct the indentation.
With Python, there's no need. The indenation is _already_ correct.
> You are just screwed in Python. So, Python may be a cute
> language for you to use as an individual, but it is unwieldy in a
> real development environment.
Ah. That explains why Google uses it so much.
> 4. Language beautifiers used on bracey languages removes all
> arguments in favor of an off-side language.
As trolls go, I don't think this rates much above a C-.
--
Grant Edwards grant.b.edwards Yow! VICARIOUSLY experience
at some reason to LIVE!!
gmail.com
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-04-17 03:41 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <552ff43f$0$12982$c3e8da3$5496439d@news.astraweb.com> |
| In reply to | #89031 |
On Fri, 17 Apr 2015 12:52 am, Blake McBride wrote: > Thanks for all the responses. I especially like the Pike pointer. To be > clear: > > 1. I don't think languages should depend on invisible elements to > determine logic. Icompletelyagreethatinvisibleelementsareterribleandalllanguagesshouldeliminatethemcompletely.Anythingelsewillharmreadabilityandmakesitmuchhardertofollowthelogic. > 2. Having been an employer, it is difficult to force programmers to use > any particular editor or style. Different editors handle tabs and spaces > differently. This is all a bloody nightmare with Python. Do you really expect us to believe for a microsecond that the choice between "4 spaces" or "tab" is worse than the C brace wars? If you, as an employer, cannot get your programmers to follow your in-house style requirements, then what instructions can you get them to follow? Do they even bother to show up? Other than on "lunch is on the boss" day? -- Steven
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ron Adam <ron3200@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-04-16 14:54 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <mailman.357.1429221308.12925.python-list@python.org> |
| In reply to | #89040 |
On 04/16/2015 01:41 PM, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
>> >2. Having been an employer, it is difficult to force programmers to use
>> >any particular editor or style. Different editors handle tabs and spaces
>> >differently. This is all a bloody nightmare with Python.
>
> Do you really expect us to believe for a microsecond that the choice
> between "4 spaces" or "tab" is worse than the C brace wars?
You know I've never thought braces where the problem in a language, and in
python, not having them isn't a problem either.
The reason I dislike C is due to the amount of boiler plate and the low
level of code, which requires managing memory, declaring prototypes and
including headers. All of which I think are much more troublesome and
harder to get right than any amount of braces.
Both sides have advantages, but Python's design is meant to represent code
in an easier to see and read way. Representing blocks by indention is
consistent with that. (And so is outlines in written language.)
I could equally like a language where blocks are literal code objects that
can be assigned to names. In that case the block delimiters would be
consistent with that language design and that would be perfectly fine to
me. The code would be representing what it does in an expected and useful way.
block = {statement_1; statement_2; ...}
The cases in between seem a bit unclean to me however. Where braces are
used to define blocks that aren't exposed. I think it's ok, but it also
seems a bit unclean to me. Adding more noise than necessary to the code.
But I understand at some time, when a language was designed it may have
been that it made parsing the language simpler. (it does.) Or it may have
just been the language designers preference at that time. <shrug>
But still, I think the whole braces are good/evil is over stated. There
are lots of more important things in languages to consider.
Cheers,
Ron
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ben Finney <ben+python@benfinney.id.au> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-04-17 06:10 +1000 |
| Subject | EditorConfig for cross-editor consistent code style (was: New to Python - block grouping (spaces)) |
| Message-ID | <mailman.356.1429215052.12925.python-list@python.org> |
| In reply to | #89031 |
Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> writes:
> If you're prepared to run a beautifier on your employees' code, you
> should have no problem requiring that they adopt a syntactically-legal
> style.
For teams with a mixture of text editors in use, there are even tools
nowadays to help everyone's text editor enforce consistency of the
fundamentals in the code.
One which is ready now and already widely adopted is EditorConfig:
EditorConfig helps developers define and maintain consistent coding
styles between different editors and IDEs. The EditorConfig project
consists of a file format for defining coding styles and a
collection of text editor plugins that enable editors to read the
file format and adhere to defined styles. EditorConfig files are
easily readable and they work nicely with version control systems.
<URL:http://editorconfig.org/>
--
\ “I was in Las Vegas, at the roulette table, having a furious |
`\ argument over what I considered to be an odd number.” —Steven |
_o__) Wright |
Ben Finney
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Michael Torrie <torriem@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-04-17 09:44 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <mailman.374.1429285961.12925.python-list@python.org> |
| In reply to | #89031 |
On 04/16/2015 08:52 AM, Blake McBride wrote: > Thanks for all the responses. I especially like the Pike pointer. > To be clear: > > 1. I don't think languages should depend on invisible elements to > determine logic. > > 2. Having been an employer, it is difficult to force programmers to > use any particular editor or style. Different editors handle tabs > and spaces differently. This is all a bloody nightmare with Python. > > 3. Languages that use braces (or the like) can be run through a > program beautifier to correct the indentation. You are just screwed > in Python. So, Python may be a cute language for you to use as an > individual, but it is unwieldy in a real development environment. > > 4. Language beautifiers used on bracey languages removes all > arguments in favor of an off-side language. While it appears that you had already made up your mind about the matter long before posting, and perhaps was just looking for vindication, I feel that some of the snide replies you got were just not tremendously professional. However, it may be that people recognized that you likely had made up your mind already, and posted accordingly.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Grant Edwards <invalid@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-04-17 16:28 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <mgrcb5$sn2$1@reader1.panix.com> |
| In reply to | #89077 |
On 2015-04-17, Michael Torrie <torriem@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 04/16/2015 08:52 AM, Blake McBride wrote:
>> Thanks for all the responses. I especially like the Pike pointer.
>> To be clear:
>
[troll bait elided]
> While it appears that you had already made up your mind about the
> matter long before posting, and perhaps was just looking for
> vindication, I feel that some of the snide replies you got were just
> not tremendously professional.
There are people who post to Usenet professionally? And I've been
doing it all these years _for_free_? And, it's not like there's some
sort of Olympics for which I needed to maintain my amateur standing.
> However, it may be that people recognized that you likely had made up
> your mind already, and posted accordingly.
I think most of us just assumed he was just trolling and were playing
along for the fun of it.
--
Grant Edwards grant.b.edwards Yow! As President I have
at to go vacuum my coin
gmail.com collection!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | BartC <bc@freeuk.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-04-17 18:05 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <Y3bYw.302660$ms.24839@fx30.am4> |
| In reply to | #89078 |
On 17/04/2015 17:28, Grant Edwards wrote: > On 2015-04-17, Michael Torrie <torriem@gmail.com> wrote: >> However, it may be that people recognized that you likely had made up >> your mind already, and posted accordingly. > > I think most of us just assumed he was just trolling and were playing > along for the fun of it. What was troll-like about it? The OP made it clear he didn't like the way Python made use of tabs, but he didn't want an argument about it or to be persuaded to change his mind or change anyone else's. He wanted to know if there was a simple syntax wrapper for it. That seems reasonable enough. (Actually *I* would quite like to know why languages don't have switchable syntax anyway to allow for people's personal preferences.) -- Bartc
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Rustom Mody <rustompmody@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-04-17 10:13 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <3af12a43-748c-41aa-ad6a-bb5a9deb05fd@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #89079 |
On Friday, April 17, 2015 at 10:36:13 PM UTC+5:30, BartC wrote: > (Actually *I* would quite like to know why languages don't have > switchable syntax anyway to allow for people's personal preferences.) Mess in programming syntax is because of html: http://blog.languager.org/2012/10/html-is-why-mess-in-programming-syntax.html
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | sohcahtoa82@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-04-17 11:13 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <32224544-40dc-49a8-8371-ef18683e0b7f@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #89079 |
On Friday, April 17, 2015 at 10:06:13 AM UTC-7, BartC wrote:
> On 17/04/2015 17:28, Grant Edwards wrote:
> > On 2015-04-17, Michael Torrie <torriem@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> However, it may be that people recognized that you likely had made up
> >> your mind already, and posted accordingly.
> >
> > I think most of us just assumed he was just trolling and were playing
> > along for the fun of it.
>
> What was troll-like about it? The OP made it clear he didn't like the
> way Python made use of tabs, but he didn't want an argument about it or
> to be persuaded to change his mind or change anyone else's.
>
> He wanted to know if there was a simple syntax wrapper for it. That
> seems reasonable enough.
>
> (Actually *I* would quite like to know why languages don't have
> switchable syntax anyway to allow for people's personal preferences.)
>
> --
> Bartc
Allowing a switchable syntax only makes the fight even worse. If you made braces in Python an option to use instead of whitespace block delimiting, then there'd be a ton of infighting among Python developers over which to use. Just look at C/C++ developers fighting over where the opening brace goes.
By having the language itself forcing a specific style, it requires everyone using it to either shut up and get over it, or just don't use the language.
Personally, I like the Python style. It forces people to write code that is at least somewhat good to look at. Not like monstrosities like this that I see from newbie (hell, even professional) C/C++ programmers:
if (something > something_else)
{
result = do_something();
if (!result){
printf("Error!\n")
return 0;
}
do_other_stuff();
}
Can someone still write ugly code in Python? No doubt about it. But at least code blocks will be easily deciphered.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Marko Rauhamaa <marko@pacujo.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-04-17 23:28 +0300 |
| Message-ID | <87a8y6zehg.fsf@elektro.pacujo.net> |
| In reply to | #89084 |
sohcahtoa82@gmail.com: > Can someone still write ugly code in Python? No doubt about it. But at > least code blocks will be easily deciphered. That's how I was originally convinced about Python: a coworker with a terrible C++ "handwriting" produced neat, legible code in Python. I'm still slightly annoyed by some downsides in the indentation style, but the practical benefits more than compensate. Also, the semicolon rules of JavaScript and Go are horrible compared with the simple line continuation rules of Python. Marko
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-04-18 07:10 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <mailman.380.1429305058.12925.python-list@python.org> |
| In reply to | #89079 |
On Sat, Apr 18, 2015 at 3:05 AM, BartC <bc@freeuk.com> wrote: > (Actually *I* would quite like to know why languages don't have switchable > syntax anyway to allow for people's personal preferences.) Why do it? What's the advantage of calling two different syntaxes one language? Simpler to just call them two separate languages - maybe two languages that share some sort of runtime, but two languages. For instance, Java bytecode doesn't have to be created from Java source code, but we don't consider NetRexx to be a "switchable syntax" for Java. It's a completely separate language that compiles to a .class file. ChrisA
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Dan Sommers <dan@tombstonezero.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-04-18 01:18 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <mgsbco$e1t$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #89079 |
On Fri, 17 Apr 2015 18:05:52 +0100, BartC wrote: > (Actually *I* would quite like to know why languages don't have > switchable syntax anyway to allow for people's personal preferences.) You want LISP, the programmable programming language.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Rustom Mody <rustompmody@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-04-17 19:22 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <73a6cda5-2962-462a-8aa3-d43dbb077a0d@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #89100 |
On Saturday, April 18, 2015 at 6:49:30 AM UTC+5:30, Dan Sommers wrote: > On Fri, 17 Apr 2015 18:05:52 +0100, BartC wrote: > > > (Actually *I* would quite like to know why languages don't have > > switchable syntax anyway to allow for people's personal preferences.) > > You want LISP, the programmable programming language. You got it!! One of the deep paradoxes in 'getting' programming is that you cant do programming without some syntax; and yet syntax is irrelevant. I dont believe one can ever get that without some experience of Lisp -- Minsky's Turing award lecture is an elaboration of this: http://web.media.mit.edu/~minsky/papers/TuringLecture/TuringLecture.html
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | BartC <bc@freeuk.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-04-19 12:44 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <YyMYw.250907$_r1.122849@fx39.am4> |
| In reply to | #89103 |
On 18/04/2015 03:22, Rustom Mody wrote: > On Saturday, April 18, 2015 at 6:49:30 AM UTC+5:30, Dan Sommers wrote: >> On Fri, 17 Apr 2015 18:05:52 +0100, BartC wrote: >> >>> (Actually *I* would quite like to know why languages don't have >>> switchable syntax anyway to allow for people's personal preferences.) >> >> You want LISP, the programmable programming language. I don't really want Lisp (not even with a shiny new syntax). > You got it!! > One of the deep paradoxes in 'getting' programming is that you cant do > programming without some syntax; and yet syntax is irrelevant. Yes, exactly! When I sometimes want to code in Python, why can't I used my usual syntax? The tabbing isn't so much of a big deal, but, for example, I normally use ":=" and "=" for Python's "=" and "==" operators, and it can be a nuisance when switching between syntaxes. (At least Python picks up the use of "=" inside an expression, unlike C...) -- Bartc
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-04-19 23:23 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <5533ac70$0$13003$c3e8da3$5496439d@news.astraweb.com> |
| In reply to | #89146 |
On Sun, 19 Apr 2015 09:44 pm, BartC wrote: > When I sometimes want to code in Python, why can't I used my usual syntax? When I go to China, why doesn't everyone speak English for my convenience? I'll tell you what. When you convince the makers of C compilers to support Python syntax as an alternative, then I'll help with making Python compilers support C syntax. -- Steven
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | wxjmfauth@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-04-19 07:22 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <26221ac8-4c29-473e-8120-55c6d8cf9bf2@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #89151 |
Le dimanche 19 avril 2015 15:24:10 UTC+2, Steven D'Aprano a écrit : > > When I go to China, why doesn't everyone speak English for my convenience? > Why not? This is exactly what Python did with unicode/ascii. jmf
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Rustom Mody <rustompmody@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-04-19 07:01 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <1db3fdef-391f-4db4-a5c8-bc1aef59304b@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #89146 |
On Sunday, April 19, 2015 at 5:15:07 PM UTC+5:30, BartC wrote: > On 18/04/2015 03:22, Rustom Mody wrote: > > On Saturday, April 18, 2015 at 6:49:30 AM UTC+5:30, Dan Sommers wrote: > >> On Fri, 17 Apr 2015 18:05:52 +0100, BartC wrote: > >> > >>> (Actually *I* would quite like to know why languages don't have > >>> switchable syntax anyway to allow for people's personal preferences.) > >> > >> You want LISP, the programmable programming language. > > I don't really want Lisp (not even with a shiny new syntax). You do... See below > > > You got it!! > > One of the deep paradoxes in 'getting' programming is that you cant do > > programming without some syntax; and yet syntax is irrelevant. > > Yes, exactly! > > When I sometimes want to code in Python, why can't I used my usual syntax? > > The tabbing isn't so much of a big deal, but, for example, I normally > use ":=" and "=" for Python's "=" and "==" operators, and it can be a > nuisance when switching between syntaxes. (At least Python picks up the > use of "=" inside an expression, unlike C...) See McCarthy's interview http://www.infoq.com/interviews/Steele-Interviews-John-McCarthy This is after a life of Lisp and AI -- he died a couple of years after the interview. And in there he repeatedly asks for 'abstract syntax' languages -- as I see it the same as you are asking Of course one needs to distinguish Lisp-technology from Lisp-philosophy. I believe you and McCarthy are asking for Lisp philosophy as I am also: http://blog.languager.org/2012/10/html-is-why-mess-in-programming-syntax.html JFTR: The specific connection with html is somewhat facetious That programmers are stuck in text files 50 years after everyone else has moved on is more serious
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Michael Torrie <torriem@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-04-17 20:14 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <mailman.387.1429323295.12925.python-list@python.org> |
| In reply to | #89079 |
On 04/17/2015 11:05 AM, BartC wrote: > He wanted to know if there was a simple syntax wrapper for it. That > seems reasonable enough. > > (Actually *I* would quite like to know why languages don't have > switchable syntax anyway to allow for people's personal preferences.) There was a version of Python (compatible at a bytecode level) that did implement braces for blocks. It was called pythonb, but it is now defunct, understandably for lack of interest. It was just a modification to the parser is all. So it's completely doable. In fact one could probably do it with a preprocessor of some kind. But there's little utility in it.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Marko Rauhamaa <marko@pacujo.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-04-18 09:53 +0300 |
| Message-ID | <87oammx6z6.fsf@elektro.pacujo.net> |
| In reply to | #89101 |
Michael Torrie <torriem@gmail.com>:
> There was a version of Python (compatible at a bytecode level) that did
> implement braces for blocks. It was called pythonb, but it is now
> defunct, understandably for lack of interest.
<URL: http://www.perl.com/pub/2001/04/01/parrot.htm>
LW: Sure. I'd probably write the program something like this:
while(@line = Sys::Stdin->readline()):
continue_next if $line[0] =eq= "#":
print @line;
}
Marko
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ben Finney <ben+python@benfinney.id.au> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-04-18 12:22 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <mailman.388.1429323788.12925.python-list@python.org> |
| In reply to | #89079 |
BartC <bc@freeuk.com> writes: > (Actually *I* would quite like to know why languages don't have > switchable syntax anyway to allow for people's personal preferences.) Which people's personal preferences? Are these the same people who have such passionate disagreement about tabs versus spaces? If you only write programs that will only ever be read by you and no-one else, feel free to maintain a fork of Python (or any other language) that suits your personal preferences. Too much effort? Or maybe you sometimes want others, whose preferences may not exactly match yours, to collaborate on programs you write? Then I think you have your answer of why such personal perferences are not switchable in the languages we actually use. -- \ “It is the integrity of each individual human that is in final | `\ examination. On personal integrity hangs humanity's fate.” | _o__) —Richard Buckminster Fuller, _Critical Path_, 1981 | Ben Finney
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 3 of 6 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.python
csiph-web