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

Groups > comp.lang.python > #8691 > unrolled thread

The end to all language wars and the great unity API to come!

Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.python

Contents

  The end to all language wars and the great unity API to come! rantingrick <rantingrick@gmail.com> - 2011-07-02 15:59 -0700
    Re: The end to all language wars and the great unity API to come! Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2011-07-03 09:38 +1000
      Re: The end to all language wars and the great unity API to come! rantingrick <rantingrick@gmail.com> - 2011-07-02 16:46 -0700
        Re: The end to all language wars and the great unity API to come! Tim Chase <python.list@tim.thechases.com> - 2011-07-02 20:09 -0500
      Re: The end to all language wars and the great unity API to come! rantingrick <rantingrick@gmail.com> - 2011-07-02 17:21 -0700
        Re: The end to all language wars and the great unity API to come! Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2011-07-03 10:36 +1000
          Re: The end to all language wars and the great unity API to come! Gregory Ewing <greg.ewing@canterbury.ac.nz> - 2011-07-03 16:06 +1200
        Re: The end to all language wars and the great unity API to come! rantingrick <rantingrick@gmail.com> - 2011-07-02 17:58 -0700
          Re: The end to all language wars and the great unity API to come! Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2011-07-03 11:12 +1000
            Re: The end to all language wars and the great unity API to come! rantingrick <rantingrick@gmail.com> - 2011-07-02 18:43 -0700
              Re: The end to all language wars and the great unity API to come! Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2011-07-03 11:49 +1000
                Re: The end to all language wars and the great unity API to come! rantingrick <rantingrick@gmail.com> - 2011-07-02 19:24 -0700
                  Re: The end to all language wars and the great unity API to come! Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2011-07-03 13:14 +1000
                    Re: The end to all language wars and the great unity API to come! rantingrick <rantingrick@gmail.com> - 2011-07-02 21:13 -0700
              Re: The end to all language wars and the great unity API to come! rantingrick <rantingrick@gmail.com> - 2011-07-02 19:08 -0700
                Re: The end to all language wars and the great unity API to come! Gregory Ewing <greg.ewing@canterbury.ac.nz> - 2011-07-03 15:57 +1200
                  Re: The end to all language wars and the great unity API to come! rantingrick <rantingrick@gmail.com> - 2011-07-02 21:34 -0700
                    Re: The end to all language wars and the great unity API to come! Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2011-07-03 14:46 +1000
                      Re: The end to all language wars and the great unity API to come! Dennis Lee Bieber <wlfraed@ix.netcom.com> - 2011-07-03 02:59 -0700
              Re: The end to all language wars and the great unity API to come! Gregory Ewing <greg.ewing@canterbury.ac.nz> - 2011-07-03 16:00 +1200
                Re: The end to all language wars and the great unity API to come! rantingrick <rantingrick@gmail.com> - 2011-07-02 21:42 -0700
                  Re: The end to all language wars and the great unity API to come! alex23 <wuwei23@gmail.com> - 2011-07-03 22:06 -0700
                    Re: The end to all language wars and the great unity API to come! rantingrick <rantingrick@gmail.com> - 2011-07-04 09:35 -0700
                      Re: The end to all language wars and the great unity API to come! Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2011-07-05 03:19 +1000
                      Re: The end to all language wars and the great unity API to come! Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2011-07-05 09:24 +1000
                        Re: The end to all language wars and the great unity API to come! Dennis Lee Bieber <wlfraed@ix.netcom.com> - 2011-07-04 19:09 -0700
                        Re: The end to all language wars and the great unity API to come! rantingrick <rantingrick@gmail.com> - 2011-07-05 18:07 -0700
                          Re: The end to all language wars and the great unity API to come! Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2011-07-06 12:31 +1000
                          Microsoft GUIs (was: The end to all language wars and the great unity API to come!) (OT) Andrew Berg <bahamutzero8825@gmail.com> - 2011-07-05 23:13 -0500
                          Re: Microsoft GUIs (was: The end to all language wars and the great unity API to come!) (OT) Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2011-07-06 14:25 +1000
                          Re: Microsoft GUIs Andrew Berg <bahamutzero8825@gmail.com> - 2011-07-05 23:53 -0500
                          Re: Microsoft GUIs Andrew Berg <bahamutzero8825@gmail.com> - 2011-07-06 00:29 -0500
                          Re: The end to all language wars and the great unity API to come! Dennis Lee Bieber <wlfraed@ix.netcom.com> - 2011-07-05 22:26 -0700
                          Re: Microsoft GUIs Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2011-07-06 15:43 +1000
                          Re: The end to all language wars and the great unity API to come! Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2011-07-06 15:47 +1000
                          Re: The end to all language wars and the great unity API to come! Gregory Ewing <greg.ewing@canterbury.ac.nz> - 2011-07-06 19:15 +1200
                          Re: The end to all language wars and the great unity API to come! Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2011-07-06 21:46 +1000
                          Re: The end to all language wars and the great unity API to come! Dennis Lee Bieber <wlfraed@ix.netcom.com> - 2011-07-06 09:55 -0700
                      Re: The end to all language wars and the great unity API to come! alex23 <wuwei23@gmail.com> - 2011-07-04 19:31 -0700
                        Re: The end to all language wars and the great unity API to come! sal migondis <salmig99@gmail.com> - 2011-07-05 11:14 -0700
                          Re: The end to all language wars and the great unity API to come! Andrew Berg <bahamutzero8825@gmail.com> - 2011-07-05 16:01 -0500
                          Re: The end to all language wars and the great unity API to come! Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2011-07-06 08:36 +1000
                          Re: The end to all language wars and the great unity API to come! Dennis Lee Bieber <wlfraed@ix.netcom.com> - 2011-07-05 22:26 -0700
                            Re: The end to all language wars and the great unity API to come! Ben Finney <ben+python@benfinney.id.au> - 2011-07-07 15:10 +1000
                          Re: The end to all language wars and the great unity API to come! Andrew Berg <bahamutzero8825@gmail.com> - 2011-07-06 00:37 -0500
                          Re: The end to all language wars and the great unity API to come! Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2011-07-06 21:45 +1000
                            Re: The end to all language wars and the great unity API to come! sal migondis <salmig99@gmail.com> - 2011-07-08 12:05 -0700
                              Re: The end to all language wars and the great unity API to come! Ian Kelly <ian.g.kelly@gmail.com> - 2011-07-08 13:21 -0600
                      Re: The end to all language wars and the great unity API to come! alex23 <wuwei23@gmail.com> - 2011-07-04 19:36 -0700
                  Re: The end to all language wars and the great unity API to come! Gregory Ewing <greg.ewing@canterbury.ac.nz> - 2011-07-04 19:36 +1200
                    Re: The end to all language wars and the great unity API to come! rantingrick <rantingrick@gmail.com> - 2011-07-05 04:42 -0700
                      Re: The end to all language wars and the great unity API to come! Corey Richardson <kb1pkl@aim.com> - 2011-07-05 12:04 -0400
                        Re: The end to all language wars and the great unity API to come! rantingrick <rantingrick@gmail.com> - 2011-07-05 15:35 -0700
                          Re: The end to all language wars and the great unity API to come! Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2011-07-06 08:49 +1000
                          Re: The end to all language wars and the great unity API to come! Tim Chase <python.list@tim.thechases.com> - 2011-07-05 18:21 -0500
                          Re: The end to all language wars and the great unity API to come! Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2011-07-06 21:44 +1000
                            Re: The end to all language wars and the great unity API to come! rantingrick <rantingrick@gmail.com> - 2011-07-06 06:41 -0700
                              Re: The end to all language wars and the great unity API to come! Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2011-07-06 23:52 +1000
                                Re: The end to all language wars and the great unity API to come! Neil Cerutti <neilc@norwich.edu> - 2011-07-06 15:13 +0000
                              Re: The end to all language wars and the great unity API to come! Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2011-07-07 00:55 +1000
                                Re: The end to all language wars and the great unity API to come! rantingrick <rantingrick@gmail.com> - 2011-07-06 08:33 -0700
                              Re: The end to all language wars and the great unity API to come! Teemu Likonen <tlikonen@iki.fi> - 2011-07-06 19:55 +0300
                      Re: The end to all language wars and the great unity API to come! Gregory Ewing <greg.ewing@canterbury.ac.nz> - 2011-07-06 19:05 +1200
    Re: The end to all language wars and the great unity API to come! Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2011-07-03 13:21 +1000

Page 3 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4  Next page →

#8858

On 2011.07.05 01:14 PM, sal migondis wrote:
> How could a belief be wrong?
Beliefs aren't subjective.  One's taste in music, for example, is
largely subjective and can't be right or wrong, but a belief (which has
to do with facts) certainly can be.
> > > What do you think will be the eventual outcome of the human existence
> > > Alex? Since you have no imagination i will tell you, a singular
> > > intelligence.
>
> All from the land of creationism.
That's from rantingrick, not alex23.
> > No need to answer that last one, we already know the answer: from the
> > very beginning.
>
> In the beginning was a singularity... and Albert Einstein was a chain-
> smoker.
Either you're taking that statement out of context, or you're making an
esoteric joke. If it's not the latter, I suggest you read the sentence
before it.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#8866

On Wed, Jul 6, 2011 at 4:14 AM, sal migondis <salmig99@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jul 4, 10:31 pm, alex23 <wuwe...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> rantingrick <rantingr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > What do you think will be the eventual outcome of the human existence
>> > Alex? Since you have no imagination i will tell you, a singular
>> > intelligence.
>
> All from the land of creationism.

I don't see the connection between creationism and a Borg-like
"singularity of intelligence" where we all lose individuality. But
this is now decidedly off-topic for a Python mailing list.

ChrisA

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#8894

On Tue, 05 Jul 2011 16:01:57 -0500, Andrew Berg
<bahamutzero8825@gmail.com> declaimed the following in
gmane.comp.python.general:

> On 2011.07.05 01:14 PM, sal migondis wrote:
> > How could a belief be wrong?
> Beliefs aren't subjective.  One's taste in music, for example, is
> largely subjective and can't be right or wrong, but a belief (which has
> to do with facts) certainly can be.

	Pardon????

	Most "beliefs" that I've encountered do their best to ignore any
facts that contradict the belief. "Facts" imply testable evidence,
hypotheses, eventual theorems...
-- 
	Wulfraed                 Dennis Lee Bieber         AF6VN
        wlfraed@ix.netcom.com    HTTP://wlfraed.home.netcom.com/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#9007

Dennis Lee Bieber <wlfraed@ix.netcom.com> writes:

> On Tue, 05 Jul 2011 16:01:57 -0500, Andrew Berg
> <bahamutzero8825@gmail.com> declaimed the following in
> gmane.comp.python.general:
>
> > On 2011.07.05 01:14 PM, sal migondis wrote:
> > > How could a belief be wrong?

> > Beliefs aren't subjective. One's taste in music, for example, is
> > largely subjective and can't be right or wrong, but a belief (which
> > has to do with facts) certainly can be.
>
> 	Pardon????

By “has to do with facts”, I understand Andrew to be saying that a
belief is *about* facts. That is, a belief is the position that a
factual claim is true.

> 	Most "beliefs" that I've encountered do their best to ignore any
> facts that contradict the belief.

You seem to be ignoring beliefs that are not usually held dogmatically:
that the sun will rise tomorrow, that the newspaper article one is
reading is likely true, that one's lunch is not poison, etc.

These are distinct from so-called “beliefs” that are really opinions:
that my daughter is the loveliest in the world, that wasabi is horrible,
etc.

> "Facts" imply testable evidence, hypotheses, eventual theorems...

I'd say facts are claims about reality which have been independently
verified to be true. Beliefs that are about facts are thereby correct or
incorrect.

-- 
 \              “Only the educated are free.” —Epictetus, _Discourses_ |
  `\                                                                   |
_o__)                                                                  |
Ben Finney

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#8898

On 2011.07.06 12:26 AM, Dennis Lee Bieber wrote:
> On Tue, 05 Jul 2011 16:01:57 -0500, Andrew Berg
> <bahamutzero8825@gmail.com> declaimed the following in
> gmane.comp.python.general:
>
> > On 2011.07.05 01:14 PM, sal migondis wrote:
> > > How could a belief be wrong?
> > Beliefs aren't subjective.  One's taste in music, for example, is
> > largely subjective and can't be right or wrong, but a belief (which has
> > to do with facts) certainly can be.
>
> 	Pardon????
>
> 	Most "beliefs" that I've encountered do their best to ignore any
> facts that contradict the belief. "Facts" imply testable evidence,
> hypotheses, eventual theorems...
I didn't say people were objective. A belief is quite similar to a
statement of fact. Whether the statement is true or false or even
objectively reached isn't relevant to the definition.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#8930

sal migondis wrote:

> How could a belief be wrong?

I believe you are a small glass of beer. Are you *actually* a small glass of
beer in reality? If so, my belief is right. If you are a human being, then
my belief is wrong.



-- 
Steven

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#9090

On Jul 6, 7:45 am, Steven D'Aprano <steve
+comp.lang.pyt...@pearwood.info> wrote:
> sal migondis wrote:

> > How could a belief be wrong?

> I believe...

Shifting from 'belief' to 'believe', the latter having a considerably
wider semantic scope.

After that, anything goes.. naturally.

> you are a small glass of beer. Are you *actually* a small glass of
> beer in reality? If so, my belief is right. If you are a human being, then
> my belief is wrong.

Are you a lawyer..?

Sal.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#9091

On Fri, Jul 8, 2011 at 1:05 PM, sal migondis <salmig99@gmail.com> wrote:
>> I believe...
>
> Shifting from 'belief' to 'believe', the latter having a considerably
> wider semantic scope.

Wider how?  Would you care to give an example of something that is
believed but is not a belief?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#8810

rantingrick <rantingr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> CREATING THE BEST LANGUAGE WE CAN AT ANY ONE
> TIME IN HISTORY...

Incidentally, Umberto Eco's "The Search for the Perfect Language"
pretty readily exposes this desire as a lingering vestige of the
Biblical belief in the one true language that was spoken by God. It
also covers in some depth the persistent failure to ever create such a
language.

Fools, history, rinse & repeat.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#8757

rantingrick wrote:

> I agree however i see merit in both approaches. But why must we have
> completely different languages just for that those two approaches?

We have different languages because different people have different
ideas about what a language should be like. Ruby people like user
defined control structures; Python people regard user defined
control structures as an anti-feature. It's fundamentally
impossible for one language to satisfy both sets of people.

-- 
Greg

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#8820

On Jul 4, 2:36 am, Gregory Ewing <greg.ew...@canterbury.ac.nz> wrote:

> We have different languages because different people have different
> ideas about what a language should be like. Ruby people like user
> defined control structures; Python people regard user defined
> control structures as an anti-feature. It's fundamentally
> impossible for one language to satisfy both sets of people.

I was thinking more about this comment and it occurred to me that
Python does have user controlled data structures. Just because there
is no "top level syntax" like ruby does not mean these do not exists.
You only have to look below the surface. Take the sort methods of
lists for example...

>>> lst = [
	(100, 0),
	(25, 2),
	(10,1),
	]
>>> lst
[(100, 0), (25, 2), (10, 1)]
>>> lst.sort()
>>> lst
[(10, 1), (25, 2), (100, 0)]
>>> lst.sort(lambda x,y: cmp(x[1], y[1]))
>>> lst
[(100, 0), (10, 1), (25, 2)]

...that looks like a "user defined control" structure to me. So how
can an anti-feature become part of the language proper? (devils
advocate here) :)

I leave the discovery of other user defined control structures for the
advanced readers.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#8843

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

Excerpts from rantingrick's message of Tue Jul 05 07:42:39 -0400 2011:
>
> I was thinking more about this comment and it occurred to me that
> Python does have user controlled data structures. Just because there
> is no "top level syntax" like ruby does not mean these do not exists.
> You only have to look below the surface. Take the sort methods of
> lists for example...
> 
> >>> lst = [
>     (100, 0),
>     (25, 2),
>     (10,1),
>     ]
> >>> lst
> [(100, 0), (25, 2), (10, 1)]
> >>> lst.sort()
> >>> lst
> [(10, 1), (25, 2), (100, 0)]
> >>> lst.sort(lambda x,y: cmp(x[1], y[1]))
> >>> lst
> [(100, 0), (10, 1), (25, 2)]
> 
> ...that looks like a "user defined control" structure to me. So how
> can an anti-feature become part of the language proper? (devils
> advocate here) :)
> 

How is giving the sort method a function by which to determine the relative
value of objects a control structure? Do you know what a control structure is?
It's something that you use to modify control flow:

if foo <= bar:
	foo += 1
else:
	bar += 1

That's a control structurem the "if-else". I don't know what Ruby calls a 
control structure, but that's what it is. for and while are in there too.
When you run lst.sort(lambda x, y: cmp(x[1], y[1])), what happens?

We'll call that argument srt, here's a sample (naive) implementation:

def sort(key):
	lst = self.internal_list
	for n in range(len(self.internal_list) - 1):
		for i in range(len(self.internal_list) - 1):
			if srt(lst[i], lst[i+1]) < 0:
				lst[i], lst[i+1] = lst[i+1], lst[i]

Untested, probably doesn't work either. See what's in there? An if. Nothing
"user-defined" at all. Sure, WHAT the if does is user-controlled with the
key, but that doesn't make that particular if a new control structure, and
it certainly doesn't make the key a control structure. You can pass a key
to a sort even in C and that certainly doesn't have user defined control
structures.
-- 
Corey Richardson
  "Those who deny freedom to others, deserve it not for themselves"
     -- Abraham Lincoln

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#8865

On Jul 5, 11:04 am, Corey Richardson <kb1...@aim.com> wrote:

> How is giving the sort method a function by which to determine the relative
> value of objects a control structure? Do you know what a control structure is?
> It's something that you use to modify control flow:
>
> if foo <= bar:
>         foo += 1
> else:
>         bar += 1

Interesting, corey. Very interesting. However the fun is yet to come
so stay tuned...

> That's a control structurem the "if-else". I don't know what Ruby calls a
> control structure, but that's what it is. for and while are in there too.
> When you run lst.sort(lambda x, y: cmp(x[1], y[1])), what happens?

So are you suggesting that a control structure must have at minimum
one of "for", "while", or "if"? Okay, i listening. Go on...

> We'll call that argument srt, here's a sample (naive) implementation:
>
> def sort(key):
>         lst = self.internal_list
>         for n in range(len(self.internal_list) - 1):
>                 for i in range(len(self.internal_list) - 1):
>                         if srt(lst[i], lst[i+1]) < 0:
>                                 lst[i], lst[i+1] = lst[i+1], lst[i]
>
> See what's in there? An if.

Yes there IS and "if" in there and IF you look closely enough you may
see two "for"'s also. So by your own definition this (naive) code
qualifies as a control structure. Interesting Corey, very
interesting.

But wait just a second Corey. My statement has nothing to do with
sort. sort is just the vehicle. My statement is that the cmp argument
to sort IS a user defined control structure (the code block to be
exact). It doesn't matter that the code is contained in a function
object. That's like saying a cake is not a cake because it was
packaged in a shoe box instead of a cake box.

> Sure, WHAT the if does is user-controlled with the
> key,

Well as long as you can admit that fact.

> but that doesn't make that particular if a new control structure,

Oh i see. Change the rules as we go eh?

> and
> it certainly doesn't make the key a control structure. You can pass a key
> to a sort even in C and that certainly doesn't have user defined control
> structures.

What the hell does C have to do with Python Corey? One thing is for
sure, i always get a giggle from your self defeating posts. You're the
best enemy a person could have. Thank you. *bows*

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#8872

On Wed, Jul 6, 2011 at 8:35 AM, rantingrick <rantingrick@gmail.com> wrote:
> You're the
> best enemy a person could have. Thank you. *bows*

Compliments are made to be returned, and this one is particularly well
suited. *bow*

Chris Angelico

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#8875

On 07/05/2011 05:35 PM, rantingrick wrote:
> One thing is for sure, i always get a giggle from your self
> defeating posts. You're the best enemy a person could have.
> Thank you. *bows*

Every time I see a rantingrick post, it's like watching the Black 
Knight scene from the Holy Grail yet again.  You know what's 
going to happen; you know he has a purposeless fight; you know 
he's going to laughably lose; and you know he's going to *think* 
that he is invincible & has won.

ARTHUR:  What are you going to do, bleed on me?
BLACK KNIGHT:  I'm invincible!
ARTHUR:  You're a looney.

Sigh...ready for an intermission...

-tkc

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#8928

rantingrick wrote:

> On Jul 5, 11:04 am, Corey Richardson <kb1...@aim.com> wrote:
> 
>> How is giving the sort method a function by which to determine the
>> relative value of objects a control structure? Do you know what a control
>> structure is? It's something that you use to modify control flow:
>>
>> if foo <= bar:
>> foo += 1
>> else:
>> bar += 1
> 
> Interesting, corey. Very interesting. However the fun is yet to come
> so stay tuned...
> 
>> That's a control structurem the "if-else". I don't know what Ruby calls a
>> control structure, but that's what it is. for and while are in there too.
>> When you run lst.sort(lambda x, y: cmp(x[1], y[1])), what happens?
> 
> So are you suggesting that a control structure must have at minimum
> one of "for", "while", or "if"? 

A control structure is a structure which controls the program flow. Control
structures include:

* jumps (goto, gosub, comefrom, exceptions, break, continue)

* loops (for, while, repeat...until)

* conditional branches (if, case/switch)

There may be others, although I can't think of any of hand. Jumping, looping
and branching pretty much covers all the bases, I think.

It excludes expressions such as ternary-if, because that doesn't control
program flow, it's just an expression.

A function which includes a control structure inside it is not itself a
control structure, in the same way that the existence of bones inside you
does not make you a bone.


[...]
> Yes there IS and "if" in there and IF you look closely enough you may
> see two "for"'s also. So by your own definition this (naive) code
> qualifies as a control structure. 

I see what you did there. First you put words into Cory's mouth that he did
not say, they you try to criticise him based on those words -- YOUR words.

No Rick, that's your definition, not Cory's. Please do not treat us as
stupid.



> But wait just a second Corey. My statement has nothing to do with
> sort. sort is just the vehicle. My statement is that the cmp argument
> to sort IS a user defined control structure (the code block to be
> exact). 

The cmp argument to sort is not a control structure because it is not a
structure and it does not control the program flow.


-- 
Steven

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#8934

On Jul 6, 6:44 am, Steven D'Aprano <steve
+comp.lang.pyt...@pearwood.info> wrote:

> A control structure is a structure which controls the program flow. Control
> structures include:
>
> * jumps (goto, gosub, comefrom, exceptions, break, continue)
>
> * loops (for, while, repeat...until)
>
> * conditional branches (if, case/switch)

-------------------------------------------
THIS CODE RESULTS IN A CONTROL STRUCTURE!

--> lst.sort(lambda x,y: cmp(x[1], y[1]))
-------------------------------------------

I am using a user defined spec as an argument to the cmp function.
That spec then modifies the body of the compare function and creates a
user defined control structure. You can argue all day that it is not a
user defined control structure but no one is going to believe you.

> A function which includes a control structure inside it is not itself a
> control structure,

Of course the FUNCTION is not a control structure (not directly). No
wonder you are confused. It's the FUNCTION BODY that is the control
structure. The function body that has been modified by my arguments to
the cmp function. But in a way, you can say the function OWNS the code
block so it is itself a control structure. Still confused? Read on...

>  in the same way that the existence of bones inside you
> does not make you a bone.

Bad analogy. See last comment.

> I see what you did there. First you put words into Cory's mouth that he did
> not say, they you try to criticise him based on those words -- YOUR words.

I quoted Corey exactly. And why do you feel the need to answer for
him?

> The cmp argument to sort is not a control structure because it is not a
> structure and it does not control the program flow.

Again you lack simple reading and comprehension skills. It's not the
argument that is the control structure itself. The argument is just
the SPEC for creating a control structure. The control structure is
the modified CODE BLOCK owned by the "CMP" function.

The modified code block owned by the cmp function-- defined by the
user through an argument spec--  controls the return value to the list
sort method. USER DEFINED CONTROL STRUCTURE. Plain and simple. I don't
think i can use any simpler terms to describe it.

Give it up man and admit i am correct and you are wrong.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#8936

On Wed, Jul 6, 2011 at 11:41 PM, rantingrick <rantingrick@gmail.com> wrote:
> Give it up man and admit i am correct and you are wrong.
>

Sorry. A Lawful Good character cannot tell a lie.

ChrisA

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#8945

On 2011-07-06, Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 6, 2011 at 11:41 PM, rantingrick
> <rantingrick@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Give it up man and admit i am correct and you are wrong.
>
> Sorry. A Lawful Good character cannot tell a lie.

Lawful Good characters have a hard time coexisting with the
Chaotic Neutrals.

-- 
Neil Cerutti

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#8941

rantingrick wrote:

> On Jul 6, 6:44 am, Steven D'Aprano <steve
> +comp.lang.pyt...@pearwood.info> wrote:
> 
>> A control structure is a structure which controls the program flow.
>> Control structures include:
>>
>> * jumps (goto, gosub, comefrom, exceptions, break, continue)
>>
>> * loops (for, while, repeat...until)
>>
>> * conditional branches (if, case/switch)
> 
> -------------------------------------------
> THIS CODE RESULTS IN A CONTROL STRUCTURE!
> 
> --> lst.sort(lambda x,y: cmp(x[1], y[1]))

No it doesn't.

How does it change the program flow? You call the sort method, it sorts, and
execution continues at the next statement. Regardless of whether you supply
a cmp function or not, the program flow is identical:

ENTER SORT ROUTINE
PERFORM SORTING
EXIT SORT ROUTINE

There is no control transferred. It is a linear program flow: in, do the
job, out again. Since it doesn't modify the program flow, it is not a
control structure.

"Perform sorting" is a black box. It could have loops, branches,
unconditional exists. It could have COMEFROM statements up the wazoo, if it
were implemented in a language with COMEFROM (like Intercal). None of that
matters two bits: the caller cannot use sort to modify the execution
sequence around it, therefore it's not a control structure. No matter how
much the sort routine jumps around internally, you can't use that change
program flow around it.

print surely is implemented with a loop: it has to loop over a string and
write it to stdout. Would you say that therefore print is a control
structure:

ENTER PRINT STATEMENT
PERFORM PRINTING
EXIT PRINT STATEMENT

One entry, one exit.



-- 
Steven

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 3 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.python

csiph-web