Le 10/04/2018 à 00:54, Peter O'Connor a écrit :
> Kyle, you sounded so reasonable when you were trashing
> itertools.accumulate (which I now agree is horrible).  But then you go
> and support Serhiy's madness:  "smooth_signal = [average for average in
> [0] for x in signal for average in [(1-decay)*average + decay*x]]" which
> I agree is clever, but reads more like a riddle than readable code.  
>
> Anyway, I continue to stand by:
>
>     (y:= f(y, x) for x in iter_x from y=initial_y)
>
> And, if that's not offensive enough, to its extension:
>
>     (z, y := f(z, x) -> y for x in iter_x from z=initial_z)
>
> Which carries state "z" forward but only yields "y" at each iteration. 
> (see proposal: https://github.com/petered/peps/blob/master/pep-9999.rst
> <https://github.com/petered/peps/blob/master/pep-9999.rst>)
>
> Why am I so obsessed?  Because it will allow you to conveniently replace
> classes with more clean, concise, functional code.  People who thought
> they never needed such a construct may suddenly start finding it
> indispensable once they get used to it.  
>
> How many times have you written something of the form?:
>
>     class StatefulThing(object):
>     
>         def __init__(self, initial_state, param_1, param_2):
>             self._param_1= param_1 
>             self._param_2 = param_2 
>             self._state = initial_state
>     
>         def update_and_get_output(self, new_observation):  # (or just
> __call__)
>             self._state = do_some_state_update(self._state,
> new_observation, self._param_1) 
>             output = transform_state_to_output(self._state, self._param_2)
>             return output
>     
>     processor = StatefulThing(initial_state = initial_state, param_1 =
> 1, param_2 = 4)
>     processed_things = [processor.update_and_get_output(x) for x in x_gen]
>     
> I've done this many times.  Video encoding, robot controllers, neural
> networks, any iterative machine learning algorithm, and probably lots of
> things I don't know about - they all tend to have this general form.  
>

Personally I never have to do that very often. But let's say for the
sake of the argument there is a class of problem a part of the Python
community often solves with this pattern. After all, Python is a
versatile language with a very large and diverse user base.

First, why a class would be a bad thing ? It's clear, easy to
understand, debug and extend. Besides, do_some_state_update and
transform_state_to_output may very well be methods.

Second, if you really don't want a class, use a coroutine, that's
exactly what they are for:

def stateful_thing(state, param_1, param_2, output=None):
    while True:
        new_observation = yield output
        state = do_some_state_update(state, new_observation, param_1)
        output = transform_state_to_output(state, param_2)

processor = stateful_thing(1, 1, 4)
next(processor)
processed_things = [processor.send(x) for x in x_gen]

If you have that much of a complex workflow, you really should not make
that a one-liner.

And before trying to ask for a new syntax in the language, try to solve
the problem with the existing tools.

I know, I get the frustration.

I've been trying to get slicing on generators and inline try/except on
this mailing list for years and I've been said no again and again. It's
hard. But it's also why Python stayed sane for decades.

_______________________________________________
Python-ideas mailing list
Python-ideas@python.org
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-ideas
Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/