new linereading standard?

[Johann Hibschman]

Juergen A Erhard writes:

>>>>>> "Johann" == Johann Hibschman <johann at physics.berkeley.edu> writes:
> [J W B]


Johann> So, basically, I find the functional stuff much more
Johann> useful from the command line than I do from actual
Johann> programs.  I think of the right transform, then I apply
Johann> it.  Interesting.

> Actually, I find the third example more readable than the other two...

>    map(string.strip, lines)

> is, IMHO, more readable than a for loop doing the same.

I agree.  For a single operation, that is.  However, I find a for loop
expressing successive transformations of a single data item to be
easier, once things get more complicated than a single map.  Just
taste, though.

> Though it also depends on what you're used to... (maps etc are *more*
> readable in Lisp... than in Python)

But even in Lisp (by which I assume you mean Common Lisp), I find that
dolist and the loop macro are often more readable than using mapcar
and friends.  In Scheme, you don't have dolist and loop, and I find
readability suffers.  (I'm not so certain about loop; it's a monster.
But I like dolist.)

Thinking vaguely that if Common Lisp were more common, python wouldn't
be nearly as clear a win as it is...

--Johann

-- 
Johann Hibschman                           johann at physics.berkeley.edu