PEP scepticism

Roman Suzi rnd at onego.ru
Fri Jun 29 06:14:43 CEST 2001


On Thu, 28 Jun 2001 stevencooper at isomedia.com wrote:

>---end quoted text---
>
>FWIW - I totally agree with the original premise.  If Python already
>offers a reasonable way to do something I would vote for not adding an
>alternative.
>
>Keystroke reduction saves the original programmer time.  But it costs
>other people more time when they read the code.  The more language
>idioms that exist to support a particular need the more chance the
>code reader will have to work harder to understand the code writer.

No. It is easier to read one small list comprehension than to catch
and re-check if the for-loop pattern is unserstood right. Also
list comprehension works faster.

The same for aug=.

Generators are necessary to drop memory usage while leaving
existing usage of functions the same. And I think after
generator's introduction, in things like:

for line in file.readlines():
  ...

people will _expect_ generators to be used and will look at
the source to check it.

So, I can't see how all these advanced features could
harm anybody's ability to read code!

Sincerely yours, Roman Suzi
-- 
_/ Russia _/ Karelia _/ Petrozavodsk _/ rnd at onego.ru _/
_/ Friday, June 29, 2001 _/ Powered by Linux RedHat 6.2 _/
_/ "I failed attitude in school." _/





More information about the Python-list mailing list