Sat Mar 24 01:26:51 CET 2012
On 3/23/2012 22:18, Nathan Rice wrote:
>>> I understand what
>>> you're trying to communicate, so I think you need to be a little more
>>> strict and explicit in your definitions.
>> No, I don't think you understand what I meant.
> I don't agree. Sorry.
You could just point out those inconsistencies that you found.
>> Yes. I thought that streams as an alternative to functional programming were
>> widely known.
> Streams aren't really a paradigm of computation. They're a semantic
> element of a computational system which cuts across paradigms. If you
> want to retract that and say you were talking about dataflow
> programming (which is much larger than streams, and actually has a
> cohesive definition), I won't hold it against you.
I wasn't talking of dataflow programming. "Flow programming" is much
closer to functional programming than dataflow programming is.
>> Instead of talking of what I wasn't trying to do and, indeed, I didn't do,
>> you should try to understand what I wanted to do and, in fact, I did.
>> I'm afraid your cup is too full to understand simple things as the one I
>> wrote in my OP.
> Clearly, because I didn't explicitly include the possibility that you
> are just writing throwaway code with no attempt at development of
> ideas for the purpose of practicing writing code in the paragraph
> after the one you quoted.
x != 'a' doesn't imply that x == 'b'.
> If your goal is to learn to code, instead of posting a message stating
> that you have a superior way to compose code, you might want to try to
> solve a problem and ask others their opinion of the structure and
> techniques in your code.
Never said it was superior.
We've been talking about readability a lot, haven't we? I was just
proposing something different.
More information about the Python-list