3 ms·

Finally! I've long wanted to do for server in (server1, server2, *other_servers): Instead of for server in [server1, server2] + other_servers

rectangletangle 11y ago
I've been wanting this feature for a while as a clean way to combine the results from several queries into a composite object. def combined(*dicts): return {k: v for dict_ in dicts for k, v in dict_.items()} dicts = [({'a': 'a', 'b': 'b'}, {'b': 'bb'}),] assert [{'a': 'a', 'b': 'bb'}] == [combined(a, b) for a, b in dicts]
Too 11y ago
Can't tell if you are sarcastic or not but to me the second line is much more readable.
- agumonkey 11y ago
  That's mostly subjective, (a,b, °c) is a tuple of a, b and the rest being the sequence c. After reading a lot of lisp and ml, it's a bit less of a burden than [a,b] + l, in the sense that [a,b] is declarative mixed with an operation, while (a,b, °c) is one declarative. You might say `°` is an operation too, but it lives at the metalevel, and it's still enclosed in the (tuple-declaration).
- klibertp 11y ago
  No, both lines are equally readable. A number of operations, placement of operators, names are all the same. The only difference is replacing "," with "]+", which is not any different for your eye* to read. What you mistake for readability is familiarity: after you read a word you need to associate a meaning with it. It takes longer to interpret the meaning of things you didn't see before while grabbing a meaning from a cache is nearly instantaneous. You understood this difference in comprehension speed as a readability difference. My main point is that it makes no sense to talk about readability without first getting used to the grammar and vocabulary of a language. In this case, it's unfamiliar feature in an otherwise normal environment, but it gets worse. There are people who believe they can judge the readability of entirely alien (to them) languages and it hurts those languages reputation pretty badly. Lisps are the prime example of this.
deckiedan 11y ago
def L(*vargs): return vargs tada. >>> stuff = ['c','d','e'] >>> L('a','b', *stuff) ('a', 'b', 'c', 'd', 'e') Just like that.
- indosauros 11y ago
  >>> L(*stuff, 'a', 'b') SyntaxError: only named arguments may follow *expression >>> L(*stuff, *stuff) SyntaxError: invalid syntax
  - deckiedan 11y ago
    Good point... yes, having it language-level supported does add a lot of good stuff...

rectangletangle 11y ago

I've been wanting this feature for a while as a clean way to combine the results from several queries into a composite object. def combined(*dicts): return {k: v for dict_ in dicts for k, v in dict_.items()} dicts = [({'a': 'a', 'b': 'b'}, {'b': 'bb'}),] assert [{'a': 'a', 'b': 'bb'}] == [combined(a, b) for a, b in dicts]

Too 11y ago

Can't tell if you are sarcastic or not but to me the second line is much more readable.

agumonkey 11y ago
That's mostly subjective, (a,b, °c) is a tuple of a, b and the rest being the sequence c. After reading a lot of lisp and ml, it's a bit less of a burden than [a,b] + l, in the sense that [a,b] is declarative mixed with an operation, while (a,b, °c) is one declarative. You might say `°` is an operation too, but it lives at the metalevel, and it's still enclosed in the (tuple-declaration).
klibertp 11y ago
No, both lines are equally readable. A number of operations, placement of operators, names are all the same. The only difference is replacing "," with "]+", which is not any different for your eye* to read. What you mistake for readability is familiarity: after you read a word you need to associate a meaning with it. It takes longer to interpret the meaning of things you didn't see before while grabbing a meaning from a cache is nearly instantaneous. You understood this difference in comprehension speed as a readability difference. My main point is that it makes no sense to talk about readability without first getting used to the grammar and vocabulary of a language. In this case, it's unfamiliar feature in an otherwise normal environment, but it gets worse. There are people who believe they can judge the readability of entirely alien (to them) languages and it hurts those languages reputation pretty badly. Lisps are the prime example of this.

deckiedan 11y ago

def L(*vargs): return vargs tada. >>> stuff = ['c','d','e'] >>> L('a','b', *stuff) ('a', 'b', 'c', 'd', 'e') Just like that.

indosauros 11y ago
>>> L(*stuff, 'a', 'b') SyntaxError: only named arguments may follow *expression >>> L(*stuff, *stuff) SyntaxError: invalid syntax
- deckiedan 11y ago
  Good point... yes, having it language-level supported does add a lot of good stuff...