python3的关键字,python3：'where'关键字

Hi.

It would be great to be able to reverse usage/definition parts in

haskell-way with "where" keyword. Since Python 3 would miss lambda, that

would be extremly useful for creating readable sources.

Usage could be something like:res = [ f(i) for i in objects ] where:

def f(x):

#do something

or

print words[3], words[5] where:

words = input.split()

- defining variables in "where" block would restrict their visibility to

one expression

- it''s more easy to read sources when you know which part you can skip,

compare to

def f(x):

#do something

res = [ f(i) for i in objects ]

in this case you read definition of "f" before you know something about

it usage.

解决方案Andrey Tatarinov wrote:Hi.

It would be great to be able to reverse usage/definition parts in

haskell-way with "where" keyword. Since Python 3 would miss lambda, that

would be extremly useful for creating readable sources.

Usage could be something like:

>>> res = [ f(i) for i in objects ] where:

>>> def f(x):

>>> #do something

or

>>> print words[3], words[5] where:

>>> words = input.split()

- defining variables in "where" block would restrict their visibility to

one expression

How often is this really necessary? Could you describe some benefits of

this? I think the only time I''ve ever run into scoping problems is with

lambda, e.g.

[lambda x: f(x) for x, f in lst]

instead of

[lambda x, f=f: for x, f in lst]

Are there other situations where you run into these kinds of problems?

- it''s more easy to read sources when you know which part you can skip,

compare to

>>> def f(x):

>>> #do something

>>> res = [ f(i) for i in objects ]

in this case you read definition of "f" before you know something about

it usage.

Hmm... This seems very heavily a matter of personal preference. I find

that your where clause makes me skip the ''res'' assignment to read what

the ''res'' block contains. I had to read it twice before I actually

looked at the list comprehension. Of course, I''m sure I could be

retrained to read it the right way, but until I see some real benefit

from it, I''d rather not have to.

TOOWTDI-ily-yrs,

Steve

Steven Bethard wrote:How often is this really necessary? Could you describe some benefits of

this? I think the only time I''ve ever run into scoping problems is with

lambda, e.g.

[lambda x: f(x) for x, f in lst]

instead of

[lambda x, f=f: for x, f in lst]

Sorry, bad example, this should have looked something more like:

[lambda y: f(x, y) for x, f in lst]

....

[lambda y, x=x, f=f: f(x, y) for x, f in lst]

where you actually need the lambda.

Steve

In article ,

Steven Bethard wrote:Andrey Tatarinov wrote:

It would be great to be able to reverse usage/definition parts in

haskell-way with "where" keyword. Since Python 3 would miss lambda, that

would be extremly useful for creating readable sources.

Usage could be something like:

>>> res = [ f(i) for i in objects ] where:

>>> def f(x):

>>> #do something

or

>>> print words[3], words[5] where:

>>> words = input.split()

- defining variables in "where" block would restrict their visibility to

one expression

How often is this really necessary? Could you describe some benefits of

this? I think the only time I''ve ever run into scoping problems is with

lambda, e.g.

[lambda x: f(x) for x, f in lst]

instead of

[lambda x, f=f: for x, f in lst]

Are there other situations where you run into these kinds of problems?

Note that he says "would be extremely useful for creating readable

sources", so the "these kinds of problems" he would have been thinking

of would be where source was not as readable as it could be. You seem

to be concerned about something else.

I don''t by any means agree that this notation is worth adopting, and

in general I think this kind of readability issue is more or less a lost

cause for a language with Python''s scoping rules, but the motive makes

sense to me. One way to look at it might be, if I observe that "words"

is assigned to in a where clause, then I know it will not be used

elsewhere in the surrounding scope so I can forget about it right away.

If the name does occur elsewhere, it evidently refers to something else.

Donn Cave, do**@u.washington.edu