Earlier quoted context omitted.
I tried a bit in the REPL and couldn't replicate it completely, but I didn't try hard. It seems to only work because of the CPython internals, so it seems to be implementation-specific and undocumented.
Not true, it's part of Python's syntax. Here it is in Pypy: Python 2.5.2 (79560, Nov 26 2010, 14:57:55) [PyPy 1.4.0] on win32 >>> a = [1, 2 ,3] >>> for a[:] in [[6, 7, 8]]: ... pass >>> print(a) [6, 7, 8]
Nastiest Python list comprehension ever
41–50 of 55 posts
Re: Nastiest Python list comprehension ever
#42Earlier quoted context omitted.
Of course Python doesn't automatically ensure good code. But the Python code in your example is readable -- pretty match as readable as it gets, considering the constraints I mentioned.
I still disbelieve. Ruby is as much a general programming language as Python, yet supports a syntax that I find much more readable. I even find the deprecated os.popen interface in Python to be more readable than the official Python 2.6 interface. And, of course, the Python 2.7 syntax is better. Therefore I can't agree that the Python that I presented is as good as is possible for a general purpose programming langua…
The Python example can be broken down by someone who knows OOP concepts in general, but not Python. It says:
Invoke function Popen on the object subprocess, giving the arguments (for example) 'ls' and '-al' in a list. Standard output should be handled in some way that is indicated by the value of PIPE. On the object returned from Popen, call communicate(), which returns an array; take the first element off that returned array.
Now, in order to make sense of this you would need to know what the arguments to Popen are, what communicate() means and what it returns.
Does that require a trip to the documentation? Yes. Is it less readable? No, it's more readable. The understanding of what was read is not immediately conveyed, however.
The Ruby/Perl/Bash backticks mean nothing even if you have an OO background. Maybe if the command is 'ls' and you know some Unix, you can work it out in your head to understand that it's invoking a command in the shell. What if it's calling something obscure with a string of arcane arguments appended? That will tell nothing, and the backticks will also add zero information.
Backticks are more convenient, but readability is the ability of someone who doesn't know that particular concept, or even that language, to still parse a statement and extract some level of understanding.
Re: Nastiest Python list comprehension ever
#43Earlier quoted context omitted.
Good point. "Least readable Python code" is a distinction similar to "smallest market cap on the Fortune 50" or "fattest Olympic decathlete."
I disbelieve. Which would you prefer to read to get the output of a system call? `your system call and args` subprocess.Popen(['your', 'system', 'call', 'and', 'args'], stdout=subprocess.PIPE).communicate()[0] The former is the traditional syntax supported in various shells, Perl, and Ruby. The latter is what you need if you want your code to run in Python 2.6. And this is before we get into the fact that the minutia…
import commands print commands.getoutput("your system call and args")
Re: Nastiest Python list comprehension ever
#44Can somebody from the Perl community please but this guy in the right place by supplying a one-liner Perl golf quadruple map call?
You mean like this implementation of the Sieve of Eratosthenes? sub sieve3 { grep{@_[map$a*$_,$_..@_/($a=$_)]=0if$_[$_]>1}@_=0..pop } I shamelessly stole that from http://www.perlmonks.org/index.pl/?node_id=81769 . If you just want a short solution, but don't care about the algorithm, then the following works: sub sieve { sub p{$_[0],@_>1?p(grep$_%$_[0],@_):1}p 2..pop } See http://www.perlmonks.org/index.pl/?node_id=…
Seriously, I cannot fathom why this would work, let alone how. The syntax is completely alien to me.
Re: Nastiest Python list comprehension ever
#45Earlier quoted context omitted.
I still disbelieve. Ruby is as much a general programming language as Python, yet supports a syntax that I find much more readable. I even find the deprecated os.popen interface in Python to be more readable than the official Python 2.6 interface. And, of course, the Python 2.7 syntax is better. Therefore I can't agree that the Python that I presented is as good as is possible for a general purpose programming langua…
I'd have to disagree. In this case, the backticks are quite idiomatic, whereas the Python is less so. The Python example can be broken down by someone who knows OOP concepts in general, but not Python. It says: Invoke function Popen on the object subprocess, giving the arguments (for example) 'ls' and '-al' in a list. Standard output should be handled in some way that is indicated by the value of PIPE. On the object…
As for readability, I emphatically disagree with you on how it should be defined. Readability is the result of the interaction between the programmer and the code. The interaction cannot be left out of this. There is such a thing as well-written, readable Greek. But if you don't speak Greek, it will all be Greek to you. COBOL was designed to be readable. Can you read any significant COBOL program? Old FORTRAN programmers complained that Smalltalk hideously unreadable because they didn't understand the basic concepts of OO.
That said, something that is long and full of moving parts is inherently a challenge to read. Even if you understand every piece of that Python example (I happen to), when you encounter it in code there is a lot of semantic noise to what is written. That complexity can and should be hidden. As the Python 2.7 API does.
Re: Nastiest Python list comprehension ever
#46Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'd have to disagree. In this case, the backticks are quite idiomatic, whereas the Python is less so. The Python example can be broken down by someone who knows OOP concepts in general, but not Python. It says: Invoke function Popen on the object subprocess, giving the arguments (for example) 'ls' and '-al' in a list. Standard output should be handled in some way that is indicated by the value of PIPE. On the object…
Disagree with which? That the Python version is as readable as it could be? Don't argue that with me, argue with the decision to add a utility method that makes Python 2.7 better. As for readability, I emphatically disagree with you on how it should be defined. Readability is the result of the interaction between the programmer and the code. The interaction cannot be left out of this. There is such a thing as well-wr…
I was saying that "something that is long and full of moving parts" is easier to read than something that is short and idiomatic. I am not saying either of them represent the ideal way to do it.
My definition of readability includes the ability to convey the programmer's intention to the mind of the reader. The reader should be able to work out what is intended by the code with minimal requirements placed on them, and I think I detailed earlier why I think the Python code does a better job than simple surrounding a shell command with backticks.
Re: Nastiest Python list comprehension ever
#47Earlier quoted context omitted.
You mean like this implementation of the Sieve of Eratosthenes? sub sieve3 { grep{@_[map$a*$_,$_..@_/($a=$_)]=0if$_[$_]>1}@_=0..pop } I shamelessly stole that from http://www.perlmonks.org/index.pl/?node_id=81769 . If you just want a short solution, but don't care about the algorithm, then the following works: sub sieve { sub p{$_[0],@_>1?p(grep$_%$_[0],@_):1}p 2..pop } See http://www.perlmonks.org/index.pl/?node_id=…
Are you sure that's Perl? Are you sure it's not... nothing? Seriously, I cannot fathom why this would work, let alone how. The syntax is completely alien to me.
sub sieve {
sub p {
$_[0] , @_>1 ? p(grep$_%$_[0],@_) : 1;
}
p(2..pop)
}
And if you get rid of some terse syntax: sub p {
my ($first, @rest) = @_;
if (@rest > 1){
return $first, p(grep { $_ % $first } @rest);
}
return 1;
}
sub sieve {
my $arg = shift;
return p(2..$arg)
}
BTW, you can even have Perl do this automatically for you, by running: $ perl -MO=Deparse
sub p {
$_[0], @_ > 1 ? p(grep(($_ % $_[0]), @_)) : 1;
}
sub sieve {
p 2 .. pop @_;
}
But honestly, the first program is not incomprehensible if you've ever
programmed in Perl. Sure, it ain't literate programming, but it also
isn't beyond understanding if you have three minutes to spend on it.It's an amusement, not your payroll system, after all.
Re: Nastiest Python list comprehension ever
#48Earlier quoted context omitted.
You mean like this implementation of the Sieve of Eratosthenes? sub sieve3 { grep{@_[map$a*$_,$_..@_/($a=$_)]=0if$_[$_]>1}@_=0..pop } I shamelessly stole that from http://www.perlmonks.org/index.pl/?node_id=81769 . If you just want a short solution, but don't care about the algorithm, then the following works: sub sieve { sub p{$_[0],@_>1?p(grep$_%$_[0],@_):1}p 2..pop } See http://www.perlmonks.org/index.pl/?node_id=…
Are you sure that's Perl? Are you sure it's not... nothing? Seriously, I cannot fathom why this would work, let alone how. The syntax is completely alien to me.
First, pop returns the last element of an array. If no array is specified, @_ is used, which is the default array into which function arguments are passed. Therefore pop gets at the last argument. If this function is called with one argument, it gets at the first argument.
sub sieve3 {
pop
}
Next .. is the range operator. It builds up a list from one number to another. In our case it will be building up a list of the possible numbers we will be searching for primes in. sub sieve3 {
0..pop
}
As I mentioned before, @_ is the default array. Let's assign that list there so that it is available in a convenient way. To get at element $n (in Perl, '$' basically means 'the') you would write $_[$n]. If you have an array @things, you can create a slice with @_[@stuff]. sub sieve3 {
@_=0..pop
}
Next what grep does is run some piece of code for every element in a list and returns the values that were true. The list element is always aliased to $_. (Default things are named _, and as before, $ means the. So $_ is "the default thing.") sub sieve3 {
grep{ ... test $_'s primality ... }@_=0..pop
}
We started with an array @_. The algorithm is that we'll go through that list, every time we encounter a prime we drop all of the multiples from the list and have a true value so we encounter it. Every time we encounter something that has been struck out we see that it has been struck out, and that test is false.We will be striking out elements by assigning 0 or undef to them, this test for whether we're less than 2 eliminates 0, 1, and all previously struck out non-primes.
sub sieve3 {
grep{ ... filter out multiples of $_ ... if$_[$_]>1}@_=0..pop
}
We'll do the striking by assigning 0 to a list of multiples. This sets the first to 0 and the rest to undef. sub sieve3 {
grep{@_[ ... multiples of $_ ... ]=0if$_[$_]>1}@_=0..pop
}
We need a list of all of the numbers from $_ to the number of elements over $_. Luckily @_ used in a calculation tells us the number of elements it has. sub sieve3 {
grep{@_[... turn into list of multiples... $_..@_/$_]=0if$_[$_]>1}@_=0..pop
}
Unfortunately the code that we'll use to make the list of multiples will reuse the default variable $_, so we need to alias this $_ to a new variable, $a. sub sieve3 {
grep{@_[ ... turn into list of multiples ... $_..@_/($a=$_)]=0if$_[$_]>1}@_=0..pop
}
And now we introduce map. Map is like grep, except that it transforms elements in place. The transformation here is that we want $a * $_. Note that there are 2 loops here, one from the grep and one from the map. $a is the variable from the grep, and $_ from the map. sub sieve3 {
grep{@_[map$a*$_,$_..@_/($a=$_)]=0if$_[$_]>1}@_=0..pop
}
And now for the nastiest bit (you thought we were done??). Grep evaluates that slice in scalar context. In scalar context an array tells you the size of the array. The slice we're assigning to always has size at least 1 because we're assigning 0 to it, so whether or not the list of indexes is 0 we get a true value. (Don't worry if you didn't understand that, the upshot is that we're returning a true value when we see primes, so that grep will return them.)And there is the entire Sieve of Eratosthenes. In surprisingly little Perl.
Re: Nastiest Python list comprehension ever
#49Earlier quoted context omitted.
Good point. "Least readable Python code" is a distinction similar to "smallest market cap on the Fortune 50" or "fattest Olympic decathlete."
I disbelieve. Which would you prefer to read to get the output of a system call? `your system call and args` subprocess.Popen(['your', 'system', 'call', 'and', 'args'], stdout=subprocess.PIPE).communicate()[0] The former is the traditional syntax supported in various shells, Perl, and Ruby. The latter is what you need if you want your code to run in Python 2.6. And this is before we get into the fact that the minutia…
Perl desperately needs a built-in backtick() function:
my $x = backtick(qw(my-program -l -V), "--option=$something", @files);
Maybe in perl you'd call it ``() or something instead of backtick().Re: Nastiest Python list comprehension ever
#50Earlier quoted context omitted.
Disagree with which? That the Python version is as readable as it could be? Don't argue that with me, argue with the decision to add a utility method that makes Python 2.7 better. As for readability, I emphatically disagree with you on how it should be defined. Readability is the result of the interaction between the programmer and the code. The interaction cannot be left out of this. There is such a thing as well-wr…
I think you've mistaken my argument. I didn't say that the Python version looks good or is the best way to do it. It's not. I was saying that "something that is long and full of moving parts" is easier to read than something that is short and idiomatic. I am not saying either of them represent the ideal way to do it. My definition of readability includes the ability to convey the programmer's intention to the mind of…
That's where the argument goes wrong, if the idea of "minimal requirements" means "avoid idioms".