Classical FP problem in python : Hamming problem

[Bengt Richter]

On Tue, 25 Jan 2005 11:46:04 -0800, Jeff Shannon <jeff at ccvcorp.com> wrote:

>Bengt Richter wrote:
>
>> On 25 Jan 2005 08:30:03 GMT, Nick Craig-Wood <nick at craig-wood.com> wrote:
>> 
>>>If you are after readability, you might prefer this...
>>>
>>>def hamming():
>>> def _hamming():
>>>   yield 1
>>>   for n in imerge(imap(lambda h: 2*h, iter(hamming2)),
>>>                   imerge(imap(lambda h: 3*h, iter(hamming3)),
>>>                          imap(lambda h: 5*h, iter(hamming5)))):
>>>     yield n
>>> hamming2, hamming3, hamming5, result = tee(_hamming(), 4)
>>> return result
>> 
>> Are the long words really that helpful?
>> 
>>     def hamming():
>>       def _hamming():
>>         yield 1
>>         for n in imerge(imap(lambda h: 2*h, iter(hg2)),
>>                         imerge(imap(lambda h: 3*h, iter(hg3)),
>>                                imap(lambda h: 5*h, iter(hg5)))):
>>           yield n
>>       hg2, hg3, hg5, result = tee(_hamming(), 4) # four hamming generators
>>       return result
>
>Well, judging by the fact that shortening the identifiers made it so 
>that you felt the need to add a comment indicating what they were 
>identifying, I'd say that yes, the long words *are* helpful.  ;) 
>Comments are good, but self-documenting code is even better.

The comment was a conscious factoring decision, in terms of documentation ;-)

Regards,
Bengt Richter