Any Python lullabies?

[Dustan]

Tim Chase wrote:
> > Since there have been python limmericks, are there any
> > Python lullabies that I can sing to my newborn son
> > (actually, born yesterday)?  I tried to murmur some
> > select parts from the tutorial, but he somehow wasn't
> > very interested :)
>
> Well, you might start with "Twinkle, Twinkle, Little
> Asterisk" or:
>
>  >>> "Blind Mice" * 3
>  >>> you is self.sunshine
>  >>> [horse for horse in horses if horse.pretty]
>  >>> for baby in tree.top.babies:
> ...    if wind.blows(): baby.cradle.rock()
> ...    if tree.bough.breaks():
> ...        fall([baby, cradle, all])
> ...
>
> and last, and certainly worst:
>
>  >>> "Mary had a Little Lambda"
>
> While you're at it, if you want them to learn Vim, you can
> hum them "Bram's Lullaby"... (groan)
>
> Okay...that's a bad enough starter :)
>
> -tkc

Howsabout this?


>>> import this
The Zen of Python, by Tim Peters

Beautiful is better than ugly.
Explicit is better than implicit.
Simple is better than complex.
Complex is better than complicated.
Flat is better than nested.
Sparse is better than dense.
Readability counts.
Special cases aren't special enough to break the rules.
Although practicality beats purity.
Errors should never pass silently.
Unless explicitly silenced.
In the face of ambiguity, refuse the temptation to guess.
There should be one-- and preferably only one --obvious way to do it.
Although that way may not be obvious at first unless you're Dutch.
Now is better than never.
Although never is often better than *right* now.
If the implementation is hard to explain, it's a bad idea.
If the implementation is easy to explain, it may be a good idea.
Namespaces are one honking great idea -- let's do more of those!
>>>