c[:]()

[Steve Holden]

Grant Edwards wrote:
> On 2007-05-31, Warren Stringer <warren at muse.com> wrote:
>>> How is it more expressive?  In the context you're concerned
>>> with, c[:] is the exactly same thing as c.  You seem to be
>>> worried about saving keystrokes, yet you use c[:] instead of c.
>>>
>>> It's like having an integer variable i and using ((i+0)*1)
>>> instead of i.
>> Nope, different. 
>>
>> c[:] holds many behaviors that change dynamically.
> 
> I've absolutely no clue what that sentence means.  If c[:] does
> behave differently than c, then somebody's done something
> seriously weird and probably needs to be slapped around for
> felonious overriding.
> 
>> So c[:]() -- or the more recent go(c)() -- executes all those
>> behaviors.
> 
> Still no clue.
> 
>> This is very useful for many performers.
> 
> What are "performers"?
> 
>> The real world example that I'm working one is a collaborative
>> visual music performance. So c can contain wrapped MIDI events
>> or sequencer behaviors. c may get passed to a scheduler to
>> execute those events, or c may get passed to a pickler to
>> persist the performance.  
> 
> I still don't see how c[:] is any different from c.
> 
It isn't. The OP is projecting a wish for a function call on a list to 
be interpreted as a call on each member of the list with the same 
arguments. The all-members slice notation is a complete red herring.

It would require a pretty fundamental re-think to give such a construct 
sensible and consistent semantics, I think.

regards
  Steve
-- 
Steve Holden        +1 571 484 6266   +1 800 494 3119
Holden Web LLC/Ltd           http://www.holdenweb.com
Skype: holdenweb      http://del.icio.us/steve.holden
------------------ Asciimercial ---------------------
Get on the web: Blog, lens and tag your way to fame!!
holdenweb.blogspot.com        squidoo.com/pythonology
tagged items:         del.icio.us/steve.holden/python
All these services currently offer free registration!
-------------- Thank You for Reading ----------------