all() is slow?

[Devin Jeanpierre]

> Well. It reads fine in a certain sense, in that I can figure out
> what's going on (although I have some troubles figuring out why the
> heck certain things are in the code). The issue is that what's going
> on is otherworldly: this is not a Python pattern, this is not a normal
> approach. To me, that means it does not read fine.

Sorry for the double post, but I think I damaged my statement a
little in the edit process here. I have a hard time
reading the code, and the implications of using exec on how
initialization works is not obvious. I do believe that this solution
is significantly less readable than it would be in a language with
"real" macros, or using an alternate dict-based approach. I don't mean
to just say "it's different, therefore it's wrong" -- it takes more
than just being unusual (not that the unusualness helps).

Devin

On Wed, Nov 9, 2011 at 8:26 PM, Devin Jeanpierre <jeanpierreda at gmail.com> wrote:
>> Neither am I. I am less suspicious based on a reputation. Raymond is a
>> well-known, trusted senior Python developer who knows what he is doing.
>
> I don't really know anything about him or why people respect him, so I
> have no reason to share your faith.
>
>> It reads fine, and the justification is perfectly valid.
>
> Well. It reads fine in a certain sense, in that I can figure out
> what's going on (although I have some troubles figuring out why the
> heck certain things are in the code). The issue is that what's going
> on is otherworldly: this is not a Python pattern, this is not a normal
> approach. To me, that means it does not read fine.
>
> The use of exec also results in (seemingly) arbitrary constraints on
> the input. Like, why can't "--" be a name? Because exec? Is there some
> other reason?
>
> I don't like the use of exec, and I don't like the justification (it
> seems handwavy). I pointed this out in a thread full of people saying
> "never EVER use exec this way", so it's obviously not just me that
> thinks this is awful.
>
>> You're right to be cautious of exec. You're wrong to be phobic about it.
>> What do you think is going to happen?
>
> I think somebody will read it and think this is a good idea.
>
> Devin
>
>
> On Wed, Nov 9, 2011 at 6:11 PM, Steven D'Aprano
> <steve+comp.lang.python at pearwood.info> wrote:
>> On Wed, 09 Nov 2011 18:01:16 -0500, Devin Jeanpierre wrote:
>>
>>>> If it were someone other than Raymond Hettinger responsible for the use
>>>> of exec in namedtuple, I'd be a lot more suspicious of it.
>>>
>>> I'm not going to be less suspicious based on a name.
>>
>> Neither am I. I am less suspicious based on a reputation. Raymond is a
>> well-known, trusted senior Python developer who knows what he is doing.
>>
>>
>>> It reads like
>>> insanity, and the justification was terrible.
>>
>> It reads fine, and the justification is perfectly valid.
>>
>> You're right to be cautious of exec. You're wrong to be phobic about it.
>> What do you think is going to happen? The exec call inside namedtuple is
>> going to creep out of the module in the wee hours of the night,
>> contaminating other functions and modules while you sleep? Be serious. If
>> you have an actual concrete security vulnerability caused by the use of
>> exec inside namedtuple, or some other bug, then say so. Otherwise, your
>> paranoia is unjustified.
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Steven
>> --
>> http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
>>
>