Brython - Python in the browser

[Chris Angelico]

On Sat, Dec 22, 2012 at 10:05 PM, Steven D'Aprano
<steve+comp.lang.python at pearwood.info> wrote:
> On Sat, 22 Dec 2012 20:08:25 +1100, Chris Angelico wrote:
>
>> I don't see "string % tuple" as a good syntax; I prefer to spell it
>> sprintf("format",arg,arg,arg).
>
> Very possibly one of the worst names ever from a language that excels at
> bad names. "Sprint f"? WTF?
>
> Certainly not appropriate for Python, where a sprintf equivalent would
> return a new string, rather than automatically print the result. Oh
> wait... C's sprintf doesn't automatically print either.
>
> *wink*

Sure, it's not ideal, but it's the string-returning form of printf,
which prints formatted text, so it's not completely inappropriate. But
my point stands: it's an easy thing to search for.

>> When it
>> comes to operators on strings, what I'd prefer to see is something that
>> does more-or-less what the operator does with integers - for instance:
>>
>> "This is a string" / " " ==> ["This","is","a","string"]
>
> I don't see the connection between the above and numeric division. If it
> were this:
>
> "This is a string" / 3 ==> ["This ", "is a ", "strin", "g"]
>
> (and presumably // 3 would be the same except the "g" would be dropped)
> then I could see the connection. But there's no relationship between
> numeric division, which divides a number up into N equal-sized parts, and
> string splitting as you show above.

Sure, but it's still dividing. It's a different form of division, but
it still makes sense. "Oh, you're dividing that string by a delimiter.
I'd prefer to call it 'on' a delimiter, but 'by' works." Your
description makes perfectly good sense too, though; however, if:

"This is a string" / 3 ==> ["This ", "is a ", "strin", "g"]
and
"This is a string" // 3 ==> ["This ", "is a ", "strin"]
then
"This is a string" % 3 ==> ["g"] or possibly "g"

which is incompatible with current usage. But that's a meaning that
makes reasonable sense as "modulo".

>> Taking a string modulo a tuple doesn't make any sense in itself,
>
> Taking an integer cross an integer doesn't make any sense if you haven't
> learned the meaning of the + operator. Why insist that only string
> operators must make inherent sense to somebody who doesn't know what the
> operator means? If we're allowed to learn the meaning of + * and &, why
> not % as well?

Sure, but + and * have meaning in mathematics, not just programming,
and it's a similar meaning. Even the much-maligned = assignment, which
has quite a different meaning to = equality, which itself isn't the
same as the = equality in mathematics, is sufficiently close that it's
grokkable. But someone coming from a mathematical background has no
particular advantage in figuring out that % means formatting, or that
<= means add child. That doesn't mean they shouldn't be done, just
that the justification hump is that bit higher.

ChrisA