syntax for code blocks

[Michael Torrie]

On 05/04/2012 05:12 AM, Kiuhnm wrote:
>> Hand-wavy, no real example, doesn't make sense.
> 
> Really? Then I don't know what would make sense to you.

Speaking as as an observer here, I've read your blog post, and looked at
your examples.  They don't make sense to me either.  They aren't real
examples.  They are abstract examples.  They do not answer the
questions, "what actual, real world python problems does this solve?"
and "how is this better than a plain python solution?"  For example,
I've seen ruby code where blocks are used in a real-world way.  Could
you not put in something similar in your examples?  Since you've written
this code you must use it in everyday python coding.  Show us what
you've been doing with it.

Also while some of your blog snippets are snippets, other code examples
you provide purport to be complete examples, when in fact they are not.
 For example, about 45% of the way down your blog page you have a block
of code that looks to be self-contained.  It has "import logging" and
"import random" at the top of it.  Yet it cannot run as it's missing an
import of your module.


>>>> You haven't presented *any* good code or use cases.
>>>
>>> Says who? You and some others? Not enough.

How many people do you need to tell you this before it's good enough?
Doesn't matter how genius your code is if no one knows when or how to
use it.

> It's impossible to have a constructive discussion while you and others 
> feel that way. You're so biased that you don't even see how biased you are.

Having followed the conversation somewhat, I can say that you have been
given a fair hearing.  People aren't just dissing on it because it's
ruby.  You are failing to listen to them just as much as you claim they
are failing to listen to them.

>>> The meaning is clear from the context.

Not really.  For one we're not Ruby programmers here, and like has been
said, where is a real example of real code that's not just some abstract
"hello this is block1, this is block 2" sort of thing? Providing
non-block code to compare is important too.


> Unfortunately, communication is a two-people thing. It's been clear from 
> the first post that your intention wasn't to understand what I'm proposing.
> There are some things, like what I say about name-clashing, that you 
> should understand no matter how biased you are.
> If you don't, you're just pretending or maybe you weren't listening at all.

well there's my attempt.