New user's initial thoughts / criticisms of Python

[Mark Janssen]

On Mon, Nov 11, 2013 at 3:32 AM, Chris Angelico <rosuav at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 11, 2013 at 10:17 PM, Steven D'Aprano
> <steve+comp.lang.python at pearwood.info> wrote:
>> On Mon, 11 Nov 2013 21:39:27 +1100, Chris Angelico wrote:
>>> denormalizes it into a lookup table by creating 70 entries quoting the
>>> first string, 15 quoting the second, 5, and 10, respectively.
>>
>> Ewww :-(
>>
>> Imagine having to print out the dict looking for an error in the lookup
>> table. Or imagine the case where you have:
>>
>> 0...20000: do this
>> 20001...890001: do that
>> 890001...890003: do something else
>>
>> Don't get me wrong, it's a clever and reasonable solution for your
>> specific use-case. But I'd much rather have a lookup table variant that
>> matches on intervals.
>
> Of course it's "Ewww" in isolation :) But just imagine there are piles
> and piles of these tables, themselves keyed by keyword, and I want to
> be able to let untrusted people create tables (which means they
> basically have to be data, not code). Also, bear in mind, all the
> tables are based around dice that can be physically rolled, so none
> has more than 100 entries after denormalization. Quite a lot of the
> tables actually have unique entries per value (eg it's a d10 roll,
> with ten unique outputs), so it's simplest to just turn all the tables
> into that format; that way, the main code needs worry about one type
> only, and the preprocessor handles the denormalization.

Hmm, I automatically think of creating a hash function, but then
that's how Python implements keys in dicts, so a dict is fine
solution.

-- 
MarkJ
Tacoma, Washington