Talk:McNuggets problem: Difference between revisions
→Python: "composing generic abstractions"
Line 31:
::You can safely leave it alone. No need for deletionary zeal. Like it or not, functional programming is just one of the ways in which Python interpreters and compilers are used. Live and let live. I have absolutely no objection whatsoever to other styles of programming. What is good depends entirely on what we are optimising for, and in what context, and what is meant by 'idiomatic' is best left to linter tools. This code is fully linted by AutoPep8 and Auto-flake8. That seems enough to me. [[User:Hout|Hout]] ([[User talk:Hout|talk]]) 08:15, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
:: Perhaps the helpful part of your question is about what that variant adds technically. The shortest answer might be (1.) The use of currying in Python (2.) The application of the itertools.dropwhile function (3.) the relationship between set comprehension and the (concat . map) composition of two atomic and universal functions. [[User:Hout|Hout]] ([[User talk:Hout|talk]]) 08:42, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
: paddy Well, I suppose one 'use' is that it does have a style. The examples now under REPL import functional idioms from itertools and abuse them in some sort of style chimera. Somewhere in this discussion you complained about the use of functional idioms rather than the pythonic Comprehensions. These were introduced in Python2 and the What's New in Python2 documentation explains in length how to map one to the other. Why then when I write a solution importing nothing and using only Comprehensions do you denigrate it as 'From F#'. Surley this is the Pythonic Solution--[[User:Nigel Galloway|Nigel Galloway]] ([[User talk:Nigel Galloway|talk]]) 14:08, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
| |||