#Tuple unpacking codeBack in the day a lot of us thought we had a different kind of relationship with C compilers, and it'd be fine to code to that informal social contract. I have had old C programs go crazy years later in a really hard to debug way because newer compilers may interpret your code like your ex-wife's divorce lawyer (as Kragen put it). (Of course when it's less "load bearing" the balance shifts.) With for example, it used bytecode hacks to do something you couldn't do otherwise, and that's unlikely to mess you up. Matter of judgement where some chance of such messes is paid for by what it can do for you. Or when you want to try moving to a fancy new Python implementation, you find you have this friction. It can go on working for years until some new complication or some change in the ecosystem makes it suddenly create a really weird problem. I'm just leery of the expected cost in this kind of case. carping when Peter Norvig's code won't pass PEP 8. That concepts and implementation have some overlap but should occupy a different concept maps in our brains - very much like the idea that dicts can do set-like things but that we're better off thinking about dicts as doing lookups and sets as doing uniquification, membership-testing, and set-to-set operations. Sorry for the small rant, but I think this pedantic point isn't a useful line of thinking. Raise RuntimeError('unexpected kind of item') # Something that would work but they we don't do They mostly live in different worlds because we use them and think about them much differently: We would almost never substitute the latter for the former. However, arguing that one is a special case of the other misses the entire point of structural pattern matching. The former raises an error for a non-iterable and the latter just skips the case for a non-sequence. The former works for any iterable and the latter requires a sequence. Is similar to a match/case with a sequence pattern: Som uninterestingly, it is possible to do only one of those things: IOW, the match/case tool can pattern match and destructure at the same time. Languages such as Python and Clojure show that there is inherent value in the destructuring assignment/bind, even out of the context of control flow. This gives the impression that the important part is the control flow. Most often, when I have seen pattern matching described to an audience with a background in imperative languages, it is compared to a super-powered switch statement. It is my understanding that there are several libraries available that implement pattern matching, but I do not use these. There is no tightly-linked control flow structure that goes along with this binding mechanism. Clojure functions and `let` bindings can use a destructuring syntax to bind to elements in a data structure. There is no control flow tied to this operation, except for the exceptions that can be thrown when the LHS and RHS have incompatible structure.Ĭlojure is another example of a language with destructuring binding that is not tied to a control flow construct. This article describing the Python feature of multiple assignment demonstrates only the destructuring assignment (assignment, because it is Python and these variables can be reassigned). "Pattern matching", in the context of functional programming languages, most often refers to the complex combination of destructuring bind and conditional control flow based on which binding succeeded.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |