Skip to main content

Brett Cannon: Clarifications on LINQ

Brett Cannon: Clarifications on LINQ: "Calvin Spealman set me straight on the true importance of LINQ."

Well, what an interesting start to an article in my news reader. Yes, I am Calvin Spealman. Brett goes on to talk about some details of this, mostly repeating and rephrasing what I set him straight on (his words, not mine), in reguards to LINQ.

Although we can not, at this time, get the AST for any expressions or blocks prior to compilation, I don't expect or see how or why we would reach this at Python 2.6, either. Firstly, I don't see how python would no to not-compile anything without some special "this is meant to be used just for its AST" syntax. Secondly, I doubt it would be any cheaper to generate the AST without compiling it into bytecode, after factoring in the time it might take to figure out if you need to do so or not. The most likely and efficient way will probably be the most obvious, in this case: pass a function object, built with def or lambda, but expressions by themselves (ie, not lambdas) will be pretty unusable. Anything else would require some kind of mechanism to know that a parameter expects AST, and that would break the python function model. So, barring anything along the lines of function decorators that say "parameter 3 gets the expression's AST" and hooks in the function call mechanism to catch this sort of thing, I don't see the direction of the Python 2.6 comment. Besides, anything along those lines seems like it would pose some serious security risks.

Am I misunderstanding the statement?

Comments

Niki said…
You can get pretty far by passing objects into a lambda that override all operators, attribute access and so on, to find out what the lambda "does" inside with it's parameters. This can be used to build (something like) an AST of the passed function. I don't think it works if the lambda contained any loops or recursion, though.
BTW: Can LINQ do that? I've only seen simple expressions in the examples. That should be possible using python, too.

Popular posts from this blog

Respect and Code Reviews

Code Reviews in a development team only function best, or possible at all, when everyone approaches them with respect. That’s something I’ve usually taken for granted because I’ve had the opportunity to work with amazing developers who shine not just in their technical skills but in their interpersonal skills on a team. That isn’t always the case, so I’m going to put into words something that often exists just in assumptions.
You have to respect your code. This is first only because the nature and intent of code reviews are to safeguard the quality of your code, so even having code reviews demonstrates a baseline of respect for that code. But, maybe not everyone on the team has the same level of respect or entered a team with existing review traditions that they aren’t acquainted with.
There can be culture shock when you enter a team that’s really heavy on code reviews, but also if you enter a team or interact with a colleague who doesn’t share that level of respect for the process or…

CARDIAC: The Cardboard Computer

I am just so excited about this.


CARDIAC. The Cardboard Computer. How cool is that? This piece of history is amazing and better than that: it is extremely accessible. This fantastic design was built in 1969 by David Hagelbarger at Bell Labs to explain what computers were to those who would otherwise have no exposure to them. Miraculously, the CARDIAC (CARDboard Interactive Aid to Computation) was able to actually function as a slow and rudimentary computer. 
One of the most fascinating aspects of this gem is that at the time of its publication the scope it was able to demonstrate was actually useful in explaining what a computer was. Could you imagine trying to explain computers today with anything close to the CARDIAC?

It had 100 memory locations and only ten instructions. The memory held signed 3-digit numbers (-999 through 999) and instructions could be encoded such that the first digit was the instruction and the second two digits were the address of memory to operate on. The only re…

How To Care If BSD, MIT, or GPL Licenses Are Used

The two recent posts about some individuals' choice of GPL versus others' preference for BSD and MIT style licensing has caused a lot of debate and response. I've seen everything as an interesting combination of very important topics being taken far too seriously and far too personally. All involved need to take a few steps back.

For the uninitiated and as a clarifier for the initiated, we're dealing with (basically) three categories of licensing when someone releases software (and/or its code):
Closed Source. Easiest to explain, because you just get nothing.GPL. If you get the software, you get the source code, you get to change it, and anything you combine it with must be under the same terms.MIT and BSD. If you get the software, you might get the source code, you get to change it, and you have no obligations about anything else you combine it with.The situation gets stickier when we look at those combinations and the transitions between them.

Use GPL code with Closed S…