lauriat

6 ms·

1. 1.▲
   by lauriat 5y ago

   There is https://github.com/lauriat/funct which has some of those higher level functions.
2. 2.▲
   by lauriat 5y ago

   Neat. There's also sc but I wanted to make something light and simple.
3. 3.▲
   Show HN: Texel – CLI tool for viewing spreadsheets(github.com)

   23 points by lauriat 5y ago|4 comments
4. 4.▲
   by lauriat 6y ago

   Thanks for the feedback! Redesigned swiss-army-knife is well put. I’m sure Array’s not for everyone, but for some, including me it’s a nifty tool. I don’t expect people to memorise all the features of the library - the aim was to name and d
5. 5.▲
   by lauriat 6y ago

   Fair enough. Readability is subjective but I understand the sentiment. Constructing list comprehensions of such long chained expressions can be rather tedious and error prone, though (as your example shows).
6. 6.▲
   by lauriat 6y ago

   That's why the A is capitalised ;)
7. 7.▲
   by lauriat 6y ago

   cheers!
8. 8.▲
   by lauriat 6y ago

   I agree, and yes, the line may be a bit excessive. The idea of Arrays is not just to cram a heap of functions to a single line. The readability (at least to me) is improved even with e.g. a single map arr.map(func) vs. list(map(f
9. 9.▲
   by lauriat 6y ago

   If you're doing matrix multiplication or other math operations on fixed size sequences, you shouldn't. If, however, you need the dynamic nature of the built-in list or functional methods with a touch of numpyness, you should give
10. 10.▲
    by lauriat 6y ago

    Fair enough, the example is a bit exaggerated. You could implement it with comprehensions all(func3(y) for y in (func1(x) for x in zip(a, b)) if func2(y)) It most likely is a bit faster, but I wouldn't say it's more readabl
11. 11.▲
    by lauriat 6y ago

    You can already do that with d.get("non_existant_key", default)
12. 12.▲
    by lauriat 6y ago

    My explanation was pretty poor, let me rephrase For example, when calling Array((x, y), (z, w)).index((z, w)) the following piece of code is executed bool(Array((x, y)).__eq__((z, w))) = bool(Array(False, False)) If __bool_
13. 13.▲
    by lauriat 6y ago

    I understand the unpythonic nature of Arrays may startle some hardcore pythonistas, but ability to chain functions was one of the main reasons why I wrote the package as I find nested function calls ugly and sometimes rather hard to deciphe
14. 14.▲
    by lauriat 6y ago

    Thanks! Good point. However setting def __bool__(self): return self.nonEmpty would mess up certain methods e.g. .index for nested Arrays as __eq__ is computed elementwise and bool(Array(False, False)) would evaluate to True. Maybe a
15. 15.▲
    by lauriat 6y ago

    Thank you for taking the time to check it out! Naturally if you're dealing with big arrays/tensors, numpy is the best choice for operating on sequences. However, ndarrays have downsides for certain use cases - as ndarrays are fixe
16. 16.▲
    Show HN: Array – A Better Python List(github.com)

    87 points by lauriat 6y ago|66 comments