can Python be useful as functional?
Lorenzo Stella
I haven't experienced functional programming very much, but now I'm
trying to learn Haskell and I've learned that: 1) in functional
programming LISTS are fundmental; 2) any "cycle" in FP become
recursion.
I also know that Python got some useful tool such as map, filter,
reduce... so I told: "let's try some FP-style programming with
Python!". I took a little example of Haskell:
listprimes :: Integer -> [Integer]
listprimes n = if n == 0 then sieve [2..] else sieve [2..(n-1)]
where
sieve [] = []
sieve (p:xs) = p : sieve (filter (\x -> mod x p > 0) xs)
and I tried to "translate" it in Python:
def sieve(s):
if s == []:
return []
else:
return [s[0]] + sieve(filter((lambda x: x % s[0] > 0),
s[1:]))
def listprimes(n):
return sieve(range(2,n))
These should be almost the same: listprimes actually lists prime
integers up to n-1. The result is: Haskell implementation works well,
maybe it's not the better way to do it, but it does what I wanted.
Python implementation gives me
RuntimeError: maximum recursion depth exceeded in cmp
My question is: how can we call a language "functional" if it's major
implementation has a limited stack? Or is my code wrong?
LS
Evan Klitzke
Python does not optimize tail recursion. You can increase the maximum
recursion limit with sys.setrecursionlimit, but the code will still be
slow.
I am a fan of functional programming languages (including Haskell!),
but I wouldn't try to write functional code in Python -- the language
isn't optimized for this type of code, and the syntax it provides
isn't very elegant, compared to other functional languages. If you
want to write functional code, use a real functional language!
--
Evan Klitzke <ev...@yelp.com>
Rustom Mody
6.5 of the library]
def sieve(l):
p = l.next()
yield p
for x in sieve(l):
if x % p != 0:
yield x
After that
from itertools import *
>>> [p for i,p in izip(range(10), sieve(count(2)))]
[2, 3, 5, 7, 11, 13, 17, 19, 23, 29]
>>>
I tried to write a shorter generator expression based sieve but cant
get it right.
Can someone help? Heres the non-working code
def si(l):
p = l.next()
yield p
(x for x in si(l) if x % p != 0)
There should be an yield or return somewhere but cant figure it out
Alex Martelli
> Can someone help? Heres the non-working code
>
> def si(l):
> p = l.next()
> yield p
> (x for x in si(l) if x % p != 0)
>
> There should be an yield or return somewhere but cant figure it out
Change last line to
for x in (x for x in si(l) if x % p != 0): yield x
if you wish.
Alex
Rustom Mody
Thanks but why does
(yield(x) for x in si(l) if x % p != 0)
not work? I would have expected generator expression to play better
with generators.
More generally, if one wants to 'splice in' a generator into the body
of a generator, is there no standard pythonic idiom?
Kay Schluehr
> > My question is: how can we call a language "functional" if it's major
> > implementation has a limited stack? Or is my code wrong?
>
> Python does not optimize tail recursion.
Never mind. In the provided example the call to sieve() is not in tail
position anyway ;)
[...]
> If you
> want to write functional code, use a real functional language!
It's hard to disagree. As a Python programmer I'd rather care for
smooth integration with code written in Haskell or OCaml than adopting
their particular programming idioms. For instance the Python - OCaml
bridge is aged and I'm not aware that one between Python and Haskell
even exists.
Duncan Booth
> On 9/18/07, Alex Martelli <al...@mac.com> wrote:
>> Rustom Mody <rusto...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > Can someone help? Heres the non-working code
>> >
>> > def si(l):
>> > p = l.next()
>> > yield p
>> > (x for x in si(l) if x % p != 0)
>> >
>> > There should be an yield or return somewhere but cant figure it out
>>
>> Change last line to
>>
>> for x in (x for x in si(l) if x % p != 0): yield x
>
>
> Thanks but why does
>
> (yield(x) for x in si(l) if x % p != 0)
>
> not work? I would have expected generator expression to play better
> with generators.
Why should it? It evaluates the expression which returns an object that
just happens to be a generator and then as with any other expression
that isn't assigned or returned it throws away the result.
> More generally, if one wants to 'splice in' a generator into the body
> of a generator, is there no standard pythonic idiom?
Yes there is, as Alex showed you the standard python idiom for a
generator to yield all elements of an iteratable (whether it is a
generator or any other iterable) is:
for somevar in iterable: yield somevar
There have been various proposals in the past such as 'yield from
iterable', but there doesn't seem any compelling case to introduce a new
confusing syntax: the existing syntax works, and adding a special syntax
wouldn't open the door to any performance benefits since the
implementation would have to be pretty much the same (at most you would
save a couple of local variable accesses).
Bruno Desthuilliers
> Hi all,
> I haven't experienced functional programming very much, but now I'm
> trying to learn Haskell and I've learned that: 1) in functional
> programming LISTS are fundmental;
Not exactly. They are used quite a lot, yes, but that's also the case in
other paradigms. What's important in functional programming is *functions*.
> 2) any "cycle" in FP become
> recursion.
FP idioms tends to use recursion instead of iteration, yes. But that's
only viable with implementations doing tail-recursion optimisation -
which is not the case with CPython (not that it couldn't FWIW - it's a
design choice, and one of the few I don't necessarily agree with).
> I also know that Python got some useful tool such as map, filter,
> reduce...
And all there itertools versions...
> so I told: "let's try some FP-style programming with
> Python!".
Most of the functional constructs that makes sens in Python are already
idiomatic. And some common functional stuff are better reimplemented the
pythonic way - as an example, while partial application is usually
implemented with closures, and *can* indeed be implemented that way in
Python, the class-based implementation is IMHO much better.
> I took a little example of Haskell:
>
> listprimes :: Integer -> [Integer]
> listprimes n = if n == 0 then sieve [2..] else sieve [2..(n-1)]
> where
> sieve [] = []
> sieve (p:xs) = p : sieve (filter (\x -> mod x p > 0) xs)
>
> and I tried to "translate" it in Python:
>
> def sieve(s):
> if s == []:
> return []
> else:
> return [s[0]] + sieve(filter((lambda x: x % s[0] > 0),
> s[1:]))
>
> def listprimes(n):
> return sieve(range(2,n))
>
> These should be almost the same: listprimes actually lists prime
> integers up to n-1. The result is: Haskell implementation works well,
> maybe it's not the better way to do it, but it does what I wanted.
> Python implementation gives me
>
> RuntimeError: maximum recursion depth exceeded in cmp
>
> My question is: how can we call a language "functional" if it's major
> implementation has a limited stack? Or is my code wrong?
Strictly speaking, a language is functional if it has functions as first
class objects. Period. According to this definition, Python is a
functional language. Now that doesn't mean you should try to write
Haskell in Python... IOW, your code is not "wrong", but it's certainly
not the best way to implement such an algorithm in Python.
Paul Rudin
It's no tthat it's "wrong", but doing recursion in python can be
problematic because there's no tail recursion optimisation and the
size of the stack is limited (so eventually you'll run out of stack if
you recurse deep enough).
One way to capture the spirit of that Haskell program in Python is to
use things from itertools; something like this (modified from
<http://aspn.activestate.com/ASPN/Cookbook/Python/Recipe/117119>):
import itertools
def listprimes(n):
def sieve(nums):
seq = nums
while True:
prime = seq.next()
seq = itertools.ifilter(prime.__rmod__, seq)
yield prime
if n == 0:
return sieve(itertools.count(2))
else:
return sieve(itertools.islice(itertools.count(2), n-1))
>>> list(listprimes(100))
[2, 3, 5, 7, 11, 13, 17, 19, 23, 29, 31, 37, 41, 43, 47, 53, 59, 61, 67, 71, 73, 79, 83, 89, 97]
Kay Schluehr
42.desthuilli...@wtf.websiteburo.oops.com> wrote:
> Lorenzo Stella a écrit :
>
> > Hi all,
> > I haven't experienced functional programming very much, but now I'm
> > trying to learn Haskell and I've learned that: 1) in functional
> > programming LISTS are fundmental;
>
> Not exactly. They are used quite a lot, yes, but that's also the case in
> other paradigms. What's important in functional programming is *functions*.
Functional lists are not quite the same. They are actually recursive
datastructes. In Python you would model them as nested tuples:
t = (a, (b, (c, ...(d, None)))))
These are essentially pairs build from the bottom up using a list
constructor and they have little in common with those mutable list
objects ( arrays, vectors ) being used in Python. You can easily
extend them into n-ary trees and implement mutations on them as forks
where the original strucure is almost preserved. This leads to all
kinds of "functional data structures".
In order to access an element you already need a recursive function
defintion ( unless you just want to examine the head or the tail
only ) and this makes functional programming and "consed" lists a
perfect match.
[...]
> Strictly speaking, a language is functional if it has functions as first
> class objects. Period.
No, not period and not strictly speaking. A language is functional
when its semantics is based on lambda calculus where everything is a
function or a variable bound to a function which can be substituted by
a function. Each functional language, to be usefull, must be augmented
with programming language constructs used from other paradigms or
support unsafe operations to enable proper side effects. This is not a
humpty-dumpty issue where everyone can name his language a functional
programming language just because one can pass functions as first
class citizens around and he says so. Otherwise those languages can
support a few functional programming language idioms such as map,
reduce and filter or comprehensions as in Pythons case.
Neil Cerutti
> On 18 Sep., 10:13, Bruno Desthuilliers <bruno.
> 42.desthuilli...@wtf.websiteburo.oops.com> wrote:
>> Lorenzo Stella a écrit :
>>
>> > Hi all,
>> > I haven't experienced functional programming very much, but now I'm
>> > trying to learn Haskell and I've learned that: 1) in functional
>> > programming LISTS are fundmental;
>>
>> Not exactly. They are used quite a lot, yes, but that's also
>> the case in other paradigms. What's important in functional
>> programming is *functions*.
>
> Functional lists are not quite the same. They are actually
> recursive datastructes. In Python you would model them as
> nested tuples:
>
> t = (a, (b, (c, ...(d, None)))))
Tuples won't work for cyclic data, though.
--
Neil Cerutti
Bruno Desthuilliers
> On 18 Sep., 10:13, Bruno Desthuilliers <bruno.
> 42.desthuilli...@wtf.websiteburo.oops.com> wrote:
>> Lorenzo Stella a écrit :
>>
>>> Hi all,
>>> I haven't experienced functional programming very much, but now I'm
>>> trying to learn Haskell and I've learned that: 1) in functional
>>> programming LISTS are fundmental;
>> Not exactly. They are used quite a lot, yes, but that's also the case in
>> other paradigms. What's important in functional programming is *functions*.
>
> Functional lists are not quite the same. They are actually recursive
> datastructes.
Linked lists, most of the time, yes.
(snip)
> In order to access an element you already need a recursive function
> defintion ( unless you just want to examine the head or the tail
> only ) and this makes functional programming and "consed" lists a
> perfect match.
Indeed. And that's also why some FP idioms don't translate directly in
Python.
> [...]
>
>> Strictly speaking, a language is functional if it has functions as first
>> class objects. Period.
>
> No, not period and not strictly speaking.
Ok, even on c.l.functional - where the above definition comes from BTW
-, nobody really agree on the "correct" definition of functional !-)
Steve Holden
[...]
> My question is: how can we call a language "functional" if it's major
> implementation has a limited stack? Or is my code wrong?
>
stack?
You remind me of the conversation between the philosopher and an
attractive lady whom he was seated next to at dinner. He asked her if
she would sleep with him for a million dollars, to which she readily
agreed. So he followed this by asking her if she'd sleep with him for a
dollar. She replied: "No. Do you take me for a prostitutte?", to which
his riposte was "We have already established that fact, and are now
merely haggling about the price".
You just don't like the specific limit that Python imposes. So increase
it with sys.setrecursionlimit().
regards
Steve
--
Steve Holden +1 571 484 6266 +1 800 494 3119
Holden Web LLC/Ltd http://www.holdenweb.com
Skype: holdenweb http://del.icio.us/steve.holden
Sorry, the dog ate my .sigline
Grant Edwards
> Lorenzo Stella wrote:
> [...]
>>
>> My question is: how can we call a language "functional" if
>> it's major implementation has a limited stack? Or is my code
>> wrong?
>
> So, which environment do you habitually use that provides an
> *unlimited* stack?
Perhaps Lorenzo Stella is referring to Python's lack of
tail-recursion optimization? There are languages that
guarantee unlimited tail-recursion with a limited stack.
That's a typical feature for a function language, right?
> You just don't like the specific limit that Python imposes. So
> increase it with sys.setrecursionlimit().
--
Grant Edwards grante Yow! I hope I bought the
at right relish ... zzzzzzzzz
visi.com ...
Robin Becker
> Lorenzo Stella wrote:
......
> So, which environment do you habitually use that provides an *unlimited*
> stack?
>
> attractive lady whom he was seated next to at dinner. He asked her if
> she would sleep with him for a million dollars, to which she readily
> agreed. So he followed this by asking her if she'd sleep with him for a
> dollar. She replied: "No. Do you take me for a prostitutte?", to which
> his riposte was "We have already established that fact, and are now
> merely haggling about the price".
>
allegedly G B Shaw
(http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4158/is_19980925/ai_n14182408)
--
Robin Becker
Paul Rudin
Also allegedly Winston Churchill, although wikiquote says:
"This is a very old joke where the participants vary dramatically
from each telling. It's very unlikely though not impossible that
the joke originated from Churchill."
Bruno Desthuilliers
> On 2007-09-18, Steve Holden <st...@holdenweb.com> wrote:
>
>>Lorenzo Stella wrote:
>>[...]
>>
>>>My question is: how can we call a language "functional" if
>>>it's major implementation has a limited stack? Or is my code
>>>wrong?
>>
>>So, which environment do you habitually use that provides an
>>*unlimited* stack?
>
> Perhaps Lorenzo Stella is referring to Python's lack of
> tail-recursion optimization? There are languages that
> guarantee unlimited tail-recursion with a limited stack.
>
> That's a typical feature for a function language, right?
>
Steve Holden
Also allegedly Bertrand Russell, who was going to be the subject of my
version until I realized that I would get many corrections to any
asserted identity of the originator. I should have know to expect just
as many corrections to the absence of any such assertion, this being
c.l.py :-)
Jonathan Fine
> You remind me of the conversation between the philosopher and an
> attractive lady whom he was seated next to at dinner. He asked her if
> she would sleep with him for a million dollars, to which she readily
> agreed. So he followed this by asking her if she'd sleep with him for a
> dollar. She replied: "No. Do you take me for a prostitutte?", to which
> his riposte was "We have already established that fact, and are now
> merely haggling about the price".
I've seen this before, and it is witty.
However, it is perhaps unfair towards the woman. The man, after all, is
someone who has offered a woman money in return for sex.
The whole story reads differently if we replace 'philosopher' by 'man'
and 'attractive lady' by 'woman'.
--
Jonathan
Lorenzo Stella
> Perhaps Lorenzo Stella is referring to Python's lack of
> tail-recursion optimization? There are languages that
> guarantee unlimited tail-recursion with a limited stack.
That's it.
Rustom Mody: your implementation lacks exactly where mine does. Try
listing the first 2000 primes... That's what I meant: I cannot in
general (with Python) get such list just by defining *what* it is, I
have to express *how* to get it (describing an algorithm).
"What" or "How": that is the question.
Steve Holden wrote:
> You just don't like the specific limit that Python imposes. So increase
> it with sys.setrecursionlimit().
That is obviously not the answer to my question.
Bryan Olson
> [...] why does
>
> (yield(x) for x in si(l) if x % p != 0)
>
> not work? I would have expected generator expression to play better
> with generators.
You have a statement, "yield(x)", where the construct requires
an expression.
--
--Bryan
I am a newcomer in the world of Python. But I am attracted by Python's power in handling text! Now I apply it to handle Chinese but the Chinese character cann't be displayed on the screen. What displayed on the screen is the 16bits codes. I am so puzzled! I believe this is an easy question to most of python users and an important question to me. Thanks a lot to your help!
Carsten Haese
You are not giving us any background information for troubleshooting
this. Your problem could be caused by a million different things, and
there is not point in us guessing. Please start by answering the
following questions:
1) What operating system are you using?
2) Can any programs on your computer display Chinese characters?
3) Where are you trying to display Chinese characters? Python command
line, in IDLE, in some GUI window?
4) Where are the Chinese characters you're trying to display coming
from? Are they hard-coded in your script, are they read from the
keyboard, from a file, from a database, from a web page?
--
Carsten Haese
http://informixdb.sourceforge.net
DaveM
The version I prefer has the woman asking, "What sort of woman do you take
me for?"
DaveM