Minor changes #634
Minor changes #634
Conversation
| @@ -222,7 +222,7 @@ def prop_symbols(x): | |||
| elif is_prop_symbol(x.op): | |||
| return {x} | |||
| else: | |||
| return {symbol for arg in x.args for symbol in prop_symbols(arg)} | |||
| return set().union(*map(prop_symbols, x.args)) | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
To be honest, I prefer the comprehension to the set union with the map pointer, since it is much easier to understand (at least for me).
If both are correct, I would change it to the comprehension (which is simpler and stylistically closer to the way we do things in the repository).
That is unless the union is much, much faster or is the most popular way to deal with the problem.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The map method is efficient but I dont think we need to worry about speed as we are using only small expressions. Since it is not directly mentioned in any pseudocode, people could think of it as a simple blackbox function and not really care to look into it. Finally, it's upto @norvig
Maybe we can use both. One in each of the functions :D
| @@ -232,7 +232,7 @@ def constant_symbols(x): | |||
| elif is_prop_symbol(x.op) and not x.args: | |||
| return {x} | |||
| else: | |||
| return {symbol for arg in x.args for symbol in constant_symbols(arg)} | |||
| return set().union(*map(constant_symbols, x.args)) | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Same as my above review.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
If you think the comprehension is easier to understand, let's stick with that.
Based on the comments in #625