Path: csiph.com!usenet.pasdenom.info!gegeweb.org!de-l.enfer-du-nord.net!feeder2.enfer-du-nord.net!feeds.phibee-telecom.net!newsfeed.xs4all.nl!newsfeed6.news.xs4all.nl!xs4all!newsgate.cistron.nl!newsgate.news.xs4all.nl!post.news.xs4all.nl!not-for-mail Return-Path: X-Original-To: python-list@python.org Delivered-To: python-list@mail.python.org X-Spam-Status: OK 0.030 X-Spam-Evidence: '*H*': 0.94; '*S*': 0.00; 'subject:Python': 0.05; 'am,': 0.12; 'from:addr:torriem': 0.16; 'from:name:michael torrie': 0.16; 'people?': 0.16; 'subject: \n ': 0.16; 'subject:Programming': 0.16; 'wrote:': 0.18; 'rewrite': 0.18; 'header:In-Reply-To:1': 0.22; 'way?': 0.23; 'code': 0.26; 'message-id:@gmail.com': 0.31; 'header:User-Agent:1': 0.33; 'it.': 0.33; 'to:addr:python-list': 0.35; 'received:org': 0.36; 'but': 0.37; 'subject:with': 0.37; 'received:192': 0.38; 'should': 0.38; 'that.': 0.39; 'recommended': 0.39; 'to:addr:python.org': 0.40; 'your': 0.61; 'subject:. ': 0.63; '08:45': 0.84 X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at torriefamily.org Date: Sat, 17 Mar 2012 09:01:59 -0600 From: Michael Torrie User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.9.2.24) Gecko/20111108 Fedora/3.1.16-1.fc14 Lightning/1.0b3pre Thunderbird/3.1.16 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: python-list@python.org Subject: Re: Programming D. E. Knuth in Python with the Deterministic Finite Automaton construct References: <4f64a3a0$0$1386$4fafbaef@reader2.news.tin.it> In-Reply-To: <4f64a3a0$0$1386$4fafbaef@reader2.news.tin.it> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-BeenThere: python-list@python.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: General discussion list for the Python programming language List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Newsgroups: comp.lang.python Message-ID: Lines: 9 NNTP-Posting-Host: 2001:888:2000:d::a6 X-Trace: 1331996530 news.xs4all.nl 6933 [2001:888:2000:d::a6]:58298 X-Complaints-To: abuse@xs4all.nl Xref: csiph.com comp.lang.python:21817 On 03/17/2012 08:45 AM, Kiuhnm wrote: > Your way is easy, but the result is poor. In what way? What is your recommended way? > Your should try to rewrite it. > Decompilers do exactly that. Decompilers rewrite code for people? That's really neat.