Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.python > #108830 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Herkermer Sherwood <theherk@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2016-05-19 09:31 -0700 |
| Last post | 2016-06-16 11:19 +1000 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 282 — 43 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.python
This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by
below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.
for / while else doesn't make sense Herkermer Sherwood <theherk@gmail.com> - 2016-05-19 09:31 -0700
Re: for / while else doesn't make sense Ned Batchelder <ned@nedbatchelder.com> - 2016-05-19 10:22 -0700
Re: for / while else doesn't make sense Steven D'Aprano <steve@pearwood.info> - 2016-05-20 04:02 +1000
Re: for / while else doesn't make sense theherk@gmail.com - 2016-05-19 11:47 -0700
Re: for / while else doesn't make sense Marko Rauhamaa <marko@pacujo.net> - 2016-05-19 23:28 +0300
Re: for / while else doesn't make sense David Jardine <david@jardine.de> - 2016-05-19 21:49 +0200
Re: for / while else doesn't make sense Steven D'Aprano <steve@pearwood.info> - 2016-05-20 03:46 +1000
Re: for / while else doesn't make sense Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.co.uk> - 2016-05-19 17:55 +0000
Re: for / while else doesn't make sense Steven D'Aprano <steve@pearwood.info> - 2016-05-20 10:06 +1000
Re: for / while else doesn't make sense gst <g.starck@gmail.com> - 2016-05-19 19:02 -0700
Re: for / while else doesn't make sense Stephen Hansen <me+python@ixokai.io> - 2016-05-19 23:53 -0700
Re: for / while else doesn't make sense Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.co.uk> - 2016-05-20 11:55 +0000
Re: for / while else doesn't make sense Dennis Lee Bieber <wlfraed@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-05-20 19:57 -0400
Re: for / while else doesn't make sense Steven D'Aprano <steve@pearwood.info> - 2016-05-21 21:26 +1000
Re: for / while else doesn't make sense Ethan Furman <ethan@stoneleaf.us> - 2016-05-20 16:58 -0700
Re: for / while else doesn't make sense Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.co.uk> - 2016-05-21 00:24 +0000
Re: for / while else doesn't make sense Steven D'Aprano <steve@pearwood.info> - 2016-05-21 13:50 +1000
Re: for / while else doesn't make sense Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2016-05-21 14:01 +1000
Re: for / while else doesn't make sense Steven D'Aprano <steve@pearwood.info> - 2016-05-21 19:56 +1000
Re: for / while else doesn't make sense Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2016-05-21 20:08 +1000
Re: for / while else doesn't make sense Steven D'Aprano <steve@pearwood.info> - 2016-05-21 20:55 +1000
Re: for / while else doesn't make sense Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2016-05-21 21:10 +1000
Re: for / while else doesn't make sense Erik <python@lucidity.plus.com> - 2016-05-21 08:20 +0100
Re: for / while else doesn't make sense Marko Rauhamaa <marko@pacujo.net> - 2016-05-21 11:37 +0300
Re: for / while else doesn't make sense Steven D'Aprano <steve@pearwood.info> - 2016-05-21 20:39 +1000
Re: for / while else doesn't make sense Erik <python@lucidity.plus.com> - 2016-05-21 21:48 +0100
Re: for / while else doesn't make sense Steven D'Aprano <steve@pearwood.info> - 2016-05-22 12:57 +1000
Re: for / while else doesn't make sense Michael Selik <michael.selik@gmail.com> - 2016-05-22 02:55 +0000
Re: for / while else doesn't make sense Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2016-05-21 17:29 +1000
Re: for / while else doesn't make sense Bob Martin <bob.martin@excite.com> - 2016-05-20 07:45 +0100
Re: for / while else doesn't make sense Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2016-05-20 06:01 +1000
Re: for / while else doesn't make sense Ian Kelly <ian.g.kelly@gmail.com> - 2016-05-19 14:11 -0600
Re: for / while else doesn't make sense Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2016-05-20 06:27 +1000
Re: for / while else doesn't make sense Gregory Ewing <greg.ewing@canterbury.ac.nz> - 2016-05-20 11:51 +1200
Re: for / while else doesn't make sense Erik <python@lucidity.plus.com> - 2016-05-20 09:09 +0100
Re: for / while else doesn't make sense Zachary Ware <zachary.ware+pylist@gmail.com> - 2016-05-20 10:59 -0500
Re: for / while else doesn't make sense Christopher Reimer <christopher_reimer@icloud.com> - 2016-05-20 12:20 -0700
Re: for / while else doesn't make sense Steven D'Aprano <steve@pearwood.info> - 2016-05-21 08:43 +1000
Re: for / while else doesn't make sense theherk@gmail.com - 2016-05-20 16:24 -0700
Re: for / while else doesn't make sense Marko Rauhamaa <marko@pacujo.net> - 2016-05-21 09:03 +0300
Re: for / while else doesn't make sense Steven D'Aprano <steve@pearwood.info> - 2016-05-21 21:26 +1000
Re: for / while else doesn't make sense Ian Kelly <ian.g.kelly@gmail.com> - 2016-05-21 07:51 -0600
Re: for / while else doesn't make sense Grant Edwards <grant.b.edwards@gmail.com> - 2016-05-21 15:20 +0000
Re: for / while else doesn't make sense Ben Finney <ben+python@benfinney.id.au> - 2016-05-21 10:21 +1000
Re: for / while else doesn't make sense Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.co.uk> - 2016-05-21 00:35 +0000
Re: for / while else doesn't make sense Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2016-05-21 12:05 +1000
Re: for / while else doesn't make sense Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.co.uk> - 2016-05-22 14:15 +0000
Re: for / while else doesn't make sense Marko Rauhamaa <marko@pacujo.net> - 2016-05-22 17:58 +0300
Re: for / while else doesn't make sense Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.co.uk> - 2016-05-22 15:09 +0000
Re: for / while else doesn't make sense Rustom Mody <rustompmody@gmail.com> - 2016-05-22 08:26 -0700
Re: for / while else doesn't make sense Random832 <random832@fastmail.com> - 2016-05-22 13:25 -0400
Re: for / while else doesn't make sense Rustom Mody <rustompmody@gmail.com> - 2016-05-22 10:34 -0700
Re: for / while else doesn't make sense Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.co.uk> - 2016-05-22 18:06 +0000
Re: for / while else doesn't make sense Random832 <random832@fastmail.com> - 2016-05-22 14:17 -0400
Re: for / while else doesn't make sense Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2016-05-23 17:09 +1000
Re: for / while else doesn't make sense Steven D'Aprano <steve@pearwood.info> - 2016-05-23 01:19 +1000
Re: for / while else doesn't make sense Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2016-05-23 01:32 +1000
Re: for / while else doesn't make sense Marko Rauhamaa <marko@pacujo.net> - 2016-05-22 18:50 +0300
Re: for / while else doesn't make sense Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.co.uk> - 2016-05-22 15:52 +0000
Re: for / while else doesn't make sense Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2016-05-23 02:35 +1000
Re: for / while else doesn't make sense Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.co.uk> - 2016-05-22 16:46 +0000
Re: for / while else doesn't make sense Rustom Mody <rustompmody@gmail.com> - 2016-05-22 10:22 -0700
Re: for / while else doesn't make sense Random832 <random832@fastmail.com> - 2016-05-22 13:30 -0400
Re: for / while else doesn't make sense Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.co.uk> - 2016-05-22 17:55 +0000
Re: for / while else doesn't make sense Random832 <random832@fastmail.com> - 2016-05-22 14:14 -0400
Re: for / while else doesn't make sense Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-05-22 20:51 +0100
Re: for / while else doesn't make sense Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.co.uk> - 2016-05-23 00:34 +0000
Re: for / while else doesn't make sense Ian Kelly <ian.g.kelly@gmail.com> - 2016-05-22 17:04 -0600
Re: for / while else doesn't make sense Steven D'Aprano <steve@pearwood.info> - 2016-05-23 08:09 +1000
Re: for / while else doesn't make sense Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.co.uk> - 2016-05-23 00:36 +0000
Re: for / while else doesn't make sense Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2016-05-23 11:01 +1000
Re: for / while else doesn't make sense Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.co.uk> - 2016-05-23 01:00 +0000
Re: for / while else doesn't make sense breamoreboy@gmail.com - 2016-05-22 18:47 -0700
Re: for / while else doesn't make sense Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.co.uk> - 2016-05-23 15:35 +0000
Re: for / while else doesn't make sense MRAB <python@mrabarnett.plus.com> - 2016-05-23 02:51 +0100
Re: for / while else doesn't make sense Ben Finney <ben+python@benfinney.id.au> - 2016-05-23 14:13 +1000
Re: for / while else doesn't make sense Rustom Mody <rustompmody@gmail.com> - 2016-05-22 23:09 -0700
Re: for / while else doesn't make sense Marko Rauhamaa <marko@pacujo.net> - 2016-05-23 09:30 +0300
Re: for / while else doesn't make sense Rustom Mody <rustompmody@gmail.com> - 2016-05-22 23:46 -0700
Re: for / while else doesn't make sense Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2016-05-23 18:09 +1000
Re: for / while else doesn't make sense Ian Kelly <ian.g.kelly@gmail.com> - 2016-05-23 08:14 -0600
Re: for / while else doesn't make sense Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-05-23 15:29 +0100
Re: for / while else doesn't make sense Ian Kelly <ian.g.kelly@gmail.com> - 2016-05-23 08:49 -0600
Re: for / while else doesn't make sense Pete Forman <petef4+usenet@gmail.com> - 2016-05-23 19:16 +0100
Re: for / while else doesn't make sense Ian Kelly <ian.g.kelly@gmail.com> - 2016-05-23 13:24 -0600
Re: for / while else doesn't make sense Pete Forman <petef4+usenet@gmail.com> - 2016-05-23 22:50 +0100
Re: for / while else doesn't make sense Gregory Ewing <greg.ewing@canterbury.ac.nz> - 2016-05-24 18:49 +1200
Re: for / while else doesn't make sense Pete Forman <petef4+usenet@gmail.com> - 2016-05-24 19:03 +0100
Re: for / while else doesn't make sense Gregory Ewing <greg.ewing@canterbury.ac.nz> - 2016-05-25 18:35 +1200
Re: for / while else doesn't make sense Steven D'Aprano <steve@pearwood.info> - 2016-05-24 10:38 +1000
Re: for / while else doesn't make sense Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2016-05-24 00:57 +1000
Re: for / while else doesn't make sense Steven D'Aprano <steve@pearwood.info> - 2016-05-24 01:47 +1000
Re: for / while else doesn't make sense Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2016-05-24 01:57 +1000
Re: for / while else doesn't make sense Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-05-23 17:51 +0100
Re: for / while else doesn't make sense Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2016-05-24 02:59 +1000
Re: for / while else doesn't make sense Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-05-23 20:55 +0100
Re: for / while else doesn't make sense Mark Dickinson <mdickinson@enthought.com> - 2016-05-23 20:17 +0000
Re: for / while else doesn't make sense Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-05-23 22:01 +0100
Numerical methods [was Re: for / while else doesn't make sense] Steven D'Aprano <steve@pearwood.info> - 2016-05-24 10:57 +1000
Re: for / while else doesn't make sense Rustom Mody <rustompmody@gmail.com> - 2016-05-23 08:30 -0700
Re: for / while else doesn't make sense Ian Kelly <ian.g.kelly@gmail.com> - 2016-05-23 10:02 -0600
Re: for / while else doesn't make sense Grant Edwards <grant.b.edwards@gmail.com> - 2016-05-23 20:22 +0000
Re: for / while else doesn't make sense Ian Kelly <ian.g.kelly@gmail.com> - 2016-05-23 09:53 -0600
When were real numbers born? (was for / while else doesn't make sense) Rustom Mody <rustompmody@gmail.com> - 2016-05-23 22:02 -0700
Re: for / while else doesn't make sense Christopher Reimer <christopher_reimer@icloud.com> - 2016-05-23 15:36 -0700
Re: for / while else doesn't make sense Steven D'Aprano <steve@pearwood.info> - 2016-05-24 11:05 +1000
Re: for / while else doesn't make sense Ned Batchelder <ned@nedbatchelder.com> - 2016-05-23 19:19 -0700
META Culture of this place [was Re: for / while else doesn't make sense] Steven D'Aprano <steve@pearwood.info> - 2016-05-25 02:43 +1000
Re: META Culture of this place [was Re: for / while else doesn't make sense] boB Stepp <robertvstepp@gmail.com> - 2016-05-24 12:19 -0500
Re: META Culture of this place [was Re: for / while else doesn't make sense] Ned Batchelder <ned@nedbatchelder.com> - 2016-05-24 10:44 -0700
Re: META Culture of this place [was Re: for / while else doesn't make sense] Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2016-05-24 12:54 -0700
Re: for / while else doesn't make sense Grant Edwards <grant.b.edwards@gmail.com> - 2016-05-24 14:23 +0000
Re: for / while else doesn't make sense Christopher Reimer <christopher_reimer@icloud.com> - 2016-05-24 10:40 -0700
Re: for / while else doesn't make sense Gregory Ewing <greg.ewing@canterbury.ac.nz> - 2016-05-25 18:38 +1200
Extended ASCII [was Re: for / while else doesn't make sense] Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2016-05-25 17:30 +1000
Re: for / while else doesn't make sense Christopher Reimer <christopher_reimer@icloud.com> - 2016-05-25 02:10 -0700
Exended ASCII and code pages [was Re: for / while else doesn't make sense] Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2016-05-25 20:19 +1000
Re: Exended ASCII and code pages [was Re: for / while else doesn't make sense] Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2016-05-25 20:30 +1000
Re: Exended ASCII and code pages [was Re: for / while else doesn't make sense] Erik <python@lucidity.plus.com> - 2016-05-25 22:03 +0100
Re: Exended ASCII and code pages [was Re: for / while else doesn't make sense] Jussi Piitulainen <jussi.piitulainen@helsinki.fi> - 2016-05-26 10:21 +0300
Re: Exended ASCII and code pages [was Re: for / while else doesn't make sense] Rustom Mody <rustompmody@gmail.com> - 2016-05-26 00:44 -0700
Re: Exended ASCII and code pages [was Re: for / while else doesn't make sense] Marko Rauhamaa <marko@pacujo.net> - 2016-05-26 12:11 +0300
Re: Exended ASCII and code pages [was Re: for / while else doesn't make sense] Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2016-05-26 19:20 +1000
Re: Exended ASCII and code pages [was Re: for / while else doesn't make sense] Erik <python@lucidity.plus.com> - 2016-05-26 21:54 +0100
Re: Exended ASCII and code pages [was Re: for / while else doesn't make sense] Jussi Piitulainen <jussi.piitulainen@helsinki.fi> - 2016-05-27 08:03 +0300
Re: Exended ASCII and code pages [was Re: for / while else doesn't make sense] Dennis Lee Bieber <wlfraed@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-05-25 21:28 -0400
Re: Exended ASCII and code pages [was Re: for / while else doesn't make sense] Erik <python@lucidity.plus.com> - 2016-05-26 09:11 +0100
Re: Exended ASCII and code pages [was Re: for / while else doesn't make sense] Marko Rauhamaa <marko@pacujo.net> - 2016-05-26 12:20 +0300
Re: Exended ASCII and code pages [was Re: for / while else doesn't make sense] Erik <python@lucidity.plus.com> - 2016-05-26 21:29 +0100
Re: Exended ASCII and code pages [was Re: for / while else doesn't make sense] Marko Rauhamaa <marko@pacujo.net> - 2016-05-27 00:12 +0300
Re: Exended ASCII and code pages [was Re: for / while else doesn't make sense] Steven D'Aprano <steve@pearwood.info> - 2016-05-27 13:35 +1000
Re: Exended ASCII and code pages [was Re: for / while else doesn't make sense] Marko Rauhamaa <marko@pacujo.net> - 2016-05-27 09:10 +0300
Re: Exended ASCII and code pages [was Re: for / while else doesn't make sense] Steven D'Aprano <steve@pearwood.info> - 2016-05-27 16:47 +1000
Re: Exended ASCII and code pages [was Re: for / while else doesn't make sense] Marko Rauhamaa <marko@pacujo.net> - 2016-05-27 10:04 +0300
Re: Exended ASCII and code pages [was Re: for / while else doesn't make sense] Steven D'Aprano <steve@pearwood.info> - 2016-05-27 19:56 +1000
Re: Exended ASCII and code pages [was Re: for / while else doesn't make sense] Random832 <random832@fastmail.com> - 2016-05-27 09:51 -0400
Re: Exended ASCII and code pages [was Re: for / while else doesn't make sense] Rustom Mody <rustompmody@gmail.com> - 2016-05-27 08:53 -0700
Re: Exended ASCII and code pages [was Re: for / while else doesn't make sense] Random832 <random832@fastmail.com> - 2016-05-27 12:09 -0400
Coding systems are political (was Exended ASCII and code pages) Rustom Mody <rustompmody@gmail.com> - 2016-05-27 21:46 -0700
Re: Coding systems are political (was Exended ASCII and code pages) wxjmfauth@gmail.com - 2016-05-28 08:16 -0700
Re: Coding systems are political (was Exended ASCII and code pages) Ned Batchelder <ned@nedbatchelder.com> - 2016-05-28 08:50 -0700
Re: Coding systems are political (was Exended ASCII and code pages) Random832 <random832@fastmail.com> - 2016-05-28 14:05 -0400
Re: Coding systems are political (was Exended ASCII and code pages) Steven D'Aprano <steve@pearwood.info> - 2016-05-29 15:37 +1000
Re: Coding systems are political (was Exended ASCII and code pages) Rustom Mody <rustompmody@gmail.com> - 2016-05-28 23:12 -0700
Re: Coding systems are political (was Exended ASCII and code pages) Terry Reedy <tjreedy@udel.edu> - 2016-05-29 14:46 -0400
Re: Coding systems are political (was Exended ASCII and code pages) Christian Gollwitzer <auriocus@gmx.de> - 2016-05-29 22:29 +0200
Re: Coding systems are political (was Exended ASCII and code pages) wxjmfauth@gmail.com - 2016-05-30 06:35 -0700
Re: Coding systems are political (was Exended ASCII and code pages) Rustom Mody <rustompmody@gmail.com> - 2016-06-04 20:54 -0700
Re: Coding systems are political (was Exended ASCII and code pages) alister <alister.ware@ntlworld.com> - 2016-05-29 06:19 +0000
Re: Coding systems are political (was Exended ASCII and code pages) Gregory Ewing <greg.ewing@canterbury.ac.nz> - 2016-05-29 20:54 +1200
Re: Coding systems are political (was Exended ASCII and code pages) Marko Rauhamaa <marko@pacujo.net> - 2016-05-29 12:56 +0300
Re: Coding systems are political (was Exended ASCII and code pages) wxjmfauth@gmail.com - 2016-05-30 09:11 -0700
Re: Exended ASCII and code pages [was Re: for / while else doesn't make sense] Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2016-05-28 02:16 +1000
Re: Exended ASCII and code pages [was Re: for / while else doesn't make sense] Steven D'Aprano <steve@pearwood.info> - 2016-05-28 18:54 +1000
Re: Exended ASCII and code pages [was Re: for / while else doesn't make sense] Marko Rauhamaa <marko@pacujo.net> - 2016-05-27 22:03 +0300
Re: Exended ASCII and code pages [was Re: for / while else doesn't make sense] Rustom Mody <rustompmody@gmail.com> - 2016-05-27 21:23 -0700
Re: Exended ASCII and code pages [was Re: for / while else doesn't make sense] Rustom Mody <rustompmody@gmail.com> - 2016-05-26 03:39 -0700
Re: Exended ASCII and code pages [was Re: for / while else doesn't make sense] Dennis Lee Bieber <wlfraed@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-05-26 07:07 -0400
Re: for / while else doesn't make sense Marko Rauhamaa <marko@pacujo.net> - 2016-05-25 13:47 +0300
Re: for / while else doesn't make sense Christopher Reimer <christopher_reimer@icloud.com> - 2016-05-25 05:19 -0700
Re: for / while else doesn't make sense Rustom Mody <rustompmody@gmail.com> - 2016-05-25 22:49 -0700
Re: for / while else doesn't make sense Jussi Piitulainen <jussi.piitulainen@helsinki.fi> - 2016-05-26 09:54 +0300
Re: for / while else doesn't make sense Rustom Mody <rustompmody@gmail.com> - 2016-05-26 00:44 -0700
Re: for / while else doesn't make sense wxjmfauth@gmail.com - 2016-05-26 00:52 -0700
Re: for / while else doesn't make sense Marko Rauhamaa <marko@pacujo.net> - 2016-05-26 12:05 +0300
Re: for / while else doesn't make sense Random832 <random832@fastmail.com> - 2016-05-29 14:41 -0400
Re: for / while else doesn't make sense Marko Rauhamaa <marko@pacujo.net> - 2016-05-29 22:01 +0300
Re: for / while else doesn't make sense Dennis Lee Bieber <wlfraed@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-05-23 20:07 -0400
Re: for / while else doesn't make sense Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2016-05-24 10:11 +1000
Re: for / while else doesn't make sense Steven D'Aprano <steve@pearwood.info> - 2016-05-24 02:59 +1000
Re: for / while else doesn't make sense Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.co.uk> - 2016-05-23 17:09 +0000
Re: for / while else doesn't make sense Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2016-05-24 03:33 +1000
Re: for / while else doesn't make sense Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.co.uk> - 2016-05-23 17:57 +0000
Re: for / while else doesn't make sense Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2016-05-24 04:14 +1000
Re: for / while else doesn't make sense Random832 <random832@fastmail.com> - 2016-05-23 13:44 -0400
Re: for / while else doesn't make sense Ian Kelly <ian.g.kelly@gmail.com> - 2016-05-23 11:52 -0600
Re: for / while else doesn't make sense Alan Evangelista <alanoe@linux.vnet.ibm.com> - 2016-05-23 15:06 -0300
Re: for / while else doesn't make sense Steven D'Aprano <steve@pearwood.info> - 2016-05-24 12:15 +1000
Re: for / while else doesn't make sense Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.co.uk> - 2016-05-24 10:54 +0000
Re: for / while else doesn't make sense Steven D'Aprano <steve@pearwood.info> - 2016-05-25 03:44 +1000
Re: for / while else doesn't make sense Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2016-05-25 03:49 +1000
Re: for / while else doesn't make sense MRAB <python@mrabarnett.plus.com> - 2016-05-24 19:57 +0100
Re: for / while else doesn't make sense Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.co.uk> - 2016-05-24 20:10 +0000
Re: for / while else doesn't make sense Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-05-23 20:29 +0100
Re: for / while else doesn't make sense Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2016-05-23 18:33 +1000
Re: for / while else doesn't make sense Grant Edwards <grant.b.edwards@gmail.com> - 2016-05-21 02:17 +0000
Re: for / while else doesn't make sense Christopher Reimer <christopher_reimer@icloud.com> - 2016-05-20 18:23 -0700
Re: for / while else doesn't make sense Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2016-05-21 12:31 +1000
Re: for / while else doesn't make sense Christopher Reimer <christopher_reimer@icloud.com> - 2016-05-20 20:47 -0700
Re: for / while else doesn't make sense Rustom Mody <rustompmody@gmail.com> - 2016-05-20 22:18 -0700
Education [was Re: for / while else doesn't make sense] Steven D'Aprano <steve@pearwood.info> - 2016-05-21 20:05 +1000
Re: Education [was Re: for / while else doesn't make sense] Christopher Reimer <christopher_reimer@icloud.com> - 2016-05-21 08:51 -0700
Re: Education [was Re: for / while else doesn't make sense] Marko Rauhamaa <marko@pacujo.net> - 2016-05-21 20:08 +0300
Re: Education [was Re: for / while else doesn't make sense] Rob Gaddi <rgaddi@highlandtechnology.invalid> - 2016-05-23 16:44 +0000
Re: for / while else doesn't make sense Lawrence D’Oliveiro <lawrencedo99@gmail.com> - 2016-06-01 16:39 -0700
Re: for / while else doesn't make sense Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2016-06-02 13:44 +1000
Re: for / while else doesn't make sense Rob Gaddi <rgaddi@highlandtechnology.invalid> - 2016-06-02 20:09 +0000
Re: for / while else doesn't make sense Ian Kelly <ian.g.kelly@gmail.com> - 2016-06-02 14:46 -0600
Re: for / while else doesn't make sense BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-06-02 21:52 +0100
Re: for / while else doesn't make sense Lawrence D’Oliveiro <lawrencedo99@gmail.com> - 2016-06-02 18:05 -0700
Re: for / while else doesn't make sense BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-06-03 10:23 +0100
Re: for / while else doesn't make sense Lawrence D’Oliveiro <lawrencedo99@gmail.com> - 2016-06-02 19:47 -0700
Re: for / while else doesn't make sense BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-06-03 10:32 +0100
Re: for / while else doesn't make sense Lawrence D’Oliveiro <lawrencedo99@gmail.com> - 2016-06-03 09:22 -0700
Re: for / while else doesn't make sense Steven D'Aprano <steve@pearwood.info> - 2016-06-04 12:20 +1000
Re: for / while else doesn't make sense Lawrence D’Oliveiro <lawrencedo99@gmail.com> - 2016-06-03 20:41 -0700
Re: for / while else doesn't make sense Steven D'Aprano <steve@pearwood.info> - 2016-06-04 19:27 +1000
Re: for / while else doesn't make sense Lawrence D’Oliveiro <lawrencedo99@gmail.com> - 2016-06-04 20:20 -0700
Re: for / while else doesn't make sense BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-06-04 13:55 +0100
Re: for / while else doesn't make sense Lawrence D’Oliveiro <lawrencedo99@gmail.com> - 2016-06-02 18:08 -0700
Re: for / while else doesn't make sense Rob Gaddi <rgaddi@highlandtechnology.invalid> - 2016-06-03 15:52 +0000
Re: for / while else doesn't make sense Lawrence D’Oliveiro <lawrencedo99@gmail.com> - 2016-06-03 09:24 -0700
Re: for / while else doesn't make sense Steven D'Aprano <steve@pearwood.info> - 2016-06-04 13:00 +1000
Re: for / while else doesn't make sense Lawrence D’Oliveiro <lawrencedo99@gmail.com> - 2016-06-03 20:43 -0700
Re: for / while else doesn't make sense Ned Batchelder <ned@nedbatchelder.com> - 2016-06-04 04:37 -0700
Re: for / while else doesn't make sense Lawrence D’Oliveiro <lawrencedo99@gmail.com> - 2016-06-04 20:29 -0700
Re: for / while else doesn't make sense Steven D'Aprano <steve@pearwood.info> - 2016-06-05 16:35 +1000
Re: for / while else doesn't make sense Ned Batchelder <ned@nedbatchelder.com> - 2016-06-05 04:29 -0700
Re: for / while else doesn't make sense Marko Rauhamaa <marko@pacujo.net> - 2016-06-05 14:43 +0300
Re: for / while else doesn't make sense Lawrence D’Oliveiro <lawrencedo99@gmail.com> - 2016-06-06 17:51 -0700
Re: for / while else doesn't make sense Dan Sommers <dan@tombstonezero.net> - 2016-06-07 03:34 +0000
Re: for / while else doesn't make sense Lawrence D’Oliveiro <lawrencedo99@gmail.com> - 2016-06-07 00:53 -0700
Re: for / while else doesn't make sense Dan Sommers <dan@tombstonezero.net> - 2016-06-07 12:27 +0000
Re: for / while else doesn't make sense Lawrence D’Oliveiro <lawrencedo99@gmail.com> - 2016-06-07 14:57 -0700
Re: for / while else doesn't make sense Ian Kelly <ian.g.kelly@gmail.com> - 2016-06-06 22:35 -0600
Re: for / while else doesn't make sense Lawrence D’Oliveiro <lawrencedo99@gmail.com> - 2016-06-07 00:52 -0700
Re: for / while else doesn't make sense Marko Rauhamaa <marko@pacujo.net> - 2016-06-07 11:00 +0300
Re: for / while else doesn't make sense Lawrence D’Oliveiro <lawrencedo99@gmail.com> - 2016-06-07 15:07 -0700
Re: for / while else doesn't make sense Ned Batchelder <ned@nedbatchelder.com> - 2016-06-07 17:31 -0700
Re: for / while else doesn't make sense Lawrence D’Oliveiro <lawrencedo99@gmail.com> - 2016-06-07 18:25 -0700
Re: for / while else doesn't make sense Lawrence D’Oliveiro <lawrencedo99@gmail.com> - 2016-06-07 18:29 -0700
Re: for / while else doesn't make sense Ned Batchelder <ned@nedbatchelder.com> - 2016-06-07 18:40 -0700
Re: for / while else doesn't make sense breamoreboy@gmail.com - 2016-06-07 20:45 -0700
Re: for / while else doesn't make sense Marko Rauhamaa <marko@pacujo.net> - 2016-06-08 08:24 +0300
Re: for / while else doesn't make sense Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2016-06-07 18:36 +1000
Re: for / while else doesn't make sense Ian Kelly <ian.g.kelly@gmail.com> - 2016-06-07 05:52 -0600
Re: for / while else doesn't make sense Lawrence D’Oliveiro <lawrencedo99@gmail.com> - 2016-06-07 14:58 -0700
Re: for / while else doesn't make sense Marko Rauhamaa <marko@pacujo.net> - 2016-06-08 01:06 +0300
Re: for / while else doesn't make sense Lawrence D’Oliveiro <lawrencedo99@gmail.com> - 2016-06-07 15:08 -0700
Re: for / while else doesn't make sense Marko Rauhamaa <marko@pacujo.net> - 2016-06-08 08:27 +0300
Re: for / while else doesn't make sense Lawrence D’Oliveiro <lawrencedo99@gmail.com> - 2016-06-08 17:34 -0700
Re: for / while else doesn't make sense Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2016-06-09 18:19 +1000
Re: for / while else doesn't make sense Ian Kelly <ian.g.kelly@gmail.com> - 2016-06-07 17:11 -0600
Re: for / while else doesn't make sense Lawrence D’Oliveiro <lawrencedo99@gmail.com> - 2016-06-06 17:53 -0700
Re: for / while else doesn't make sense Ethan Furman <ethan@stoneleaf.us> - 2016-06-07 21:13 -0700
Re: for / while else doesn't make sense pavlovevidence@gmail.com - 2016-06-12 00:01 -0700
AttributeError into a bloc try-except AttributeError Vincent Vande Vyvre <vincent.vande.vyvre@telenet.be> - 2016-06-12 09:20 +0200
Re: AttributeError into a bloc try-except AttributeError Vincent Vande Vyvre <vincent.vande.vyvre@telenet.be> - 2016-06-12 10:30 +0200
Re: for / while else doesn't make sense Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2016-06-12 20:06 +1000
Re: for / while else doesn't make sense Michael Selik <michael.selik@gmail.com> - 2016-06-12 18:44 +0000
Re: for / while else doesn't make sense Steven D'Aprano <steve@pearwood.info> - 2016-06-13 12:12 +1000
Re: for / while else doesn't make sense Rustom Mody <rustompmody@gmail.com> - 2016-06-12 20:46 -0700
Re: for / while else doesn't make sense Michael Selik <michael.selik@gmail.com> - 2016-06-13 23:45 +0000
Re: for / while else doesn't make sense Steven D'Aprano <steve@pearwood.info> - 2016-06-14 12:43 +1000
Re: for / while else doesn't make sense Michael Selik <michael.selik@gmail.com> - 2016-06-14 04:37 +0000
Re: for / while else doesn't make sense Rustom Mody <rustompmody@gmail.com> - 2016-06-14 08:33 -0700
Re: for / while else doesn't make sense Lawrence D’Oliveiro <lawrencedo99@gmail.com> - 2016-06-14 16:27 -0700
Re: for / while else doesn't make sense Rustom Mody <rustompmody@gmail.com> - 2016-06-14 18:29 -0700
Re: for / while else doesn't make sense Steven D'Aprano <steve@pearwood.info> - 2016-06-15 13:12 +1000
Re: for / while else doesn't make sense Rustom Mody <rustompmody@gmail.com> - 2016-06-14 20:38 -0700
Re: for / while else doesn't make sense Rustom Mody <rustompmody@gmail.com> - 2016-06-15 04:19 -0700
Re: for / while else doesn't make sense BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-06-15 13:27 +0100
Re: for / while else doesn't make sense Rustom Mody <rustompmody@gmail.com> - 2016-06-15 05:44 -0700
Re: for / while else doesn't make sense Random832 <random832@fastmail.com> - 2016-06-15 09:51 -0400
Re: for / while else doesn't make sense Rustom Mody <rustompmody@gmail.com> - 2016-06-15 07:20 -0700
Re: for / while else doesn't make sense Random832 <random832@fastmail.com> - 2016-06-15 11:54 -0400
Re: for / while else doesn't make sense Rustom Mody <rustompmody@gmail.com> - 2016-06-15 10:03 -0700
Re: for / while else doesn't make sense BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-06-15 18:27 +0100
Re: for / while else doesn't make sense Steven D'Aprano <steve@pearwood.info> - 2016-06-16 11:40 +1000
Re: for / while else doesn't make sense Michael Selik <michael.selik@gmail.com> - 2016-06-15 17:18 +0000
Re: for / while else doesn't make sense Random832 <random832@fastmail.com> - 2016-06-15 13:41 -0400
Re: for / while else doesn't make sense Rustom Mody <rustompmody@gmail.com> - 2016-06-15 07:31 -0700
Re: for / while else doesn't make sense Lawrence D’Oliveiro <lawrencedo99@gmail.com> - 2016-06-15 19:59 -0700
Re: for / while else doesn't make sense Lawrence D’Oliveiro <lawrencedo99@gmail.com> - 2016-06-15 19:54 -0700
What is structured programming (was for/while else doesn't make sense) Rustom Mody <rustompmody@gmail.com> - 2016-06-15 22:48 -0700
Re: What is structured programming (was for/while else doesn't make sense) Lawrence D’Oliveiro <lawrencedo99@gmail.com> - 2016-06-15 22:57 -0700
Re: What is structured programming (was for/while else doesn't make sense) Rustom Mody <rustompmody@gmail.com> - 2016-06-16 04:12 -0700
Re: What is structured programming (was for/while else doesn't make sense) Lawrence D’Oliveiro <lawrencedo99@gmail.com> - 2016-06-16 18:53 -0700
Re: What is structured programming (was for/while else doesn't make sense) Rustom Mody <rustompmody@gmail.com> - 2016-06-17 09:32 -0700
Re: What is structured programming (was for/while else doesn't make sense) Lawrence D’Oliveiro <lawrencedo99@gmail.com> - 2016-06-17 16:07 -0700
Re: for / while else doesn't make sense Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2016-06-15 23:56 +1000
Re: for / while else doesn't make sense Steven D'Aprano <steve@pearwood.info> - 2016-06-16 11:19 +1000
Page 4 of 15 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 … 15 Next page →
| From | Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-22 16:46 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <slrnnk3opm.krr.jon+usenet@wintry.unequivocal.co.uk> |
| In reply to | #108948 |
On 2016-05-22, Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> wrote: > Python's int and float types are both approximations to a > non-representable type called a "real number". Sorry, I have to stop you there as the entire premise of your post is clearly wrong. "int" is not "an approximation of real numbers", it's a model of the mathematical concept "integers", and it's not an approximation, and since the long/int unification you can't even overflow it as I understand things (barring ridiculous situations like running out of memory).
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Rustom Mody <rustompmody@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-22 10:22 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <b199f688-93e9-4834-b232-8bd188215ce0@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #108949 |
On Sunday, May 22, 2016 at 10:20:11 PM UTC+5:30, Jon Ribbens wrote: > On 2016-05-22, Chris Angelico wrote: > > Python's int and float types are both approximations to a > > non-representable type called a "real number". > > Sorry, I have to stop you there as the entire premise of your post is > clearly wrong. "int" is not "an approximation of real numbers", it's > a model of the mathematical concept "integers", and it's not an > approximation, and since the long/int unification you can't even > overflow it as I understand things (barring ridiculous situations like > running out of memory). Well maybe Chris should have said (or meant to say?) In math: ℤ ⊆ ℝ whereas in programming int and float are disjoint types. So structurally the (int,float) type pair poorly approximates the (ℤ, ℝ) pair of math sets Doesnt mean I agree with > we can't perfectly represent real numbers or calculate with them, so we do > the best we can Floats are a grotesque travesty of ℝ At the least, interval arithmetic can help automatically do the numerical analysis for you. Then there are all kinds of rational approximations like continued fractions which are better than ℚ All the way to "computable real numbers" We're stuck with them because that's the hardware we've got. Nothing intrinsic or necessary about it
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Random832 <random832@fastmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-22 13:30 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <mailman.2.1463938241.20402.python-list@python.org> |
| In reply to | #108949 |
On Sun, May 22, 2016, at 12:46, Jon Ribbens wrote: > Sorry, I have to stop you there as the entire premise of your post is > clearly wrong. "int" is not "an approximation of real numbers", it's > a model of the mathematical concept "integers", It is a representation of Z, a subset of R (as is float, technically, though that particular subset has no nice name like Z and Q) The operators that apply to it are the operations on R, even operations under which Z (or even R) is not closed.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-22 17:55 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <slrnnk3sqn.krr.jon+usenet@wintry.unequivocal.co.uk> |
| In reply to | #108952 |
On 2016-05-22, Random832 <random832@fastmail.com> wrote: > On Sun, May 22, 2016, at 12:46, Jon Ribbens wrote: >> Sorry, I have to stop you there as the entire premise of your post is >> clearly wrong. "int" is not "an approximation of real numbers", it's >> a model of the mathematical concept "integers", > > It is a representation of Z, a subset of R Yes, that's what I just said. "Z" is just (an approximation of!) a symbol that means "the set of integers". > (as is float, technically, though that particular subset has no nice > name like Z and Q) The operators that apply to it are the operations > on R, even operations under which Z (or even R) is not closed. No, in Python integers are closed under the standard arithmetic operators (+ - * / % **) - except, since Python 3, for "/", which is now a special case.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Random832 <random832@fastmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-22 14:14 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <mailman.3.1463940890.20402.python-list@python.org> |
| In reply to | #108954 |
On Sun, May 22, 2016, at 13:55, Jon Ribbens wrote: > No, in Python integers are closed under the standard arithmetic > operators (+ - * / % **) Z is not closed under standard division, as surely as N isn't closed under subtraction and R isn't closed under exponentiation. That is a mathematical fact, not one about any particular language. What you are saying is that Python 2's "/" is _not_ standard division (you want to talk about the principle of least surprise...), and is therefore _not_ a standard arithmetic operation. It's not Euclidean division, either, since it gives a negative remainder for negative divisors.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-22 20:51 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <877felub0o.fsf@bsb.me.uk> |
| In reply to | #108954 |
Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.co.uk> writes: <snip> > No, in Python integers are closed under the standard arithmetic > operators (+ - * / % **) - except, since Python 3, for "/", which > is now a special case. 2 ** -1 is 0.5 even in Python 2[*]. I agree with your general point (that floats should not pop up unbidden) but I don't think you need to exclude the possibly that an operator can do that. With perfect hindsight, I think I'd have had the integers closed under operators +, -, *, //, % and (say) ^, whilst making it clear that / and ** produce floats. There's no reason to see this as being any less explicit that writing 1.0 as a way to make your intent to use floats explicit. * Not a Python expert so all I means is that I get 0.5 on my machine and I'm assuming that's what Python 2 mandates as the result. -- Ben.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-23 00:34 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <slrnnk4k87.krr.jon+usenet@wintry.unequivocal.co.uk> |
| In reply to | #108961 |
On 2016-05-22, Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> wrote: > Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.co.uk> writes: ><snip> >> No, in Python integers are closed under the standard arithmetic >> operators (+ - * / % **) - except, since Python 3, for "/", which >> is now a special case. > > 2 ** -1 is 0.5 even in Python 2[*]. Haha, excellent, well found. I was wondering if there were any edge cases I was wrong about. I suppose ideally I would make it so that 2 ** -1 throws an exception or something. But of course this particular train has left the station a long time ago. > I agree with your general point (that floats should not pop up unbidden) > but I don't think you need to exclude the possibly that an operator can > do that. With perfect hindsight, I think I'd have had the integers > closed under operators +, -, *, //, % and (say) ^, whilst making it > clear that / and ** produce floats. There's no reason to see this as > being any less explicit that writing 1.0 as a way to make your intent to > use floats explicit. My fundamental point is that floats are surprising, so people should not be surprised by them arriving unbidden - and most of the time, there is no need at all for them to turn up unannounced. Making that occurrence more likely rather than less was a mistake.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ian Kelly <ian.g.kelly@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-22 17:04 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <mailman.9.1463958294.20402.python-list@python.org> |
| In reply to | #108954 |
On Sun, May 22, 2016 at 11:55 AM, Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.co.uk> wrote: > On 2016-05-22, Random832 <random832@fastmail.com> wrote: >> On Sun, May 22, 2016, at 12:46, Jon Ribbens wrote: >>> Sorry, I have to stop you there as the entire premise of your post is >>> clearly wrong. "int" is not "an approximation of real numbers", it's >>> a model of the mathematical concept "integers", >> >> It is a representation of Z, a subset of R > > Yes, that's what I just said. "Z" is just (an approximation of!) > a symbol that means "the set of integers". > >> (as is float, technically, though that particular subset has no nice >> name like Z and Q) The operators that apply to it are the operations >> on R, even operations under which Z (or even R) is not closed. > > No, in Python integers are closed under the standard arithmetic > operators (+ - * / % **) - except, since Python 3, for "/", which > is now a special case. If you want Python integers to be closed under division *and* be mathematically correct then the result of 1 / 2 should be the multiplicative inverse of 2, which is *undefined* in Z. While that might be an argument for raising an exception, it's not in any way a justification of returning 0.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Steven D'Aprano <steve@pearwood.info> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-23 08:09 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <57422e03$0$1596$c3e8da3$5496439d@news.astraweb.com> |
| In reply to | #108947 |
On Mon, 23 May 2016 01:52 am, Jon Ribbens wrote:
> On 2016-05-22, Steven D'Aprano <steve@pearwood.info> wrote:
>> How is this any better though? Complicated or not, people want to divide
>> 1 by 2 and get 0.5. That is the functional requirement. Furthermore, they
>> want to use the ordinary division symbol / rather than having to import
>> some library or call a function.
>
> That's a circular argument. You're defining the result as the
> requirement and then saying that proves the result is necessary.
> Clearly, people managed when 1/2 returned 0, and continue to do so
> today in Python 2 and other languages.
I'm not defining the result. 4000+ years of mathematics defines the result.
If you get up off your chair and wander around and ask people other than C
programmers "What's one divide by two?", I am confident that virtually zero
percent will answer "zero".
People only managed when 1/2 returned 0 by *working around the problem*, and
yes, it is a problem. They work around it by explicitly casting values to
float (which, if carelessly done, just introduces new problems), or by
using "from __future__ import division".
>> Having 1/2 return 0 (as Python 2 does by default) doesn't make the
>> language any less complicated. It doesn't avoid the complexity of
>> floats, it merely breaks the principle of least surprise,
>
> No, it *adheres* to the principle of least surprise. Floats appearing
> out of nowhere is surprising. Python 2's behaviour adhered to the
> principle, and Python 3's breaks it.
The float isn't appearing out of nowhere. It appears because you're
performing a division.
When you call `len("hello world")`, are you shocked that an int appears out
of nowhere? Of course not. That's what len() does.
Why should you be shocked that division returns a fractional quantity?
That's what division does! Divide a cake into two pieces, and you have two
half cakes, not no cake.
>>> That's a trap for those people though - it lulls them into thinking
>>> that they understand what's going on, when in fact they don't,
>>> because they don't understand floats, because almost nobody
>>> understands floats. So they don't understand their program, and
>>> - even worse - they don't know that they don't understand it.
>>
>> And how does forcing them to write 1.0/2 solve that?
>
> Because it forces them to consciously address the fact that they are
> asking for, and getting, floats, and that floats are not something
> the language is willingly to silently foist upon them.
It does no such thing. Have you met any programmers? It forces them to add
an extraneous .0 to the end of their value, and give it no further thought
until somebody reports a bug that Fraction calculations are silently
coerced to floats, and that Decimal calculations raise an exception. And
then they close the bug report "Will not fix" because it's too hard.
>>> Programming languages should do what they are told, and very little
>>> more.
>>
>> Okay, now I'm confused. How is 1/2 returning 0.5 the language not doing
>> what you've told it to do?
>
> I didn't ask for floats, I got floats. That's how.
You performed a division. What did you expect, a dict?
>>> They should not wander off on surprising jaunts of their own
>>> invention out of the control of the programmer. It should be possible
>>> to know and understand the language, or at least the subset of it
>>> that you are likely to need for your everyday purposes. Floats are
>>> generally not understood, so they shouldn't be suddenly turning up
>>> un-called for.
>>
>> How are they uncalled for?
>
> By... not being called for? I must admit I don't entirely understand
> your question.
You performed a division. By definition, this involves returning a
fractional amount, or at least the possibility of returning a fractional
amount. To say that it is "uncalled for" to receive a fractional amount is,
frankly, bizarre.
--
Steven
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-23 00:36 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <slrnnk4kau.krr.jon+usenet@wintry.unequivocal.co.uk> |
| In reply to | #108965 |
On 2016-05-22, Steven D'Aprano <steve@pearwood.info> wrote: > On Mon, 23 May 2016 01:52 am, Jon Ribbens wrote: >> On 2016-05-22, Steven D'Aprano <steve@pearwood.info> wrote: >>> How is this any better though? Complicated or not, people want to divide >>> 1 by 2 and get 0.5. That is the functional requirement. Furthermore, they >>> want to use the ordinary division symbol / rather than having to import >>> some library or call a function. >> >> That's a circular argument. You're defining the result as the >> requirement and then saying that proves the result is necessary. >> Clearly, people managed when 1/2 returned 0, and continue to do so >> today in Python 2 and other languages. > > I'm not defining the result. 4000+ years of mathematics defines the result. OK, I'm bored of you now. You clearly are not willing to imagine a world beyond your own preconceptions. I am not saying that my view is right, I'm just saying that yours is not automatically correct. If you won't even concede that much then this conversation is pointless.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-23 11:01 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <mailman.10.1463965305.20402.python-list@python.org> |
| In reply to | #108968 |
On Mon, May 23, 2016 at 10:36 AM, Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.co.uk> wrote: > On 2016-05-22, Steven D'Aprano <steve@pearwood.info> wrote: >> On Mon, 23 May 2016 01:52 am, Jon Ribbens wrote: >>> On 2016-05-22, Steven D'Aprano <steve@pearwood.info> wrote: >>>> How is this any better though? Complicated or not, people want to divide >>>> 1 by 2 and get 0.5. That is the functional requirement. Furthermore, they >>>> want to use the ordinary division symbol / rather than having to import >>>> some library or call a function. >>> >>> That's a circular argument. You're defining the result as the >>> requirement and then saying that proves the result is necessary. >>> Clearly, people managed when 1/2 returned 0, and continue to do so >>> today in Python 2 and other languages. >> >> I'm not defining the result. 4000+ years of mathematics defines the result. > > OK, I'm bored of you now. You clearly are not willing to imagine > a world beyond your own preconceptions. I am not saying that my view > is right, I'm just saying that yours is not automatically correct. > If you won't even concede that much then this conversation is pointless. The point of arithmetic in software is to do what mathematics defines. Would you expect 1+2 to return 5? No. Why not? Where was the result defined? ChrisA
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-23 01:00 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <slrnnk4lnn.krr.jon+usenet@wintry.unequivocal.co.uk> |
| In reply to | #108969 |
On 2016-05-23, Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> wrote: > On Mon, May 23, 2016 at 10:36 AM, Jon Ribbens ><jon+usenet@unequivocal.co.uk> wrote: >> On 2016-05-22, Steven D'Aprano <steve@pearwood.info> wrote: >>> On Mon, 23 May 2016 01:52 am, Jon Ribbens wrote: >>>> On 2016-05-22, Steven D'Aprano <steve@pearwood.info> wrote: >>>>> How is this any better though? Complicated or not, people want to divide >>>>> 1 by 2 and get 0.5. That is the functional requirement. Furthermore, they >>>>> want to use the ordinary division symbol / rather than having to import >>>>> some library or call a function. >>>> >>>> That's a circular argument. You're defining the result as the >>>> requirement and then saying that proves the result is necessary. >>>> Clearly, people managed when 1/2 returned 0, and continue to do so >>>> today in Python 2 and other languages. >>> >>> I'm not defining the result. 4000+ years of mathematics defines the result. >> >> OK, I'm bored of you now. You clearly are not willing to imagine >> a world beyond your own preconceptions. I am not saying that my view >> is right, I'm just saying that yours is not automatically correct. >> If you won't even concede that much then this conversation is pointless. > > The point of arithmetic in software is to do what mathematics defines. > Would you expect 1+2 to return 5? No. Why not? Where was the result > defined? Are you trying to compete with him for the Missing The Point Award?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | breamoreboy@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-22 18:47 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <bb9a3392-1871-4258-a0b8-2f3fa9e82a73@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #108970 |
On Monday, May 23, 2016 at 2:04:01 AM UTC+1, Jon Ribbens wrote: > On 2016-05-23, Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Mon, May 23, 2016 at 10:36 AM, Jon Ribbens > ><jon+usenet@unequivocal.co.uk> wrote: > >> On 2016-05-22, Steven D'Aprano <steve@pearwood.info> wrote: > >>> On Mon, 23 May 2016 01:52 am, Jon Ribbens wrote: > >>>> On 2016-05-22, Steven D'Aprano <steve@pearwood.info> wrote: > >>>>> How is this any better though? Complicated or not, people want to divide > >>>>> 1 by 2 and get 0.5. That is the functional requirement. Furthermore, they > >>>>> want to use the ordinary division symbol / rather than having to import > >>>>> some library or call a function. > >>>> > >>>> That's a circular argument. You're defining the result as the > >>>> requirement and then saying that proves the result is necessary. > >>>> Clearly, people managed when 1/2 returned 0, and continue to do so > >>>> today in Python 2 and other languages. > >>> > >>> I'm not defining the result. 4000+ years of mathematics defines the result. > >> > >> OK, I'm bored of you now. You clearly are not willing to imagine > >> a world beyond your own preconceptions. I am not saying that my view > >> is right, I'm just saying that yours is not automatically correct. > >> If you won't even concede that much then this conversation is pointless. > > > > The point of arithmetic in software is to do what mathematics defines. > > Would you expect 1+2 to return 5? No. Why not? Where was the result > > defined? > > Are you trying to compete with him for the Missing The Point Award? We had the RUE, now we've got the Resident Arithmetic Expert or RAE. Just what the doctor didn't order.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-23 15:35 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <slrnnk690u.krr.jon+usenet@wintry.unequivocal.co.uk> |
| In reply to | #108972 |
On 2016-05-23, breamoreboy@gmail.com <breamoreboy@gmail.com> wrote: > On Monday, May 23, 2016 at 2:04:01 AM UTC+1, Jon Ribbens wrote: >> On 2016-05-23, Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> wrote: >> > The point of arithmetic in software is to do what mathematics defines. >> > Would you expect 1+2 to return 5? No. Why not? Where was the result >> > defined? >> >> Are you trying to compete with him for the Missing The Point Award? > > We had the RUE, now we've got the Resident Arithmetic Expert or RAE. > Just what the doctor didn't order. Who's that then? Maybe they could chip in with their opinion.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | MRAB <python@mrabarnett.plus.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-23 02:51 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <mailman.11.1463968482.20402.python-list@python.org> |
| In reply to | #108970 |
On 2016-05-23 02:00, Jon Ribbens wrote: > On 2016-05-23, Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> wrote: >> On Mon, May 23, 2016 at 10:36 AM, Jon Ribbens >><jon+usenet@unequivocal.co.uk> wrote: >>> On 2016-05-22, Steven D'Aprano <steve@pearwood.info> wrote: >>>> On Mon, 23 May 2016 01:52 am, Jon Ribbens wrote: >>>>> On 2016-05-22, Steven D'Aprano <steve@pearwood.info> wrote: >>>>>> How is this any better though? Complicated or not, people want to divide >>>>>> 1 by 2 and get 0.5. That is the functional requirement. Furthermore, they >>>>>> want to use the ordinary division symbol / rather than having to import >>>>>> some library or call a function. >>>>> >>>>> That's a circular argument. You're defining the result as the >>>>> requirement and then saying that proves the result is necessary. >>>>> Clearly, people managed when 1/2 returned 0, and continue to do so >>>>> today in Python 2 and other languages. >>>> >>>> I'm not defining the result. 4000+ years of mathematics defines the result. >>> >>> OK, I'm bored of you now. You clearly are not willing to imagine >>> a world beyond your own preconceptions. I am not saying that my view >>> is right, I'm just saying that yours is not automatically correct. >>> If you won't even concede that much then this conversation is pointless. >> >> The point of arithmetic in software is to do what mathematics defines. >> Would you expect 1+2 to return 5? No. Why not? Where was the result >> defined? > > Are you trying to compete with him for the Missing The Point Award? > The relevant doc is PEP 238, dating to March 2001, when Python 2.2 was new.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ben Finney <ben+python@benfinney.id.au> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-23 14:13 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <mailman.12.1463977754.20402.python-list@python.org> |
| In reply to | #108968 |
Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.co.uk> writes: > OK, I'm bored of you now. You clearly are not willing to imagine > a world beyond your own preconceptions. Steven has, in the message to which you responded, asked for you to *describe* this other world you assert exists. More concretely: Steven is not denying someone might have different expectations. On the contrary, you've said your expectations differ, and Steven is *explicitly asking* you to specify those expectations. And, instead of answering, you give this dismissal. Are your expectations so hard to describe? -- \ “It is wrong to think that the task of physics is to find out | `\ how nature *is*. Physics concerns what we can *say* about | _o__) nature…” —Niels Bohr | Ben Finney
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Rustom Mody <rustompmody@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-22 23:09 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <a2867ef8-9f6b-4025-af0a-00fd0d731c89@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #108975 |
On Monday, May 23, 2016 at 9:59:27 AM UTC+5:30, Ben Finney wrote:
> Jon Ribbens writes:
>
> > OK, I'm bored of you now. You clearly are not willing to imagine
> > a world beyond your own preconceptions.
>
> Steven has, in the message to which you responded, asked for you to
> *describe* this other world you assert exists.
>
> More concretely: Steven is not denying someone might have different
> expectations. On the contrary, you've said your expectations differ, and
> Steven is *explicitly asking* you to specify those expectations.
>
> And, instead of answering, you give this dismissal. Are your
> expectations so hard to describe?
Steven is making wild and disingenuous statements; to wit:
On Monday, May 23, 2016 at 3:39:19 AM UTC+5:30, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
> I'm not defining the result. 4000+ years of mathematics defines the result.
This is off by on order of magnitude.
Decimal point started with Napier (improving on Stevin): 17th century
OTOH it is plain numbers (ℕ) that have been in use for some 4 millennia.
>
> If you get up off your chair and wander around and ask people other than C
> programmers "What's one divide by two?", I am confident that virtually zero
> percent will answer "zero".
You forget that we (most of us?) went to school.
My recollections of it -- ok maybe fogged by near 5 decades:
I first learnt something called 'long-division'
In that procedure you take 2 numbers called divisor and dividend
And GET TWO NUMBERS a quotient and a remainder.
[At that point only knew of the numbers we would later call ℤ (or was it ℕ --
not sure -- decimal point would come later]
Later (again dont remember order) we were taught
- short division
- decimal numbers
[I mention short division -- put numerator on top of denominator and cancel off
factors -- because the symmetry of numerator:denominator and quotient:remainder
is more apparent there than in long-division]
In any case if learning primacy has any significance, pure integer division
is more basic than decimal number division.
To recapitulate the situation:
Mathematics (mathematicians if you prefer) have a strong attachment to
to two nice properties of operators:
The first is obvious and unarguable -- totality
The second does not have a standard term but is important enough -- I will
call it 'homogeneity'. By this I mean a type of the form: t × t → t
Its nice to have totality because one can avoid case-analysing:
f(x) when x ∈ domain(f)
Its nice to have homogeneity because homogeneous operators can be
nested/unnested/played-with
ie for ◼ : t × t → t
x ◼ y ◼ z makes sense this way x ◼ (y ◼ z) or this way (x ◼ y) ◼ z
With non-homogeneous ◼ these may not make sense.
- Choosing ÷ to be total and homogeneous necessitates widening
ℤ (or ℕ) to ℚ or ℝ (or something as messy)
- Choosing ÷ to be non-homogeneous means needing to deal with quotients and
remainders
Cant write if (x/4 < 256)...
have to write
quot, rem = x/4 # throw away rem
if quot < 256: ...
Haskell has (almost) what I learnt at school:
Prelude> let (q,r) = 7 `divMod` 3
Prelude> (q,r)
(2,1)
Replace the strange `divMod` with / and we are back to the behavior I first
learnt at school
So with some over-simplification:
- the first choice leads to numerical analysis
- the second leads to number theory
To say that one is natural --especially the one that chooses something other
than natural numbers! --and the other is surprising is nonsense.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Marko Rauhamaa <marko@pacujo.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-23 09:30 +0300 |
| Message-ID | <87oa7x1e1q.fsf@elektro.pacujo.net> |
| In reply to | #108976 |
Rustom Mody <rustompmody@gmail.com>:
> Haskell has (almost) what I learnt at school:
>
> Prelude> let (q,r) = 7 `divMod` 3
> Prelude> (q,r)
> (2,1)
Python:
>>> divmod(7, 3)
(2, 1)
> Replace the strange `divMod` with / and we are back to the behavior I
> first learnt at school
X
We never used '/' in school for anything. We used 'X : Y' or '---'.
Y
Anyway, every calculator in the world produces:
1
÷
2
=
==> 0.5
Marko
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Rustom Mody <rustompmody@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-22 23:46 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <9939905d-d482-4256-bcb2-14ad6b343129@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #108978 |
On Monday, May 23, 2016 at 12:01:08 PM UTC+5:30, Marko Rauhamaa wrote: > Rustom Mody : > > > Haskell has (almost) what I learnt at school: > > > > Prelude> let (q,r) = 7 `divMod` 3 > > Prelude> (q,r) > > (2,1) > > Python: > > >>> divmod(7, 3) > (2, 1) > > > Replace the strange `divMod` with / and we are back to the behavior I > > first learnt at school > > X > We never used '/' in school for anything. We used 'X : Y' or '---'. > Y > > Anyway, every calculator in the world produces: > > 1 > ÷ > 2 > = > > ==> 0.5 Not true: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iynCW9O_x58 [And ive seen such 40 years ago]
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-23 18:09 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <5742bacb$0$1526$c3e8da3$5496439d@news.astraweb.com> |
| In reply to | #108976 |
On Monday 23 May 2016 16:09, Rustom Mody wrote: > Steven is making wild and disingenuous statements; to wit: > > On Monday, May 23, 2016 at 3:39:19 AM UTC+5:30, Steven D'Aprano wrote: >> I'm not defining the result. 4000+ years of mathematics defines the result. > > This is off by on order of magnitude. > Decimal point started with Napier (improving on Stevin): 17th century > OTOH it is plain numbers (ℕ) that have been in use for some 4 millennia. Are you saying that the Egyptians, Babylonians and Greeks didn't know how to work with fractions? http://mathworld.wolfram.com/EgyptianFraction.html http://nrich.maths.org/2515 Okay, it's not quite 4000 years ago. Sometimes my historical sense of the distant past is a tad inaccurate. Shall we say 2000 years instead? >> If you get up off your chair and wander around and ask people other than C >> programmers "What's one divide by two?", I am confident that virtually zero >> percent will answer "zero". > > You forget that we (most of us?) went to school. Er, why would I forget that? That's the point -- people have learned about fractions. I didn't say "go off deep into the Amazonian rainforests, or into the New Guinea highlands, and ask innumerate hunter gatherers...". But even innumerate hunter gatherers will have an understanding that if you have one yam which you wish to share between two people, they will each get half. Not zero. -- Steve
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 4 of 15 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 … 15 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.python
csiph-web