Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.lang.python > #84819 > unrolled thread

[OT] fortran lib which provide python like data type

Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.python

Contents

  [OT] fortran lib which provide python like data type 1989lzhh <1989lzhh@gmail.com> - 2015-01-29 21:39 +0800
    Re: [OT] fortran lib which provide python like data type beliavsky@aol.com - 2015-01-29 14:39 -0800
      Re: [OT] fortran lib which provide python like data type Rustom Mody <rustompmody@gmail.com> - 2015-01-29 17:40 -0800
        Re: [OT] fortran lib which provide python like data type Christian Gollwitzer <auriocus@gmx.de> - 2015-01-30 08:32 +0100
          Re: [OT] fortran lib which provide python like data type Rustom Mody <rustompmody@gmail.com> - 2015-01-30 08:27 -0800
            Re: [OT] fortran lib which provide python like data type Michael Torrie <torriem@gmail.com> - 2015-01-30 10:08 -0700
              Re: [OT] fortran lib which provide python like data type Rustom Mody <rustompmody@gmail.com> - 2015-01-30 09:31 -0800
                RAII vs gc (was fortran lib which provide python like data type) Rustom Mody <rustompmody@gmail.com> - 2015-01-30 10:02 -0800
                  Re: RAII vs gc (was fortran lib which provide python like data type) Sturla Molden <sturla.molden@gmail.com> - 2015-01-30 21:28 +0000
                    Re: RAII vs gc (was fortran lib which provide python like data type) Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2015-02-01 14:00 +1100
                      Re: RAII vs gc (was fortran lib which provide python like data type) Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2015-02-01 14:21 +1100
                  Re: RAII vs gc (was fortran lib which provide python like data type) Devin Jeanpierre <jeanpierreda@gmail.com> - 2015-01-31 19:27 -0800
                Re: [OT] fortran lib which provide python like data type Michael Torrie <torriem@gmail.com> - 2015-01-30 11:15 -0700
                  Re: [OT] fortran lib which provide python like data type Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2015-01-30 10:23 -0800
                    Re: [OT] fortran lib which provide python like data type Christian Gollwitzer <auriocus@gmx.de> - 2015-01-31 09:27 +0100
                  Re: [OT] fortran lib which provide python like data type Gregory Ewing <greg.ewing@canterbury.ac.nz> - 2015-01-31 11:51 +1300
                    Re: [OT] fortran lib which provide python like data type Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2015-01-31 10:49 +1100
                    Re: [OT] fortran lib which provide python like data type Marko Rauhamaa <marko@pacujo.net> - 2015-01-31 14:22 +0200
                      Re: [OT] fortran lib which provide python like data type Rustom Mody <rustompmody@gmail.com> - 2015-01-31 07:50 -0800
                        Re: [OT] fortran lib which provide python like data type Marko Rauhamaa <marko@pacujo.net> - 2015-01-31 19:43 +0200
                          Re: [OT] fortran lib which provide python like data type Rustom Mody <rustompmody@gmail.com> - 2015-01-31 18:30 -0800
                            Re: [OT] fortran lib which provide python like data type Marko Rauhamaa <marko@pacujo.net> - 2015-02-01 09:38 +0200
                              Re: [OT] fortran lib which provide python like data type Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2015-02-02 03:49 +1100
                                Re: [OT] fortran lib which provide python like data type Marko Rauhamaa <marko@pacujo.net> - 2015-02-01 20:57 +0200
                                  Re: [OT] fortran lib which provide python like data type Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2015-02-02 12:59 +1100
                                    Re: [OT] fortran lib which provide python like data type Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2015-02-02 13:05 +1100
                                      Re: [OT] fortran lib which provide python like data type Marko Rauhamaa <marko@pacujo.net> - 2015-02-02 10:51 +0200
                                    Re: [OT] fortran lib which provide python like data type Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2015-02-02 13:04 +1100
                                      Re: [OT] fortran lib which provide python like data type Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2015-02-02 18:01 +1100
                                      Re: [OT] fortran lib which provide python like data type Marko Rauhamaa <marko@pacujo.net> - 2015-02-02 10:52 +0200
                                        Re: [OT] fortran lib which provide python like data type Paul Rudin <paul.nospam@rudin.co.uk> - 2015-02-02 12:56 +0000
                                          Re: [OT] fortran lib which provide python like data type Marko Rauhamaa <marko@pacujo.net> - 2015-02-02 15:27 +0200
                                        Re: [OT] fortran lib which provide python like data type Mark Lawrence <breamoreboy@yahoo.co.uk> - 2015-02-02 16:08 +0000
                                          Re: [OT] fortran lib which provide python like data type Rustom Mody <rustompmody@gmail.com> - 2015-02-02 08:21 -0800
                                            Re: [OT] fortran lib which provide python like data type Mark Lawrence <breamoreboy@yahoo.co.uk> - 2015-02-02 16:52 +0000
                                            Re: [OT] fortran lib which provide python like data type Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2015-02-03 04:25 +1100
                                            Re: [OT] fortran lib which provide python like data type Mark Lawrence <breamoreboy@yahoo.co.uk> - 2015-02-02 18:34 +0000
                                            Re: [OT] fortran lib which provide python like data type Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2015-02-03 10:15 +1100
                                    Re: [OT] fortran lib which provide python like data type Matthew Barnett <auxlang@mrabarnett.plus.com> - 2015-02-02 02:35 +0000
                                    Re: [OT] fortran lib which provide python like data type Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2015-02-02 13:45 +1100
                                      Re: [OT] fortran lib which provide python like data type Roy Smith <roy@panix.com> - 2015-02-01 23:12 -0500
                                    Re: [OT] fortran lib which provide python like data type Roy Smith <roy@panix.com> - 2015-02-01 23:14 -0500
                                      Re: [OT] fortran lib which provide python like data type Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2015-02-02 15:47 +1100
                                      Re: [OT] fortran lib which provide python like data type Mark Lawrence <breamoreboy@yahoo.co.uk> - 2015-02-02 16:06 +0000
                        Re: [OT] fortran lib which provide python like data type Mark Lawrence <breamoreboy@yahoo.co.uk> - 2015-01-31 17:59 +0000
                      Re: [OT] fortran lib which provide python like data type Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2015-02-01 13:27 +1100
                      Re: [OT] fortran lib which provide python like data type Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2015-01-31 22:26 -0800
                        Re: [OT] fortran lib which provide python like data type Marko Rauhamaa <marko@pacujo.net> - 2015-02-01 09:58 +0200
                          Re: [OT] fortran lib which provide python like data type Christian Gollwitzer <auriocus@gmx.de> - 2015-02-01 09:14 +0100
                            Re: [OT] fortran lib which provide python like data type Marko Rauhamaa <marko@pacujo.net> - 2015-02-01 21:12 +0200
                              Re: [OT] fortran lib which provide python like data type Michael Torrie <torriem@gmail.com> - 2015-02-01 17:50 -0700
                              Re: [OT] fortran lib which provide python like data type Michael Torrie <torriem@gmail.com> - 2015-02-01 18:02 -0700
                                Re: [OT] fortran lib which provide python like data type Marko Rauhamaa <marko@pacujo.net> - 2015-02-02 09:39 +0200
                                  Re: [OT] fortran lib which provide python like data type Michael Torrie <torriem@gmail.com> - 2015-02-02 09:25 -0700
                                    Re: [OT] fortran lib which provide python like data type Marko Rauhamaa <marko@pacujo.net> - 2015-02-02 19:57 +0200
                                      Re: [OT] fortran lib which provide python like data type Michael Torrie <torriem@gmail.com> - 2015-02-02 11:23 -0700
                                        Re: [OT] fortran lib which provide python like data type Marko Rauhamaa <marko@pacujo.net> - 2015-02-02 20:54 +0200
                              Re: [OT] fortran lib which provide python like data type Michael Torrie <torriem@gmail.com> - 2015-02-01 18:02 -0700
                    Re: [OT] fortran lib which provide python like data type beliavsky@aol.com - 2015-02-02 05:30 -0800
                  Re: [OT] fortran lib which provide python like data type Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2015-01-31 10:50 +1100
                    Re: [OT] fortran lib which provide python like data type Michael Torrie <torriem@gmail.com> - 2015-01-30 20:49 -0700
                      Re: [OT] fortran lib which provide python like data type Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2015-01-31 22:04 +1100
                        Re: [OT] fortran lib which provide python like data type Rustom Mody <rustompmody@gmail.com> - 2015-01-31 08:18 -0800
            Re: [OT] fortran lib which provide python like data type Sturla Molden <sturla.molden@gmail.com> - 2015-01-30 23:12 +0000
            Re: [OT] fortran lib which provide python like data type Michael Torrie <torriem@gmail.com> - 2015-01-30 20:35 -0700

Page 2 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4  Next page →

#84970

On Saturday, January 31, 2015 at 11:13:29 PM UTC+5:30, Marko Rauhamaa wrote:
> Rustom Mody:
> 
> > On Saturday, January 31, 2015 at 5:52:58 PM UTC+5:30, Marko Rauhamaa wrote:
> >> Esthetically, I'm most impressed with Scheme. One day it might give
> >> Python a run for its money.
> >
> > Aren't you getting this backwards?
> 
> Deep down I'm a minimalist romantic.
> 
> > Its just that its 2015 now not 1985...
> 
> "Python was conceived in the late 1980s" ["Python", Wikipedia]
> Scheme was conceived in the 1920s.       ["Combinatory Logic", Wikipedia]
> 
> > People did not 'settle' the question: "How many angels can dance on
> > the head of a pin". It just stopped being relevant.
> 
> Speak for yourself. It's just that the answer was found:
> 
>     ι = λf.((fS)K)                       ["Iota and Jot", Wikipedia]
> 
> Donc Dieu existe, répondez!



My répondez:

Marvin Minsky's Turing award lecture
http://web.media.mit.edu/~minsky/papers/TuringLecture/TuringLecture.html

There is a real conflict between the logician's goal and the
educator's. The logician wants to minimize the variety of ideas,
and doesn't mind a long, thin path. The educator (rightly) wants
to make the paths short and doesn't mind–in fact,
prefers–connections to many other ideas. And he cares almost not
at all about the directions of the links.

Anyway…  Thanks for those links or rather the pointer to
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iota_and_Jot

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#84987

Rustom Mody <rustompmody@gmail.com>:

> There is a real conflict between the logician's goal and the
> educator's. The logician wants to minimize the variety of ideas,
> and doesn't mind a long, thin path. The educator (rightly) wants
> to make the paths short and doesn't mind–in fact,
> prefers–connections to many other ideas. And he cares almost not
> at all about the directions of the links.

The natural language has a rigorous grammar plus a lexicon that includes
a number of idioms. Nobody has so far been able to codify a natural
language completely because the rigorous grammar consists of maybe
10,000 rules.

Perl came out of the needs of natural language translation. Perl's novel
idea was to make a programming language like a natural language (yes,
there had been Cobol). So Perl's language description evades a complete,
rigorous description, but it has numerous handy idioms for many common
situations.

Python showed that while interesting and amusing, Perl's way leads to
unnecessary clutter. Why make things complicated when simple will serve
everybody's needs best.


Marko

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#85007

Marko Rauhamaa wrote:

> The natural language has a rigorous grammar plus a lexicon that includes
> a number of idioms. Nobody has so far been able to codify a natural
> language completely because the rigorous grammar consists of maybe
> 10,000 rules.

If nobody has codified the rigorous grammar, how do they know it is
rigorous?

Given how natural languages are constantly in flux (in both space and time),
I don't even know how you could define all the rules of a grammar
rigorously. By the time you finished, it would be different.

Of course, some rules are more rigorous than others. No English speaker
would consider a sentence like

    Can me cheeseburger has?

as grammatical. But how about:

    I can has cheezburger?

If grammar is defined by usage, not formal rule books (which don't exist!),
then surely LOLspeak is grammatical. (It's probably closer to an argot than
a full language, but even so.)




-- 
Steven

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#85019

Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info>:

> Marko Rauhamaa wrote:
>
>> The natural language has a rigorous grammar plus a lexicon that includes
>> a number of idioms. Nobody has so far been able to codify a natural
>> language completely because the rigorous grammar consists of maybe
>> 10,000 rules.
>
> If nobody has codified the rigorous grammar, how do they know it is
> rigorous?

Even a five-year-old will immediately spot grammar mistakes (and let you
know about them!).

> Given how natural languages are constantly in flux (in both space and time),
> I don't even know how you could define all the rules of a grammar
> rigorously. By the time you finished, it would be different.

Every brain has a slightly different variant, and that is evolving, too.
However, you can spot a non-native speaker (or a speaker outside your
community) in a fraction of a second after they open their mouth.

> If grammar is defined by usage, not formal rule books (which don't
> exist!), then surely LOLspeak is grammatical. (It's probably closer to
> an argot than a full language, but even so.)

Whatever it is, your brain will recognize its native language. You never
make a grammar mistake that you don't spot yourself right away.


Marko

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#85038

Marko Rauhamaa wrote:

> Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info>:
> 
>> Marko Rauhamaa wrote:
>>
>>> The natural language has a rigorous grammar plus a lexicon that includes
>>> a number of idioms. Nobody has so far been able to codify a natural
>>> language completely because the rigorous grammar consists of maybe
>>> 10,000 rules.
>>
>> If nobody has codified the rigorous grammar, how do they know it is
>> rigorous?
> 
> Even a five-year-old will immediately spot grammar mistakes (and let you
> know about them!).

That doesn't make it rigorous. That just means that there are rules, and
five-years olds know some of the rules. There may be ambiguities in the
rules. There could be sentences where no rule applies, or multiple
contradictory rules.

Children go through a period of language acquisition where they
over-generalise rules, saying things like "I eated the biscuit". Amusingly,
there are at least some reports of children getting angry when their
parents copy those over-generalisations, saying words to the effect of "No
Daddy, I say eated, you don't!" This suggests that they know that the rule
is wrong even when they say it, yet they continue to say it. This in turn
suggests that there are multiple parts of the brain involved in grammar,
and they aren't always in sync.

Adults also commit hyper-correction. Anyone who has said a sentence
like "The dog barked at my daughter and I" is being ungrammatical. Cross
out the second party, and you are left with: "The dog barked at I" which is
clearly wrong.

And there are underspecified rules too. What is the plural of octopus? No
fair looking it up in the dictionary.



[...]
> Whatever it is, your brain will recognize its native language. You never
> make a grammar mistake that you don't spot yourself right away.

Of course people make grammar mistakes that they don't spot.

If you're interested in this topic, I can strongly recommend Steven Pinker's
book "Words And Rules".


-- 
Steven

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#85040

Steven D'Aprano wrote:

> Of course people make grammar mistakes that they don't spot.


Ironically, this is one of them. It should of course be "grammatical
mistakes".

Seriously, I didn't do that on purpose. I only noticed the error on reading
it back after sending.


-- 
Steven

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#85067

Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info>:

> Steven D'Aprano wrote:
>> Of course people make grammar mistakes that they don't spot.
>
> Ironically, this is one of them. It should of course be "grammatical
> mistakes".

I don't believe you made a mistake according to your brain's grammar
engine.

Parenthetically, I don't believe you made a mistake even according to
your English teacher.


Marko

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#85041

On Mon, Feb 2, 2015 at 12:59 PM, Steven D'Aprano
<steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> wrote:
> And there are underspecified rules too. What is the plural of octopus? No
> fair looking it up in the dictionary.

Standard and well-known piece of trivia, and there are several
options. "Octopodes" is one of the most rigorously formal, but
"octopuses" is perfectly acceptable. "Octopi" is technically
incorrect, as the -us ending does not derive from the Latin.

ChrisA

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#85060

Chris Angelico wrote:

> On Mon, Feb 2, 2015 at 12:59 PM, Steven D'Aprano
> <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> wrote:
>> And there are underspecified rules too. What is the plural of octopus? No
>> fair looking it up in the dictionary.
> 
> Standard and well-known piece of trivia, and there are several
> options. "Octopodes" is one of the most rigorously formal, but
> "octopuses" is perfectly acceptable. "Octopi" is technically
> incorrect, as the -us ending does not derive from the Latin.

And that would be relevant if we were speaking Latin, but we aren't :-P

-- 
Steve

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#85068

Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com>:

> On Mon, Feb 2, 2015 at 12:59 PM, Steven D'Aprano
> <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> wrote:
>> And there are underspecified rules too. What is the plural of octopus? No
>> fair looking it up in the dictionary.
>
> Standard and well-known piece of trivia, and there are several
> options. "Octopodes" is one of the most rigorously formal, but
> "octopuses" is perfectly acceptable. "Octopi" is technically
> incorrect, as the -us ending does not derive from the Latin.

Your brain's grammar engine will give you the correct answer. It may not
match your English teacher's answer, but the language we are talking
about is not standard English but the dialect you have acquired in
childhood.


Marko

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#85078

Marko Rauhamaa <marko@pacujo.net> writes:

> Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com>:
>
>> On Mon, Feb 2, 2015 at 12:59 PM, Steven D'Aprano
>> <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> wrote:
>>> And there are underspecified rules too. What is the plural of octopus? No
>>> fair looking it up in the dictionary.
>>
>> Standard and well-known piece of trivia, and there are several
>> options. "Octopodes" is one of the most rigorously formal, but
>> "octopuses" is perfectly acceptable. "Octopi" is technically
>> incorrect, as the -us ending does not derive from the Latin.
>
> Your brain's grammar engine will give you the correct answer. It may not
> match your English teacher's answer, but the language we are talking
> about is not standard English but the dialect you have acquired in
> childhood.

Aha - the Humpty Dumpty approach to English usage: "When I use a word it
means just what I choose it to mean..."

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#85080

Paul Rudin <paul.nospam@rudin.co.uk>:

> Marko Rauhamaa <marko@pacujo.net> writes:
>> Your brain's grammar engine will give you the correct answer. It may
>> not match your English teacher's answer, but the language we are
>> talking about is not standard English but the dialect you have
>> acquired in childhood.
>
> Aha - the Humpty Dumpty approach to English usage: "When I use a word
> it means just what I choose it to mean..."

Yes, and your Humpty Dumpty brain is stringent about the proper usage.
Your brain happens to be highly aligned with those of your childhood
friends. Your communal dialect has thousands of rigorous rules, only you
couldn't make a complete list of them.


Marko

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#85089

On 02/02/2015 08:52, Marko Rauhamaa wrote:
> Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com>:
>
>> On Mon, Feb 2, 2015 at 12:59 PM, Steven D'Aprano
>> <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> wrote:
>>> And there are underspecified rules too. What is the plural of octopus? No
>>> fair looking it up in the dictionary.
>>
>> Standard and well-known piece of trivia, and there are several
>> options. "Octopodes" is one of the most rigorously formal, but
>> "octopuses" is perfectly acceptable. "Octopi" is technically
>> incorrect, as the -us ending does not derive from the Latin.
>
> Your brain's grammar engine will give you the correct answer. It may not
> match your English teacher's answer, but the language we are talking
> about is not standard English but the dialect you have acquired in
> childhood.
>
>
> Marko
>

I'd love to see a formal definition for "standard English".

-- 
My fellow Pythonistas, ask not what our language can do for you, ask
what you can do for our language.

Mark Lawrence

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#85091

On Monday, February 2, 2015 at 9:40:35 PM UTC+5:30, Mark Lawrence wrote:
> On 02/02/2015 08:52, Marko Rauhamaa wrote:
> > Chris Angelico :
> >
> >> On Mon, Feb 2, 2015 at 12:59 PM, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
> >>> And there are underspecified rules too. What is the plural of octopus? No
> >>> fair looking it up in the dictionary.
> >>
> >> Standard and well-known piece of trivia, and there are several
> >> options. "Octopodes" is one of the most rigorously formal, but
> >> "octopuses" is perfectly acceptable. "Octopi" is technically
> >> incorrect, as the -us ending does not derive from the Latin.
> >
> > Your brain's grammar engine will give you the correct answer. It may not
> > match your English teacher's answer, but the language we are talking
> > about is not standard English but the dialect you have acquired in
> > childhood.
> >
> >
> > Marko
> >
> 
> I'd love to see a formal definition for "standard English".
> 

I'd also love to see a formal definition of 'formal'
Elsewhere someone (Marko I think) used the term 'rigorous'

Ive heard it said that formal is more rigorous than 'rigorous'.
And of course the other way round as well ;-)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#85094

On 02/02/2015 16:21, Rustom Mody wrote:
> On Monday, February 2, 2015 at 9:40:35 PM UTC+5:30, Mark Lawrence wrote:
>> On 02/02/2015 08:52, Marko Rauhamaa wrote:
>>> Chris Angelico :
>>>
>>>> On Mon, Feb 2, 2015 at 12:59 PM, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
>>>>> And there are underspecified rules too. What is the plural of octopus? No
>>>>> fair looking it up in the dictionary.
>>>>
>>>> Standard and well-known piece of trivia, and there are several
>>>> options. "Octopodes" is one of the most rigorously formal, but
>>>> "octopuses" is perfectly acceptable. "Octopi" is technically
>>>> incorrect, as the -us ending does not derive from the Latin.
>>>
>>> Your brain's grammar engine will give you the correct answer. It may not
>>> match your English teacher's answer, but the language we are talking
>>> about is not standard English but the dialect you have acquired in
>>> childhood.
>>>
>>>
>>> Marko
>>>
>>
>> I'd love to see a formal definition for "standard English".
>>
>
> I'd also love to see a formal definition of 'formal'
> Elsewhere someone (Marko I think) used the term 'rigorous'
>
> Ive heard it said that formal is more rigorous than 'rigorous'.
> And of course the other way round as well ;-)
>

I'd like to see anybody define 'a' and 'the' without using 'a' and 
'the'.  Would that be formally rigorous or rigorously formal?

-- 
My fellow Pythonistas, ask not what our language can do for you, ask
what you can do for our language.

Mark Lawrence

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#85096

On Tue, Feb 3, 2015 at 3:52 AM, Mark Lawrence <breamoreboy@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> I'd like to see anybody define 'a' and 'the' without using 'a' and 'the'.
> Would that be formally rigorous or rigorously formal?

a: Indefinite article, used to represent individual objects not
otherwise identifiable.

the: Definite article, used to represent individual objects
identifiable by context.

Near enough?

ChrisA

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#85099

On 02/02/2015 17:25, Chris Angelico wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 3, 2015 at 3:52 AM, Mark Lawrence <breamoreboy@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>> I'd like to see anybody define 'a' and 'the' without using 'a' and 'the'.
>> Would that be formally rigorous or rigorously formal?
>
> a: Indefinite article, used to represent individual objects not
> otherwise identifiable.
>
> the: Definite article, used to represent individual objects
> identifiable by context.
>
> Near enough?
>
> ChrisA
>

Nope.  'article' begins with 'a' so you can't use it to define itself.

-- 
My fellow Pythonistas, ask not what our language can do for you, ask
what you can do for our language.

Mark Lawrence

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#85114

On Tue, Feb 3, 2015 at 5:34 AM, Mark Lawrence <breamoreboy@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> On 02/02/2015 17:25, Chris Angelico wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, Feb 3, 2015 at 3:52 AM, Mark Lawrence <breamoreboy@yahoo.co.uk>
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> I'd like to see anybody define 'a' and 'the' without using 'a' and 'the'.
>>> Would that be formally rigorous or rigorously formal?
>>
>>
>> a: Indefinite article, used to represent individual objects not
>> otherwise identifiable.
>>
>> Near enough?
>>
>
> Nope.  'article' begins with 'a' so you can't use it to define itself.

Hrm. This is difficult.

a: Indefinite identifier, used to represent non-specific objects.

Not a perfectly accurate definition now, but hey, I avoided the self-reference!

ChrisA

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#85042

On 2015-02-02 02:04, Chris Angelico wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 2, 2015 at 12:59 PM, Steven D'Aprano
> <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> wrote:
>> And there are underspecified rules too. What is the plural of
>> octopus? No fair looking it up in the dictionary.
>
> Standard and well-known piece of trivia, and there are several
> options. "Octopodes" is one of the most rigorously formal, but
> "octopuses" is perfectly acceptable. "Octopi" is technically
> incorrect, as the -us ending does not derive from the Latin.
>
And the plural of "virus" is "viruses", not "viri" (that's the plural of
"vir") or "virii" (that would be the plural of "virius", if it existed).

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#85043

On Mon, Feb 2, 2015 at 1:35 PM, Matthew Barnett
<auxlang@mrabarnett.plus.com> wrote:
> And the plural of "virus" is "viruses", not "viri" (that's the plural of
> "vir") or "virii" (that would be the plural of "virius", if it existed).

Yes indeed."Virii" and "octopi" are as wrong as "hice" for "houses"
(paralleling mice).

ChrisA

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 2 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.python

csiph-web