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 8 of 15 — ← Prev page 1 … 6 7 [8] 9 10 … 15 Next page →
| From | Ned Batchelder <ned@nedbatchelder.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-28 08:50 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Coding systems are political (was Exended ASCII and code pages) |
| Message-ID | <9dae1305-8939-4959-9fc9-be99b77a9422@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #109212 |
On Saturday, May 28, 2016 at 11:16:39 AM UTC-4, wxjm...@gmail.com wrote: > Le samedi 28 mai 2016 06:47:11 UTC+2, Rustom Mody a écrit : > > > ... > > [which AIUI is jmf's principal error] > > > > ... > > I'm very confident. It's only a question of time until > the rest of the world dive into this mathematical > absurdity. > > With your math knowledge, it should not be too > difficult to show it with a sheet of paper > and a pencil. Hint: forget "bytes" and think > "sets" and operators. Let's please not re-open this debate.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Random832 <random832@fastmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-28 14:05 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: Coding systems are political (was Exended ASCII and code pages) |
| Message-ID | <mailman.12.1464458743.1839.python-list@python.org> |
| In reply to | #109191 |
On Sat, May 28, 2016, at 00:46, Rustom Mody wrote: > Which also means that if the Chinese were to have more say in the > design of Unicode/ UTF-8 they would likely not waste swathes of prime > real-estate for almost never used control characters just in the name > of ASCII compliance There are only 128 code points in the single-byte range of UTF-8. Only 32 of which are used for, almost-never-used or otherwise, control characters. What do you imagine they would have put there instead? At least Unicode doesn't do as badly as the first-draft ISO-UCS, which didn't allow a C0/C1 control value in *any* position in UCS-2 or UCS-4, therefore UCS-2 would encode only 192*192=36,864 codepoints as two bytes (and 64 control characters as one byte), as opposed to UTF-16's 63,488 (including all control characters) two-byte characters. For completeness, I'll note that conventional East Asian character coding systems do have a higher information density compared to UTF-8, but at a cost of not being self-synchronizing. And their single-byte characters are in fact ASCII and C0/C1 controls, with only Japanese Shift- JIS encodings additionally having Katakana as single-byte characters.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Steven D'Aprano <steve@pearwood.info> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-29 15:37 +1000 |
| Subject | Re: Coding systems are political (was Exended ASCII and code pages) |
| Message-ID | <574a8021$0$1590$c3e8da3$5496439d@news.astraweb.com> |
| In reply to | #109191 |
On Sat, 28 May 2016 02:46 pm, Rustom Mody wrote: [...] > In idealized, simplified models like Turing models where > 3 is 111 > 7 is 1111111 > 100, 8364 etc I wont try to write but you get the idea! > its quite clear that bigger numbers cost more than smaller ones I'm not sure that a tally (base-1, unary) is a good model for memory usage in any computing system available today. And I thought that the Turing model was based on binary: the machine could both mark a cell and erase the mark, which corresponds to a bit. > With current hardware it would seem to be a flat characteristic for > everything < 2³² (or even 2⁶⁴) > > But thats only an optical illusion because after that the characteristic > will rise jaggedly, slowly but monotonically, typically log-linearly > [which AIUI is jmf's principal error] Can you be more specific at what you are trying to say? You seem to think that you're saying something profound here, but I don't know what it is. > Which also means that if the Chinese were to have more say in the design > of Unicode/ UTF-8 they would likely not waste swathes of prime real-estate > for almost never used control characters just in the name of ASCII > compliance There is this meme going around that Unicode is a Western imperialistic conspiracy against Asians. For example, there was a blog post a year or so ago by somebody bitterly complaining that he could draw a pile of poo in Unicode but not write his own name, blaming Westerners for this horrible state of affairs. But like most outrage on the Internet, his complaint was nonsense. He *can* write his name -- he just has to use a combining character to add an accent(?) to a base character. (Or possibly a better analogy is that of a ligature.) His complaint came down to the fact that because his name included a character which was unusual even in his own language (Bengali), he had to use two Unicode code points rather than one to represent it. This is, of course, the second worst[1] kind of discrimination. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9219162 Likewise the hoo-har over CJK unification. Some people believe that this is the evil Western imperialists forcing their ignorant views on the Chinese, Japanese and Koreans, but the reality is that the Unicode Consortium merely follows the decisions made by the Ideographic Rapporteur Group (IRG), originally the CJK-JRG group. That is a multinational group set up by the Chinese and Japanese, now including other East Asians (both Koreas, Singapore, Vietnam) to decide on a common set of Han characters. Anyway, I digress. Given that there are tens of thousands of Han characters (with unification), more than will fit in 16 bits, the 64 control characters in Unicode is not going to make any practical difference. In some hypothetical world where Han speakers got to claim code points U+0000-001F and U+0080-009F for ideographs, pushing the control characters out into the astral planes, all they would gain is *sixty four* code points. They would still need multiple thousands of astral characters. Besides, some level of ASCII compatibility is useful even for Han speakers. Their own native-designed standard encodings like Big5 and Shift-JIS (which predate Unicode) keep byte-compatibility with the 32 ASCII control characters. (I'm not sure about the 32 "C1" control characters.) Since the Chinese and Japanese national standards pre-dating Unicode choose to keep compatibility with the ASCII control characters, I don't think that there is any good reason to think they would have made a different decision when it came to Unicode had they had more of a say than they already did. Which was, and still is, considerable. Both China and Japan are very influential in the Unicode Consortium, driving the addition of many new Han characters and emoji. The idea that a bunch of Western corporations and academics are pushing them around is laughable. [1] The worst being that my US English keyboard doesn't have a proper curly apostrophe, forcing me to use a straight ' mark in my name like some sort of animal. -- Steven
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Rustom Mody <rustompmody@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-28 23:12 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Coding systems are political (was Exended ASCII and code pages) |
| Message-ID | <f2a24025-7f9a-4bde-b212-e8182c6e5bcc@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #109225 |
On Sunday, May 29, 2016 at 11:07:51 AM UTC+5:30, Steven D'Aprano wrote: > On Sat, 28 May 2016 02:46 pm, Rustom Mody wrote: > > [...] > > In idealized, simplified models like Turing models where > > 3 is 111 > > 7 is 1111111 > > 100, 8364 etc I wont try to write but you get the idea! > > its quite clear that bigger numbers cost more than smaller ones > > I'm not sure that a tally (base-1, unary) is a good model for memory usage > in any computing system available today. And I thought that the Turing > model was based on binary: the machine could both mark a cell and erase the > mark, which corresponds to a bit. Well you can take your pick See unary here http://jeapostrophe.github.io/2013-10-29-tmadd-post.html > > > > > With current hardware it would seem to be a flat characteristic for > > everything < 2³² (or even 2⁶⁴) > > > > But thats only an optical illusion because after that the characteristic > > will rise jaggedly, slowly but monotonically, typically log-linearly > > [which AIUI is jmf's principal error] > > Can you be more specific at what you are trying to say? You seem to think > that you're saying something profound here, but I don't know what it is. I think that you seem to think that you know what I seem to think... but I digress. Big numbers are big ie expensive Small numbers are cheap Easy so far?? Then there is technology... making arbitrary decisions eg a word is 32 bits This just muddies the discussion but does not change the speed of light -- aka properties of the universe are invariant in the face of committee decisions -- even international consortiums So it SEEMS (to ppl like jmf) that a million is no more costly than ten However consider an 8 bit machine (eg 8088) the natural size - for fitting 25 is a byte - for 1000 is 2 bytes - for a million is 3 or 4 bytes depending on what we mean by 'natural' In short that a € costs more than a $ is a combination of the factors - a natural cause -- there are a million chars to encode (lets assume that the million of Unicode is somehow God-given AS A SET) - an artificial political one -- out of the million-factorial permutations of that million, the one that the Unicode consortium chose is towards satisfying the equation: Keep ASCII users undisturbed and happy > > > > > Which also means that if the Chinese were to have more say in the design > > of Unicode/ UTF-8 they would likely not waste swathes of prime real-estate > > for almost never used control characters just in the name of ASCII > > compliance > > There is this meme going around that Unicode is a Western imperialistic > conspiracy against Asians. For example, there was a blog post a year or so > ago by somebody bitterly complaining that he could draw a pile of poo in > Unicode but not write his own name, blaming Westerners for this horrible > state of affairs. > > But like most outrage on the Internet, his complaint was nonsense. He *can* > write his name -- he just has to use a combining character to add an > accent(?) to a base character. (Or possibly a better analogy is that of a > ligature.) His complaint came down to the fact that because his name > included a character which was unusual even in his own language (Bengali), > he had to use two Unicode code points rather than one to represent it. This > is, of course, the second worst[1] kind of discrimination. > > https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9219162 > > Likewise the hoo-har over CJK unification. Some people believe that this is > the evil Western imperialists forcing their ignorant views on the Chinese, > Japanese and Koreans, but the reality is that the Unicode Consortium merely > follows the decisions made by the Ideographic Rapporteur Group (IRG), > originally the CJK-JRG group. That is a multinational group set up by the > Chinese and Japanese, now including other East Asians (both Koreas, > Singapore, Vietnam) to decide on a common set of Han characters. > > Anyway, I digress. > > Given that there are tens of thousands of Han characters (with unification), > more than will fit in 16 bits, the 64 control characters in Unicode is not > going to make any practical difference. In some hypothetical world where > Han speakers got to claim code points U+0000-001F and U+0080-009F for > ideographs, pushing the control characters out into the astral planes, all > they would gain is *sixty four* code points. They would still need multiple > thousands of astral characters. > > Besides, some level of ASCII compatibility is useful even for Han speakers. > Their own native-designed standard encodings like Big5 and Shift-JIS (which > predate Unicode) keep byte-compatibility with the 32 ASCII control > characters. (I'm not sure about the 32 "C1" control characters.) Since the > Chinese and Japanese national standards pre-dating Unicode choose to keep > compatibility with the ASCII control characters, I don't think that there > is any good reason to think they would have made a different decision when > it came to Unicode had they had more of a say than they already did. > > Which was, and still is, considerable. Both China and Japan are very > influential in the Unicode Consortium, driving the addition of many new Han > characters and emoji. The idea that a bunch of Western corporations and > academics are pushing them around is laughable. > > > > > [1] The worst being that my US English keyboard doesn't have a proper curly > apostrophe, forcing me to use a straight ' mark in my name like some sort > of animal. > > -- > Steven
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Terry Reedy <tjreedy@udel.edu> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-29 14:46 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: Coding systems are political (was Exended ASCII and code pages) |
| Message-ID | <mailman.29.1464547599.1839.python-list@python.org> |
| In reply to | #109226 |
On 5/29/2016 2:12 AM, Rustom Mody wrote: > In short that a € costs more than a $ is a combination of the factors > - a natural cause -- there are a million chars to encode (lets assume that the > million of Unicode is somehow God-given AS A SET) > - an artificial political one -- out of the million-factorial permutations of > that million, the one that the Unicode consortium chose is towards satisfying the > equation: Keep ASCII users undisturbed and happy From the Python developer viewpoint, Unicode might as well be a fact of nature. I also note that in English text, a (phoneme) char conveys about 6 bits of information, while in Chinese text, a (word) char conveys perhaps 15 bits of information. So I argue that Python 3.3+'s FSR is being fair in using 1 byte for the first and most often 2 bytes for the other. -- Terry Jan Reedy
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Christian Gollwitzer <auriocus@gmx.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-29 22:29 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: Coding systems are political (was Exended ASCII and code pages) |
| Message-ID | <nifjem$qc4$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #109241 |
Am 29.05.16 um 20:46 schrieb Terry Reedy: > On 5/29/2016 2:12 AM, Rustom Mody wrote: > I also note that in English text, a (phoneme) char conveys > about 6 bits of information, 6 bits for a letter of English? That is way too much. Claude Shannon estimated something between 1 and 2 bits. You can try for yourself here: http://www.math.ucsd.edu/~crypto/java/ENTROPY/ Christian
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | wxjmfauth@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-30 06:35 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Coding systems are political (was Exended ASCII and code pages) |
| Message-ID | <7de64f06-3b1b-41b6-ab9f-ca31f20970a9@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #109241 |
Le dimanche 29 mai 2016 20:46:55 UTC+2, Terry Reedy a écrit : > On 5/29/2016 2:12 AM, Rustom Mody wrote: > > > In short that a € costs more than a $ is a combination of the factors > > - a natural cause -- there are a million chars to encode (lets assume that the > > million of Unicode is somehow God-given AS A SET) > > - an artificial political one -- out of the million-factorial permutations of > > that million, the one that the Unicode consortium chose is towards satisfying the > > equation: Keep ASCII users undisturbed and happy > > From the Python developer viewpoint, Unicode might as well be a fact of > nature. I also note that in English text, a (phoneme) char conveys > about 6 bits of information, while in Chinese text, a (word) char > conveys perhaps 15 bits of information. So I argue that Python 3.3+'s > FSR is being fair in using 1 byte for the first and most often 2 bytes > for the other. > As a serious developer and as the main maintener of IDLE, I can only recommend to work very hard to make "your" product "safe", so that it stops crashing when a user uses non ascii "characters". If you are understanding Unicode *and* Python and its character encoding model, it should be no too complicate. Hint: It's not necessary to use characters or code points in the Supplementary Multilingual Plane (SMP) and above. PS I have Py <= 3.5 in mind. Regards.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Rustom Mody <rustompmody@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-04 20:54 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Coding systems are political (was Exended ASCII and code pages) |
| Message-ID | <90693cdd-efdf-45da-ae30-350939902fc7@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #109241 |
On Monday, May 30, 2016 at 12:16:55 AM UTC+5:30, Terry Reedy wrote: > On 5/29/2016 2:12 AM, Rustom Mody wrote: > > > In short that a € costs more than a $ is a combination of the factors > > - a natural cause -- there are a million chars to encode (lets assume that the > > million of Unicode is somehow God-given AS A SET) > > - an artificial political one -- out of the million-factorial permutations of > > that million, the one that the Unicode consortium chose is towards satisfying the > > equation: Keep ASCII users undisturbed and happy > > From the Python developer viewpoint, Unicode might as well be a fact of > nature. I also note that in English text, a (phoneme) char conveys > about 6 bits of information, while in Chinese text, a (word) char > conveys perhaps 15 bits of information. So I argue that Python 3.3+'s > FSR is being fair in using 1 byte for the first and most often 2 bytes > for the other. Almost a fact of nature -- thats right Im making no complaint against python Or unicode for that matter. Bismarck's well-known quote: Politics is the art of the possible not so well-known additional clause "... the art of the second best" Unicode's relation to ASCII is analogous to C++ relation to C. Ask a typical C++ programmer about style/paradigm etc and you'll hear something unctuous about how C-style is terrible. Then ask why the question of C arises at all when its so unfit and obsolete ie why build C++ on a C base And you'll get vague, philosophical BS on pragmatism etc In short when it suits exploit C, when it suits abuse it. Unicode is likewise: The whole point of unicode is to go beyond ASCII And yet ASCII is allocated the prime real-estate of the lowest 128 of ASCII -- all the control-char wastage preserved intact
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | alister <alister.ware@ntlworld.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-29 06:19 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: Coding systems are political (was Exended ASCII and code pages) |
| Message-ID | <7Sv2z.1376827$UJ.993869@fx42.am4> |
| In reply to | #109225 |
On Sun, 29 May 2016 15:37:35 +1000, Steven D'Aprano wrote: > > [1] The worst being that my US English keyboard doesn't have a proper > curly apostrophe, forcing me to use a straight ' mark in my name like > some sort of animal. What do you expect after all US is standard engineering speak for Un- Serviceable ;-) -- The other line moves faster.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gregory Ewing <greg.ewing@canterbury.ac.nz> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-29 20:54 +1200 |
| Subject | Re: Coding systems are political (was Exended ASCII and code pages) |
| Message-ID | <dqvp1lF1aafU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #109225 |
Steven D'Aprano wrote: > And I thought that the Turing model was based on binary: It's not based on any particular encoding. When you define a Turing machine, you can pick any set of symbols you want for your alphabet. The model doesn't specify how they're represented. -- Greg
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Marko Rauhamaa <marko@pacujo.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-29 12:56 +0300 |
| Subject | Re: Coding systems are political (was Exended ASCII and code pages) |
| Message-ID | <87shx1dw71.fsf@elektro.pacujo.net> |
| In reply to | #109230 |
Gregory Ewing <greg.ewing@canterbury.ac.nz>: > Steven D'Aprano wrote: >> And I thought that the Turing model was based on binary: > > It's not based on any particular encoding. When you define a > Turing machine, you can pick any set of symbols you want for > your alphabet. The model doesn't specify how they're > represented. A Turing machine is a model of a mathematician: you have a state machine, an unlimited supply of blank sheets of paper, a pencil and an eraser. The model was created to prove or disprove the mathematicians' conviction that they could solve any given well-formed mathematical problem. Marko
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | wxjmfauth@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-30 09:11 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Coding systems are political (was Exended ASCII and code pages) |
| Message-ID | <e54c5d0c-a3e7-4f33-bd24-16289a0b6a40@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #109225 |
Le dimanche 29 mai 2016 07:37:51 UTC+2, Steven D'Aprano a écrit : > > [1] The worst being that my US English keyboard doesn't have a proper curly > apostrophe, forcing me to use a straight ' mark in my name like some sort > of animal. > This character, U+2019, is a real delight. With it, one can write - now - a Python application which is not working on the whole planet Earth. jmf L’élève et l’éléphant. (The pupil and the elephant). I just typed this on my stupid windows.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-28 02:16 +1000 |
| Subject | Re: Exended ASCII and code pages [was Re: for / while else doesn't make sense] |
| Message-ID | <mailman.26.1464365800.2277.python-list@python.org> |
| In reply to | #109176 |
On Sat, May 28, 2016 at 2:09 AM, Random832 <random832@fastmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, May 27, 2016, at 11:53, Rustom Mody wrote:
>> And coding systems are VERY political.
>> Sure what characters are put in (and not) is political
>> But more invisible but equally political is the collating order.
>>
>> eg No one understands what jmf's gripes are... My guess is that a Euro
>> costs 3 times a Dollar.
>>
>> >>> "€".encode("UTF-8")
>> b'\xe2\x82\xac'
>> >>> "$".encode("UTF-8")
>> b'$'
>>
>> [Its another matter that this is not the evil deed of python but of
>> UTF-8!]
>
> AIUI jmf's issue is that python's string type (nothing to do with UTF-8)
> doesn't treat all strings equally. Strings that are only in Latin-1
> (including your dollar example) have only one byte per character,
> whereas strings with BMP characters have two bytes per character (he
> also has some more difficult to understand objections to the large fixed
> overhead and the cached UTF-8 version [which ASCII strings don't have])
The objection, thus, is "some strings perform faster than others do".
The only time that's ever been a serious consideration has been in
cryptography, where timing-based attacks can be used to leech info
about a private key. But this ain't that.
ChrisA
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Steven D'Aprano <steve@pearwood.info> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-28 18:54 +1000 |
| Subject | Re: Exended ASCII and code pages [was Re: for / while else doesn't make sense] |
| Message-ID | <57495ce0$0$1585$c3e8da3$5496439d@news.astraweb.com> |
| In reply to | #109176 |
On Sat, 28 May 2016 01:53 am, Rustom Mody wrote: > On Friday, May 27, 2016 at 7:21:41 PM UTC+5:30, Random832 wrote: >> On Fri, May 27, 2016, at 05:56, Steven D'Aprano wrote: >> > On Fri, 27 May 2016 05:04 pm, Marko Rauhamaa wrote: >> > >> > > They are all ASCII derivatives. Those that aren't don't exist. >> > >> > *plonk* >> >> That's a bit harsh, considering that this argument started ... > > Is it now? > For some reason I am reminded that when I was in junior school and we > wanted to fight, we said "I am not talking to you!" made a certain gesture > and smartly marched off. > > I guess the gesture is culture-dependent and in these parts of the world > it sounds like "*plonk*" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plonk_%28Usenet%29 -- Steven
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Marko Rauhamaa <marko@pacujo.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-27 22:03 +0300 |
| Subject | Re: Exended ASCII and code pages [was Re: for / while else doesn't make sense] |
| Message-ID | <87lh2vwcf5.fsf@elektro.pacujo.net> |
| In reply to | #109173 |
Random832 <random832@fastmail.com>: > On Fri, May 27, 2016, at 05:56, Steven D'Aprano wrote: >> On Fri, 27 May 2016 05:04 pm, Marko Rauhamaa wrote: >> > They are all ASCII derivatives. Those that aren't don't exist. >> *plonk* > > That's a bit harsh, Everybody has a right to plonk anybody -- and even declare it ceremoniously. Steven and I have recurring run-ins because Steven is an expert on numerous trees while I'm constantly trying to shift the discussion to the forest. Marko
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Rustom Mody <rustompmody@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-27 21:23 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Exended ASCII and code pages [was Re: for / while else doesn't make sense] |
| Message-ID | <a376396f-980b-4cbc-8aa4-578ae662033c@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #109181 |
On Saturday, May 28, 2016 at 12:34:14 AM UTC+5:30, Marko Rauhamaa wrote: > Random832 : > > > On Fri, May 27, 2016, at 05:56, Steven D'Aprano wrote: > >> On Fri, 27 May 2016 05:04 pm, Marko Rauhamaa wrote: > >> > They are all ASCII derivatives. Those that aren't don't exist. > >> *plonk* > > > > That's a bit harsh, > > Everybody has a right to plonk anybody -- and even declare it > ceremoniously. > > Steven and I have recurring run-ins because Steven is an expert on > numerous trees while I'm constantly trying to shift the discussion to > the forest. How disconnected... Yours graph-theoretically,
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Rustom Mody <rustompmody@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-26 03:39 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Exended ASCII and code pages [was Re: for / while else doesn't make sense] |
| Message-ID | <8fd667b0-6cd9-431e-bc47-11a9d3352b1f@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #109142 |
On Thursday, May 26, 2016 at 1:41:41 PM UTC+5:30, Erik wrote: > On 26/05/16 02:28, Dennis Lee Bieber wrote: > > On Wed, 25 May 2016 22:03:34 +0100, Erik > > declaimed the following: > > > >> Indeed - at that time, I was working with COBOL on an IBM S/370. On that > >> system, we used EBCDIC ASCII. That was the wierdest ASCII of all <ducks> ;) > >> > > It would have to be... Extended Binary Coded Decimal Interchange Code, > > as I recall, predates American Standard Code for Information Interchange. > > > > EBCDIC's 8-bit code is actually more closely linked to Hollerith card > > encodings. > > I really didn't think it would be necessary to point this out (I thought > the "<ducks>" and emoji would be enough), but for the record, my > previous message was clearly a joke. > > To break it down, Stephen was making the observation that people call > all sorts of extended ASCII encodings (including proprietary things) > "ASCII". So I took it to the extreme and called something that had > nothing to do with ASCII a type of ASCII. > > As they say, if one has to explain one's jokes then they are probably > not funny ... JFTR I found the comment hilarious and even thought of incorporating it into http://blog.languager.org/2014/04/unicode-and-unix-assumption.html but could not find a smooth place to do so. [Mad run: Intensive course to run next week]
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Dennis Lee Bieber <wlfraed@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-26 07:07 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: Exended ASCII and code pages [was Re: for / while else doesn't make sense] |
| Message-ID | <mailman.6.1464260836.2277.python-list@python.org> |
| In reply to | #109108 |
On Thu, 26 May 2016 09:11:15 +0100, Erik <python@lucidity.plus.com>
declaimed the following:
>On 26/05/16 02:28, Dennis Lee Bieber wrote:
>> On Wed, 25 May 2016 22:03:34 +0100, Erik <python@lucidity.plus.com>
>> declaimed the following:
>>
>>> Indeed - at that time, I was working with COBOL on an IBM S/370. On that
>>> system, we used EBCDIC ASCII. That was the wierdest ASCII of all <ducks> ;)
>>>
>> It would have to be... Extended Binary Coded Decimal Interchange Code,
>> as I recall, predates American Standard Code for Information Interchange.
>>
>> EBCDIC's 8-bit code is actually more closely linked to Hollerith card
>> encodings.
>
>I really didn't think it would be necessary to point this out (I thought
>the "<ducks>" and emoji would be enough), but for the record, my
>previous message was clearly a joke.
>
>To break it down, Stephen was making the observation that people call
>all sorts of extended ASCII encodings (including proprietary things)
>"ASCII". So I took it to the extreme and called something that had
>nothing to do with ASCII a type of ASCII.
>
>As they say, if one has to explain one's jokes then they are probably
>not funny ...
>
><sigh> :(
>
Well... There is enough space in EBCDIC that someone could have created
a cross-over where the lower half of the space was ASCII and the upper half
carried the EBCDIC alphabet... Giving two values for every alphabetic
character...
--
Wulfraed Dennis Lee Bieber AF6VN
wlfraed@ix.netcom.com HTTP://wlfraed.home.netcom.com/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Marko Rauhamaa <marko@pacujo.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-25 13:47 +0300 |
| Message-ID | <87h9dm8ld9.fsf@elektro.pacujo.net> |
| In reply to | #109107 |
Christopher Reimer <christopher_reimer@icloud.com>: > Back in the early 1980's, I grew up on 8-bit processors and latin-1 was > all we had for ASCII. You really were very advanced. According to <URL: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ISO/IEC_8859-1#History>, ISO 8859-1 was standardized in 1985. "Eight-bit-cleanness" became a thing in the early 1990's. Where I was in late 1980's, the terminals were still 7-bit, and instead of ASCII, national 7-bit character set variants were being used. For example, you might see Pascal code like this: ä return the net å ret := grossÄunitÅ * grossRate <URL: http://www.aivosto.com/vbtips/charsets-7bit.html> > Over the last several days from reading this thread (and variations > thereof), l've seen several extended characters that I have no clue on > how to reproduce on my keyboard. I haven't embraced extended character > sets yet, which means I still think of ASCII characters as being 0 > through 255 (8-bit). But Latin-1 is on your fingertips? ¡Qué bueno! Entonces sabes dónde están las teclas españolas, ¿no? Marko
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Christopher Reimer <christopher_reimer@icloud.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-25 05:19 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <mailman.84.1464178749.20402.python-list@python.org> |
| In reply to | #109111 |
> On May 25, 2016, at 3:47 AM, Marko Rauhamaa <marko@pacujo.net> wrote: > > Christopher Reimer <christopher_reimer@icloud.com>: > >> Back in the early 1980's, I grew up on 8-bit processors and latin-1 was >> all we had for ASCII. > > You really were very advanced. According to <URL: > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ISO/IEC_8859-1#History>, ISO 8859-1 was > standardized in 1985. "Eight-bit-cleanness" became a thing in the early > 1990's. Apparently, I wasn't. According to the Internet, which can't be wrong, many of the 8-bit computers in the early 1980's were based on 1960's ASCII with some non-standard characters tossed in. Latin-1 probably came during my DOS days in the 1990's. As for ISO 8859-1, the standard was approved in 1985 but it was based on the character set for the first ANSI standard terminal, DEC VT-2200, that came out in 1983. Still early 1980's. ;) Thank you, Chris R.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 8 of 15 — ← Prev page 1 … 6 7 [8] 9 10 … 15 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.python
csiph-web