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

Groups > comp.lang.python > #56907 > unrolled thread

Possibly better loop construct, also labels+goto important and on the fly compiler idea.

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

Contents

  Possibly better loop construct, also labels+goto important and on the fly compiler idea. "Skybuck Flying" <Windows7IsOK@DreamPC2006.com> - 2013-10-17 01:36 +0200
    Re: Possibly better loop construct, also labels+goto important and on the fly compiler idea. "Skybuck Flying" <Windows7IsOK@DreamPC2006.com> - 2013-10-17 01:44 +0200
    Re: Possibly better loop construct, also labels+goto important and on the fly compiler idea. Ben Finney <ben+python@benfinney.id.au> - 2013-10-17 10:47 +1100
    Re: Possibly better loop construct, also labels+goto important and on the fly compiler idea. Steven D'Aprano <steve@pearwood.info> - 2013-10-17 09:06 +0000
    Re: Possibly better loop construct, also labels+goto important and on the fly compiler idea. Peter Cacioppi <peter.cacioppi@gmail.com> - 2013-10-17 16:53 -0700
      Re: Possibly better loop construct, also labels+goto important and on the fly compiler idea. Skip Montanaro <skip.montanaro@gmail.com> - 2013-10-17 19:39 -0500
      Re: Possibly better loop construct, also labels+goto important and on the fly compiler idea. Peter Cacioppi <peter.cacioppi@gmail.com> - 2013-10-17 17:41 -0700
      Re: Possibly better loop construct, also labels+goto important and on the fly compiler idea. Mark Lawrence <breamoreboy@yahoo.co.uk> - 2013-10-18 08:40 +0100
      Re: Possibly better loop construct, also labels+goto important and on the fly compiler idea. Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2013-10-18 18:44 +1100
      Re: Possibly better loop construct, also labels+goto important and on the fly compiler idea. Mark Lawrence <breamoreboy@yahoo.co.uk> - 2013-10-18 09:11 +0100
        Re: Possibly better loop construct, also labels+goto important and on the fly compiler idea. Peter Cacioppi <peter.cacioppi@gmail.com> - 2013-10-21 14:19 -0700
          Re: Possibly better loop construct, also labels+goto important and on the fly compiler idea. Dave Angel <davea@davea.name> - 2013-10-22 03:34 +0000
    Re: Possibly better loop construct, also labels+goto important and on the fly compiler idea. Peter Cacioppi <peter.cacioppi@gmail.com> - 2013-10-17 17:43 -0700
      Re: Possibly better loop construct, also labels+goto important and on the fly compiler idea. Mark Lawrence <breamoreboy@yahoo.co.uk> - 2013-10-18 08:42 +0100
    Re: Possibly better loop construct, also labels+goto important and on the fly compiler idea. Mark Lawrence <breamoreboy@yahoo.co.uk> - 2013-10-21 22:35 +0100
    Re: Possibly better loop construct, also labels+goto important and on the fly compiler idea. Bernhard Schornak <schornak@web.de> - 2013-10-23 15:13 +0200
      Re: Possibly better loop construct, also labels+goto important and on the fly compiler idea. "Skybuck Flying" <Windows7IsOK@DreamPC2006.com> - 2013-10-24 22:02 +0200
        Re: Possibly better loop construct, also labels+goto important and on the fly compiler idea. Mark Lawrence <breamoreboy@yahoo.co.uk> - 2013-10-25 15:13 +0100
        Re: Possibly better loop construct, also labels+goto important and on the fly compiler idea. Bernhard Schornak <schornak@web.de> - 2013-10-28 10:58 +0100
        Re: Possibly better loop construct, also labels+goto important and on the fly compiler idea. Bernhard Schornak <schornak@web.de> - 2013-10-28 11:49 +0100
    Re: Possibly better loop construct, also labels+goto important and on the fly compiler idea. Peter Cacioppi <peter.cacioppi@gmail.com> - 2013-10-25 11:57 -0700
      Don't use default Google Group client (was re:....) Terry Reedy <tjreedy@udel.edu> - 2013-10-25 16:05 -0400
        Re: Don't use default Google Group client (was re:....) rurpy@yahoo.com - 2013-10-25 16:44 -0700
          Re: Don't use default Google Group client (was re:....) Mark Lawrence <breamoreboy@yahoo.co.uk> - 2013-10-26 01:19 +0100
            Re: Don't use default Google Group client (was re:....) rurpy@yahoo.com - 2013-10-26 07:58 -0700
              Re: Don't use default Google Group client (was re:....) Mark Lawrence <breamoreboy@yahoo.co.uk> - 2013-10-26 16:38 +0100
                Re: Don't use default Google Group client (was re:....) rurpy@yahoo.com - 2013-10-26 21:36 -0700
          Re: Don't use default Google Group client (was re:....) Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2013-10-26 11:25 +1100
            Re: Don't use default Google Group client (was re:....) rurpy@yahoo.com - 2013-10-26 07:55 -0700
          Re: Don't use default Google Group client (was re:....) Terry Reedy <tjreedy@udel.edu> - 2013-10-25 20:35 -0400
            Re: Don't use default Google Group client (was re:....) rurpy@yahoo.com - 2013-10-26 08:00 -0700
          Re: Don't use default Google Group client (was re:....) Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2013-10-26 02:40 +0000
            Re: Don't use default Google Group client (was re:....) rusi <rustompmody@gmail.com> - 2013-10-26 05:15 -0700
              Re: Don't use default Google Group client Ben Finney <ben+python@benfinney.id.au> - 2013-10-27 00:02 +1100
              Re: Don't use default Google Group client (was re:....) rurpy@yahoo.com - 2013-10-26 08:07 -0700
              Re: Don't use default Google Group client (was re:....) Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2013-10-27 00:25 +1100
                Re: Don't use default Google Group client (was re:....) rurpy@yahoo.com - 2013-10-26 21:43 -0700
            Re: Don't use default Google Group client (was re:....) rurpy@yahoo.com - 2013-10-26 08:05 -0700
              Re: Don't use default Google Group client (was re:....) Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2013-10-26 17:24 +0000
                Re: Don't use default Google Group client (was re:....) rurpy@yahoo.com - 2013-10-26 21:33 -0700
              Re: Don't use default Google Group client (was re:....) Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2013-10-27 09:15 +1100
                Re: Don't use default Google Group client (was re:....) rurpy@yahoo.com - 2013-10-26 21:45 -0700
      Re: Possibly better loop construct, also labels+goto important and on the fly compiler idea. "Rhodri James" <rhodri@wildebst.demon.co.uk> - 2013-10-25 22:09 +0100
    Re: Possibly better loop construct, also labels+goto important and on the fly compiler idea. Peter Cacioppi <peter.cacioppi@gmail.com> - 2013-10-26 13:37 -0700
      Re: Possibly better loop construct, also labels+goto important and on the fly compiler idea. rusi <rustompmody@gmail.com> - 2013-10-26 18:45 -0700
        Re: Possibly better loop construct, also labels+goto important and on the fly compiler idea. Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2013-10-27 12:56 +1100
          Re: Possibly better loop construct, also labels+goto important and on the fly compiler idea. rurpy@yahoo.com - 2013-10-27 22:29 -0700
        Re: Possibly better loop construct, also labels+goto important and on the fly compiler idea. rurpy@yahoo.com - 2013-10-26 22:04 -0700
          Re: Possibly better loop construct, also labels+goto important and on the fly compiler idea. rusi <rustompmody@gmail.com> - 2013-10-27 00:59 -0700
            Re: Possibly better loop construct, also labels+goto important and on the fly compiler idea. rurpy@yahoo.com - 2013-10-27 22:40 -0700
              Re: Possibly better loop construct, also labels+goto important and on the fly compiler idea. rusi <rustompmody@gmail.com> - 2013-10-27 22:56 -0700
                Re: Possibly better loop construct, also labels+goto important and on the fly compiler idea. rusi <rustompmody@gmail.com> - 2013-10-27 23:51 -0700
        Re: Possibly better loop construct, also labels+goto important and on the fly compiler idea. Dennis Lee Bieber <wlfraed@ix.netcom.com> - 2013-10-27 12:10 -0400
      Re: Possibly better loop construct, also labels+goto important and on the fly compiler idea. rusi <rustompmody@gmail.com> - 2013-10-27 03:53 -0700
    Re: Possibly better loop construct, also labels+goto important and on the fly compiler idea. Peter Cacioppi <peter.cacioppi@gmail.com> - 2013-10-26 19:02 -0700

Page 3 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3]

#57675 — Re: Don't use default Google Group client (was re:....)

On Sun, Oct 27, 2013 at 2:05 AM,  <rurpy@yahoo.com> wrote:
> The large number of posts here from GG would suggest
> that the readership there is substantial, and the decline in
> "web-1.0" tools (usenet, mailing lists, etc) is additional
> evidence that the number of GG users (who are used to and
> prefer flashier web-based interfaces) may be much greater
> than you would like to think.

That's not a problem. The people who think that Web 2.0 has to
completely supplant everything else are most welcome to spend all day
on Facebook, and try to get their homework help from there. I don't
mind. Meanwhile, the rest of us will continue to use - and to
understand - the lower-level internet protocols that actually work. We
will then go on to develop communication protocols that don't involve
JavaScript in web browsers, that don't have ten-round-trip latency,
and that actually work. SMTP-like or MUD-like protocols seem to be
quite effective, in my experience.

ChrisA

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

#57720 — Re: Don't use default Google Group client (was re:....)

On 10/26/2013 04:15 PM, Chris Angelico wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 27, 2013 at 2:05 AM,  <rurpy@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> The large number of posts here from GG would suggest
>> that the readership there is substantial, and the decline in
>> "web-1.0" tools (usenet, mailing lists, etc) is additional
>> evidence that the number of GG users (who are used to and
>> prefer flashier web-based interfaces) may be much greater
>> than you would like to think.
> 
> That's not a problem. The people who think that Web 2.0 has to
> completely supplant everything else are most welcome to spend all day
> on Facebook, and try to get their homework help from there. I don't
> mind. Meanwhile, the rest of us will continue to use - and to
> understand - the lower-level internet protocols that actually work. We
> will then go on to develop communication protocols that don't involve
> JavaScript in web browsers, that don't have ten-round-trip latency,
> and that actually work. SMTP-like or MUD-like protocols seem to be
> quite effective, in my experience.

That's a pretty bigoted view of a large class of people.  
I understand your desire to stay with the technology you 
have learned and are familiar with.  However, your apparent 
desire to exclude people who don't share your view is a 
shame and seems contrary to the PSFs policy of being 
welcoming and encouraging diversity.

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

#57565

On Fri, 25 Oct 2013 19:57:37 +0100, Peter Cacioppi  
<peter.cacioppi@gmail.com> wrote:

> Some readers can discern context from the previous posts. That's sort of  
> what the word context means. But I understand this skill isn't universal.

Some readers are reading this "forum" as a mailing list or Usenet  
newsgroup.  Google groups seems to delight in making the "previous" post a  
poorly defined concept (by gratuitously breaking reference chains and the  
like).  It's not that the skill isn't universal, it's that the opportunity  
isn't.

-- 
Rhodri James *-* Wildebeest Herder to the Masses

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

#57658

Rusi said:


"Users of GG are requested to read and follow these instructions
https://wiki.python.org/moin/GoogleGroupsPython " 

Yes, I read those instructions and found them fairly opaque. If you want to instruct "children" (odd that I find myself categorized that way on a CS forum, but whatever) then you use pictures.

Seriously, it's not exactly clear what protocol GG users are expected follow to make posts hygenic. The standards I've used when creating this sort of content is to use screen shots with arrows and circles drawn in. If you're going to make an instruction page for some nuanced client feature, spend an extra 10 minutes and make it fully idiot proof.

With re: the snark ... I am shocked, shocked to find snarky comments on the internet. (eyeroll) There was plenty of snark in this joint before I posted, good luck policing that. 

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

#57696

On Sunday, October 27, 2013 2:07:53 AM UTC+5:30, Peter Cacioppi wrote:
> Rusi said:
> 
> "Users of GG are requested to read and follow these instructions
> https://wiki.python.org/moin/GoogleGroupsPython " 
> 
> 
> Seriously, it's not exactly clear what protocol GG users are expected follow 
> to make posts hygenic.

Yes... that page is longer and more confusing than necessary.
1. The double-posting bit is unnecessary -- not been happening after the 'new' GG.
2. The missing attributions problem is new and needs to be added
3. The main message of that page that needs to be noted is
- to remove extra spurious lines
- to NOT top-post

> The standards I've used when creating this sort of 
> content is to use screen shots with arrows and circles drawn in. If you're 
> going to make an instruction page for some nuanced client feature, spend an 
> extra 10 minutes and make it fully idiot proof.

Please do!
If I were in charge I would say "Patches welcome!"
Who is the 'you' you think you are addressing?

> 
> With re: the snark ... I am shocked, shocked to find snarky comments on the internet. (eyeroll) There was plenty of snark in this joint before I posted, good luck policing that.

Not my complaint: idiocy was my complaint

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

#57698

On Sun, Oct 27, 2013 at 12:45 PM, rusi <rustompmody@gmail.com> wrote:
> Yes... that page is longer and more confusing than necessary.
> 1. The double-posting bit is unnecessary -- not been happening after the 'new' GG.
> 2. The missing attributions problem is new and needs to be added
> 3. The main message of that page that needs to be noted is
> - to remove extra spurious lines
> - to NOT top-post

If someone's editing that page, it'd be nice to also ask people to
chop their lines short - most newsgroup and mail clients hard-wrap to
80 characters, but GG posts invariably come through with one-line
paragraphs. It's annoying when you try to quote the text, and several
online archives look ugly when the lines are too long.

ChrisA

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

#57786

On 10/26/2013 07:56 PM, Chris Angelico wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 27, 2013 at 12:45 PM, rusi <rustompmody@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Yes... that page is longer and more confusing than necessary.
>> 1. The double-posting bit is unnecessary -- not been happening after the 'new' GG.
>> 2. The missing attributions problem is new and needs to be added
>> 3. The main message of that page that needs to be noted is
>> - to remove extra spurious lines
>> - to NOT top-post
> 
> If someone's editing that page, it'd be nice to also ask people to
> chop their lines short - most newsgroup and mail clients hard-wrap to
> 80 characters, but GG posts invariably come through with one-line
> paragraphs. It's annoying when you try to quote the text, and several
> online archives look ugly when the lines are too long.

That describes my personal preferences too but...

I know people who complain about manually wrapped lines.  When you 
widen the window they don't expand to fill the width, and when you 
narrow the window they wrap and create this awful ragged effect.

Long lines wrapped by the client reader seem to be pretty common
these days, not just from GG but from many sources although they 
remain a minority of messages in c.l.p.

Further, although I've commonly seen complaints about top-posting 
or occasionally excessive untrimmed context or html, I don't recall 
seeing any complaints about long lines.  Rusi posts here frequently
with long lines and I've not seen any complaints related to that.

I seems to me unfair to demand different standards from GG users 
than others even if such posts are more common from GG.

Maybe there should be a c.l.p etiquette page somewhere applicable 
to all posters.

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

#57721

On 10/26/2013 07:45 PM, rusi wrote:
> On Sunday, October 27, 2013 2:07:53 AM UTC+5:30, Peter Cacioppi wrote:
>> Rusi said:
>> 
>> "Users of GG are requested to read and follow these instructions
>> https://wiki.python.org/moin/GoogleGroupsPython " 
>> 
>> Seriously, it's not exactly clear what protocol GG users are expected follow 
>> to make posts hygenic.

First, thanks (both of you) very much for the feedback.  I originally 
wrote that page.

> Yes... that page is longer and more confusing than necessary.
> 1. The double-posting bit is unnecessary -- not been happening after the 'new' GG.

OK, I have not seen the the cc option in a long time either.

> 2. The missing attributions problem is new and needs to be added

I don't understand this.  When I use GG I have not noticed missing
attributions.  Do you have any idea under what circumstances it happens?

> 3. The main message of that page that needs to be noted is
> - to remove extra spurious lines

That is point #2 on the page, right after the point about double posting
and will be #1 when the double posting point is removed.  Are you saying
that is it not prominent enough, or not clear enough?
 
> - to NOT top-post

Good point, I'll add that.

>> The standards I've used when creating this sort of 
>> content is to use screen shots with arrows and circles drawn in. If you're 
>> going to make an instruction page for some nuanced client feature, spend an 
>> extra 10 minutes and make it fully idiot proof.
> 
> Please do!
> If I were in charge I would say "Patches welcome!"
> Who is the 'you' you think you are addressing?

If me, I'll think about it but given that the page is instructions
about how to modify text, pictures would not come to my mind immediately
as being most appropriate.

Thanks again though for the suggestions.

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

#57730

On Sunday, October 27, 2013 10:34:11 AM UTC+5:30, ru...@yahoo.com wrote:
> On 10/26/2013 07:45 PM, rusi wrote:
> 
> > On Sunday, October 27, 2013 2:07:53 AM UTC+5:30, Peter Cacioppi wrote:
> >> Rusi said:
> >> 
> >> "Users of GG are requested to read and follow these instructions
> >> https://wiki.python.org/moin/GoogleGroupsPython " 
> >> 
> >> Seriously, it's not exactly clear what protocol GG users are expected follow 
> >> to make posts hygenic.
> 
> 
> First, thanks (both of you) very much for the feedback.  I originally 
> wrote that page.

One more 'to-be-removed' from that page is the bit about new and old GG at the end.  It used to work for a while. Now google has completely removed the 'old interface' (at least to the best of my knowledge).

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

#57787

On Sunday, October 27, 2013 1:59:05 AM UTC-6, rusi wrote:
> On Sunday, October 27, 2013 10:34:11 AM UTC+5:30, ru...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > On 10/26/2013 07:45 PM, rusi wrote:
> > > On Sunday, October 27, 2013 2:07:53 AM UTC+5:30, Peter Cacioppi wrote:
> > First, thanks (both of you) very much for the feedback.  I originally 
> > wrote that page.
> 
> One more 'to-be-removed' from that page is the bit about new and old GG at the end.  It used to work for a while. Now google has completely removed the 'old interface' (at least to the best of my knowledge).

I updated the page, hopefully it's an improvement?

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

#57788

On Monday, October 28, 2013 11:10:21 AM UTC+5:30, ru...@yahoo.com wrote:
> I updated the page, hopefully it's an improvement?


Most people who top-post have no idea that they are top-posting and that there
are alternatives and they are preferred (out here)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Placement_of_replies should help

Otherwise ok I think

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

#57791

On Monday, October 28, 2013 11:26:21 AM UTC+5:30, rusi wrote:
> On Monday, October 28, 2013 11:10:21 AM UTC+5:30, ru...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > I updated the page, hopefully it's an improvement?
> 
> 
> Otherwise ok I think

Just looked at the general netiquette link -- its long and not much use for a technical oriented forum.

Some items missed (irrespective of GG usage)
1. Good subject line
2. Good code examples http://sscce.org/
3. http://www.catb.org/esr/faqs/smart-questions.html

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

#57751

On Sun, 27 Oct 2013 12:56:30 +1100, Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com>
declaimed the following:

>If someone's editing that page, it'd be nice to also ask people to
>chop their lines short - most newsgroup and mail clients hard-wrap to
>80 characters, but GG posts invariably come through with one-line
>paragraphs. It's annoying when you try to quote the text, and several
>online archives look ugly when the lines are too long.
>

	And I think it all comes to the same basis as the infernal double-space
quotes...

	{Hypothesis based on black-box observation} GG is using HTML for
formatting internally, so what it displays as a nicely wrapped paragraph
goes out to Usenet/MailingList as a single long line -- the <p></p> becomes
a pair of line-ending characters as seen by NNTP clients (a pair to put a
blank line between /paragraphs/). In the other direction, properly
formatted (<80character) lines are being wrapped by <p></p> tags on input
to GG -- each of our display lines becoming a single paragraph on GG. Now
when quoted and sent back out, these 'paragraphs' get the double-space
treatment.
-- 
	Wulfraed                 Dennis Lee Bieber         AF6VN
    wlfraed@ix.netcom.com    HTTP://wlfraed.home.netcom.com/

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

#57735

On Sunday, October 27, 2013 2:07:53 AM UTC+5:30, Peter Cacioppi wrote:
> Rusi said:
> 
> > Users of GG are requested to read and follow these instructions
> > https://wiki.python.org/moin/GoogleGroupsPython
> 
> Yes, I read those instructions and found them fairly opaque. If you want to 
> instruct "children" (odd that I find myself categorized that way on a CS 
> forum, but whatever) then you use pictures.

The children is intended almost literally:
GG claims that the python list (or its version thereof) has 21447 'members'.
I am willing to bet that the average age of the 21447 humans whose records are in google's dbms is between half and one-third of those that use usenet channels.

I am speaking a bit legalistically because just as statisticians will argue about what 'average' (or mean) means, likewise we could argue about what a 'member' means:
- someone who joins but does not post
- someone who joins and does not even read
- someone who posts frequently. [What's the frequency threshold?]

And which is why I quoted the passage from mathsemantics in the other thread (repeated below). So all we can really infer is that the table in some GG database contains 21447 records


------------
I 1980 I was one passenger, ten passengers, eighteen passengers, thirty-six passengers, forty-two passengers, fifty-five passengers, seventy-two passengers and ninety-four passengers.  Each of these statements is true.
-----------
... explanation...
-----------
I was one passenger in the sense that I was a person who traveled by air in that year.
I was eighteen passengers in the sense that I made eighteen round trips.
I was forty-two passengers in the sense that on forty-two different occasions I entered and exited the system of a different carrier.
I was seventy-two passengers in the sense that on seventy-two occasions I was on board an aircraft when it took off from one place and landed at another.
I was ninety-four passengers in the sense that I made ninety-four separate entrances and exits from airport terminal buildings. 

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

#57699

Rusi said :
"Please do! If I were in charge I would say "Patches welcome!" 

Well, I don't really know what the GG best practice ought to be here. 

What I am doing now (manually copying whatever I need to quote to give some context) seems to be tolerable to law enforcement (I guess). But I'm minimizing the PIA not with some clever GG usage but by exploiting two monitors and the way I have "open in new browser" configured. It isn't something I'd care to document and it doesn't really scale to general usage.

And, for all I know, the goons are still grinding their teeth, they're just more quiet now.

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Page 3 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3]

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

csiph-web