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

Groups > comp.lang.python > #9630 > unrolled thread

Tabs -vs- Spaces: Tabs should have won.

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

Contents

  Tabs -vs- Spaces: Tabs should have won. rantingrick <rantingrick@gmail.com> - 2011-07-16 09:51 -0700
    Re: feeding the troll (was: Tabs -vs- Spaces: Tabs should have won.) Tim Chase <python.list@tim.thechases.com> - 2011-07-16 12:52 -0500
    Re: Tabs -vs- Spaces: Tabs should have won. Andrew Berg <bahamutzero8825@gmail.com> - 2011-07-16 17:59 -0500
    Re: Tabs -vs- Spaces: Tabs should have won. Tim Roberts <timr@probo.com> - 2011-07-16 16:06 -0700
      Re: Tabs -vs- Spaces: Tabs should have won. Andrew Berg <bahamutzero8825@gmail.com> - 2011-07-17 02:29 -0500
        Re: Tabs -vs- Spaces: Tabs should have won. Tim Roberts <timr@probo.com> - 2011-07-18 22:36 -0700
      Re: Tabs -vs- Spaces: Tabs should have won. Ian Kelly <ian.g.kelly@gmail.com> - 2011-07-17 01:39 -0600
    Re: Tabs -vs- Spaces: Tabs should have won. Cameron Simpson <cs@zip.com.au> - 2011-07-17 09:52 +1000
      Re: Tabs -vs- Spaces: Tabs should have won. Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2011-07-17 13:09 +1000
        Re: Tabs -vs- Spaces: Tabs should have won. anand jeyahar <anand.ibmgsi@gmail.com> - 2011-07-17 09:29 +0530
        Re: Tabs -vs- Spaces: Tabs should have won. Cameron Simpson <cs@zip.com.au> - 2011-07-17 14:12 +1000
        Re: Tabs -vs- Spaces: Tabs should have won. Ian Kelly <ian.g.kelly@gmail.com> - 2011-07-17 01:32 -0600
          Re: Tabs -vs- Spaces: Tabs should have won. TheSaint <no@nowhere.net.no> - 2011-07-17 21:12 +0800
          Re: Tabs -vs- Spaces: Tabs should have won. rantingrick <rantingrick@gmail.com> - 2011-07-17 08:15 -0700
            Re: Tabs -vs- Spaces: Tabs should have won. Tim Chase <python.list@tim.thechases.com> - 2011-07-17 13:22 -0500
              Re: Tabs -vs- Spaces: Tabs should have won. rantingrick <rantingrick@gmail.com> - 2011-07-17 12:49 -0700
            Re: Tabs -vs- Spaces: Tabs should have won. Ian Kelly <ian.g.kelly@gmail.com> - 2011-07-17 12:48 -0600
              Re: Tabs -vs- Spaces: Tabs should have won. rantingrick <rantingrick@gmail.com> - 2011-07-17 12:54 -0700
                Re: Tabs -vs- Spaces: Tabs should have won. Ian Kelly <ian.g.kelly@gmail.com> - 2011-07-17 16:02 -0600
                  Re: Tabs -vs- Spaces: Tabs should have won. Roy Smith <roy@panix.com> - 2011-07-17 19:29 -0400
                    Re: Tabs -vs- Spaces: Tabs should have won. Andrew Berg <bahamutzero8825@gmail.com> - 2011-07-17 18:55 -0500
                      Re: Tabs -vs- Spaces: Tabs should have won. Roy Smith <roy@panix.com> - 2011-07-17 20:28 -0400
                        Re: Tabs -vs- Spaces: Tabs should have won. Andrew Berg <bahamutzero8825@gmail.com> - 2011-07-17 19:48 -0500
                        Re: Tabs -vs- Spaces: Tabs should have won. Andrew Berg <bahamutzero8825@gmail.com> - 2011-07-17 19:50 -0500
                          Re: Tabs -vs- Spaces: Tabs should have won. Mel <mwilson@the-wire.com> - 2011-07-17 21:06 -0400
                          Re: Tabs -vs- Spaces: Tabs should have won. Mel <mwilson@the-wire.com> - 2011-07-17 21:06 -0400
                    Re: Tabs -vs- Spaces: Tabs should have won. Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2011-07-18 11:01 +1000
                      Re: Tabs -vs- Spaces: Tabs should have won. Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2011-07-18 11:12 +1000
                        Re: Tabs -vs- Spaces: Tabs should have won. Ben Finney <ben+python@benfinney.id.au> - 2011-07-18 11:42 +1000
                        Re: Tabs -vs- Spaces: Tabs should have won. Gregory Ewing <greg.ewing@canterbury.ac.nz> - 2011-07-18 18:26 +1200
                      Re: Tabs -vs- Spaces: Tabs should have won. Tim Chase <python.list@tim.thechases.com> - 2011-07-18 05:52 -0500
                        Re: Tabs -vs- Spaces: Tabs should have won. Duncan Booth <duncan.booth@invalid.invalid> - 2011-07-18 13:52 +0000
                          Re: Tabs -vs- Spaces: Tabs should have won. MRAB <python@mrabarnett.plus.com> - 2011-07-18 17:59 +0100
                          Re: Tabs -vs- Spaces: Tabs should have won. Roy Smith <roy@panix.com> - 2011-07-18 19:07 -0400
                        Re: Tabs -vs- Spaces: Tabs should have won. Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2011-07-19 00:59 +1000
                          Re: Tabs -vs- Spaces: Tabs should have won. Dave Angel <davea@ieee.org> - 2011-07-18 13:11 -0400
                      Re: Tabs -vs- Spaces: Tabs should have won. python@bdurham.com - 2011-07-18 08:33 -0400
                      Re: Tabs -vs- Spaces: Tabs should have won. gene heskett <gheskett@wdtv.com> - 2011-07-18 10:12 -0400
                    Re: Tabs -vs- Spaces: Tabs should have won. tinnews@isbd.co.uk - 2011-07-18 10:49 +0100
                    Re: Tabs -vs- Spaces: Tabs should have won. Dotan Cohen <dotancohen@gmail.com> - 2011-07-18 21:51 +0300
                    Re: Tabs -vs- Spaces: Tabs should have won. Andrew Berg <bahamutzero8825@gmail.com> - 2011-07-18 14:06 -0500
                    Re: Tabs -vs- Spaces: Tabs should have won. Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2011-07-19 05:15 +1000
        Re: Tabs -vs- Spaces: Tabs should have won. Andrew Berg <bahamutzero8825@gmail.com> - 2011-07-17 02:52 -0500
        Re: Tabs -vs- Spaces: Tabs should have won. "Anders J. Munch" <2011@jmunch.dk> - 2011-07-17 11:49 +0200
          Re: Tabs -vs- Spaces: Tabs should have won. rantingrick <rantingrick@gmail.com> - 2011-07-17 09:53 -0700
            Re: Tabs -vs- Spaces: Tabs should have won. Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2011-07-18 03:11 +1000
              Re: Tabs -vs- Spaces: Tabs should have won. rantingrick <rantingrick@gmail.com> - 2011-07-17 10:57 -0700
                Re: Tabs -vs- Spaces: Tabs should have won. Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2011-07-18 04:09 +1000
                Re: Tabs -vs- Spaces: Tabs should have won. Thorsten Kampe <thorsten@thorstenkampe.de> - 2011-07-17 20:20 +0200
                  Re: Tabs -vs- Spaces: Tabs should have won. rantingrick <rantingrick@gmail.com> - 2011-07-17 12:22 -0700
                  Re: Tabs -vs- Spaces: Tabs should have won. Dotan Cohen <dotancohen@gmail.com> - 2011-07-17 22:38 +0300
                Re: Tabs -vs- Spaces: Tabs should have won. Dotan Cohen <dotancohen@gmail.com> - 2011-07-17 22:36 +0300
              Re: Tabs -vs- Spaces: Tabs should have won. Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2011-07-18 10:54 +1000
                Re: Tabs -vs- Spaces: Tabs should have won. Andrew Berg <bahamutzero8825@gmail.com> - 2011-07-17 20:26 -0500
                Re: Tabs -vs- Spaces: Tabs should have won. Teemu Likonen <tlikonen@iki.fi> - 2011-07-18 09:00 +0300
            Re: Tabs -vs- Spaces: Tabs should have won. Cameron Simpson <cs@zip.com.au> - 2011-07-18 08:14 +1000
          Re: Tabs -vs- Spaces: Tabs should have won. Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2011-07-17 21:44 +0200
            Re: Tabs -vs- Spaces: Tabs should have won. "Anders J. Munch" <2011@jmunch.dk> - 2011-07-18 20:19 +0200
          Re: Tabs -vs- Spaces: Tabs should have won. Gregory Ewing <greg.ewing@canterbury.ac.nz> - 2011-07-18 10:06 +1200
            Re: Tabs -vs- Spaces: Tabs should have won. Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2011-07-18 18:58 +0200
    Re: Tabs -vs- Spaces: Tabs should have won. Andrew Berg <bahamutzero8825@gmail.com> - 2011-07-16 19:29 -0500
      Re: Tabs -vs- Spaces: Tabs should have won. Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2011-07-17 13:07 +1000
        Re: Tabs -vs- Spaces: Tabs should have won. Andrew Berg <bahamutzero8825@gmail.com> - 2011-07-16 22:20 -0500
      Re: Tabs -vs- Spaces: Tabs should have won. Thorsten Kampe <thorsten@thorstenkampe.de> - 2011-07-17 09:56 +0200
        Re: Tabs -vs- Spaces: Tabs should have won. Andrew Berg <bahamutzero8825@gmail.com> - 2011-07-17 03:36 -0500
          Re: Tabs -vs- Spaces: Tabs should have won. Thorsten Kampe <thorsten@thorstenkampe.de> - 2011-07-17 11:33 +0200
            Re: Tabs -vs- Spaces: Tabs should have won. Andrew Berg <bahamutzero8825@gmail.com> - 2011-07-17 05:02 -0500
              Re: Tabs -vs- Spaces: Tabs should have won. Thorsten Kampe <thorsten@thorstenkampe.de> - 2011-07-17 12:42 +0200
                Re: Tabs -vs- Spaces: Tabs should have won. Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2011-07-17 14:35 +0200
                  Re: Tabs -vs- Spaces: Tabs should have won. Thorsten Kampe <thorsten@thorstenkampe.de> - 2011-07-17 17:03 +0200
                    Re: Tabs -vs- Spaces: Tabs should have won. Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2011-07-17 21:10 +0200
                Re: Tabs -vs- Spaces: Tabs should have won. rantingrick <rantingrick@gmail.com> - 2011-07-17 09:46 -0700
                  Re: Tabs -vs- Spaces: Tabs should have won. Andrew Berg <bahamutzero8825@gmail.com> - 2011-07-17 18:21 -0500
    Re: Tabs -vs- Spaces: Tabs should have won. Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2011-07-17 10:31 +1000
    Re: Tabs -vs- Spaces: Tabs should have won. Dennis Lee Bieber <wlfraed@ix.netcom.com> - 2011-07-16 19:27 -0700
    Re: Tabs -vs- Spaces: Tabs should have won. Thorsten Kampe <thorsten@thorstenkampe.de> - 2011-07-17 09:35 +0200
      Re: Tabs -vs- Spaces: Tabs should have won. rantingrick <rantingrick@gmail.com> - 2011-07-17 09:29 -0700
        Re: Tabs -vs- Spaces: Tabs should have won. Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2011-07-18 02:50 +1000
        Re: Tabs -vs- Spaces: Tabs should have won. Ian Kelly <ian.g.kelly@gmail.com> - 2011-07-17 12:54 -0600
          Re: Tabs -vs- Spaces: Tabs should have won. rantingrick <rantingrick@gmail.com> - 2011-07-17 13:12 -0700
            Re: Tabs -vs- Spaces: Tabs should have won. Ian Kelly <ian.g.kelly@gmail.com> - 2011-07-17 16:39 -0600
            Re: Tabs -vs- Spaces: Tabs should have won. Andrew Berg <bahamutzero8825@gmail.com> - 2011-07-17 18:18 -0500
    Re: Tabs -vs- Spaces: Tabs should have won. Dotan Cohen <dotancohen@gmail.com> - 2011-07-17 11:15 +0300
      Re: Tabs -vs- Spaces: Tabs should have won. Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2011-07-17 14:53 +0200
        Re: Tabs -vs- Spaces: Tabs should have won. Dotan Cohen <dotancohen@gmail.com> - 2011-07-17 22:26 +0300
          Re: Tabs -vs- Spaces: Tabs should have won. Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2011-07-17 21:53 +0200
            Re: Tabs -vs- Spaces: Tabs should have won. Dotan Cohen <dotancohen@gmail.com> - 2011-07-17 23:46 +0300
    Re: Tabs -vs- Spaces: Tabs should have won. Andrew Berg <bahamutzero8825@gmail.com> - 2011-07-17 03:35 -0500
    Re: Tabs -vs- Spaces: Tabs should have won. Dotan Cohen <dotancohen@gmail.com> - 2011-07-17 14:11 +0300
      Re: Tabs -vs- Spaces: Tabs should have won. rusi <rustompmody@gmail.com> - 2011-07-17 04:21 -0700
      Re: Tabs -vs- Spaces: Tabs should have won. Thorsten Kampe <thorsten@thorstenkampe.de> - 2011-07-17 13:51 +0200
        Re: Tabs -vs- Spaces: Tabs should have won. Dotan Cohen <dotancohen@gmail.com> - 2011-07-17 22:20 +0300
          Re: Tabs -vs- Spaces: Tabs should have won. Thorsten Kampe <thorsten@thorstenkampe.de> - 2011-07-17 21:34 +0200
            Re: Tabs -vs- Spaces: Tabs should have won. rantingrick <rantingrick@gmail.com> - 2011-07-17 13:22 -0700
    Re: Tabs -vs- Spaces: Tabs should have won. gene heskett <gheskett@wdtv.com> - 2011-07-17 10:29 -0400
      Re: Tabs -vs- Spaces: Tabs should have won. Thorsten Kampe <thorsten@thorstenkampe.de> - 2011-07-17 17:10 +0200
        Re: Tabs -vs- Spaces: Tabs should have won. Corey Richardson <kb1pkl@aim.com> - 2011-07-17 12:28 -0400
        Re: Tabs -vs- Spaces: Tabs should have won. Anssi Saari <as@sci.fi> - 2011-07-18 19:28 +0300
          Re: Tabs -vs- Spaces: Tabs should have won. Thorsten Kampe <thorsten@thorstenkampe.de> - 2011-07-18 18:51 +0200
          Re: Tabs -vs- Spaces: Tabs should have won. Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2011-07-18 19:07 +0200
      Re: Tabs -vs- Spaces: Tabs should have won. "Waldek M." <wm@localhost.localdomain> - 2011-07-17 21:39 +0200
    Re: Tabs -vs- Spaces: Tabs should have won. Dotan Cohen <dotancohen@gmail.com> - 2011-07-17 22:28 +0300
    Re: Tabs -vs- Spaces: Tabs should have won. gene heskett <gheskett@wdtv.com> - 2011-07-17 20:35 -0400

Page 3 of 6 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 5 6  Next page →

#9825

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: RIPEMD160

On 2011.07.18 01:51 PM, Dotan Cohen wrote:
> Let me see if I understand: because there exists a possibility that 
> someone might want (not need) to edit code on a telephone to make a 
> quick edit to code being interpreted on that machine, _all_ Python 
> code should limit itself to a line width that may or may not wrap on
> a telephone screen?
> 
> Is that the argument in favor of an 80-character line width?
I doubt that's /the/ argument. I speculated that it's one of the reasons
that a column limit still has relevance. I did not say that I thought
the argument had merit; I make no judgment either way. Also, I'm sure
more than quick edits are done on these phones. Depending on the focus
of the project, it may be best to do most, if not all testing on that
device.

Personally, I think that 80 is pretty arbitrary now, and not the best
limit. I'm more comfortable with 120-130 myself. In any case, Python
won't complain about how many characters are on a line, and that's the
way it should be.

- -- 
CPython 3.2.1 | Windows NT 6.1.7601.17592 | Thunderbird 5.0
PGP/GPG Public Key ID: 0xF88E034060A78FCB
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/

iQEcBAEBAwAGBQJOJIQ9AAoJEPiOA0Bgp4/LhgUH/iFWmSZXw9Rw0SyHpRZ4gPvb
WahJhf3j0bAnWnJWueAMgzgTMzuZv/6V6x8Yka/KewjBk5/coIsCNHgL+LR8rrat
YbN3FTQneuTlwtkj+2wQV+pQEQM6i2eVs50TEji98NW1jqtwW3UxhT/x4efaUHtc
9iHZRZTqmNMlXJWfRgfD6mC0bHGGAUTadyetGHicdZYy+AIo8Di7tObd5SwuQxIM
8U7aRkupiOpRaUj3YXXsIuWeio+SirpnJiVdWadBbgsdBSjI8jJl2MqXq52BieA6
5avnDGA+6575+1GNTaLXHNyFpgNkTUXCb5cOf3TP6zk0q9EtNxYY9dxQ8QJmdU8=
=sKG0
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

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

#9826

On Tue, Jul 19, 2011 at 5:06 AM, Andrew Berg <bahamutzero8825@gmail.com> wrote:
> Personally, I think that 80 is pretty arbitrary now, and not the best
> limit. I'm more comfortable with 120-130 myself. In any case, Python
> won't complain about how many characters are on a line, and that's the
> way it should be.
>

It's a question of policy, which is in the purview of the maintainer
of the codebase. But since Python itself has a lot of Python code, the
policy applied to its standard library is going to be looked at by
everyone as having special status.

ChrisA

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

#9681

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: RIPEMD160

On 2011.07.17 02:32 AM, Ian Kelly wrote:
> Of course, there is also another major problem with tabs that I have 
> not seen pointed out yet, which is that it's not possible to
> strictly adhere to 80-column lines with tabs.  I can write my code to
> 80 columns using 4-space tabs, but if somebody later tries to edit
> the file using 8-space tabs, their lines will be too long.
Setting an editor to read a tab as 8 spaces is just plain silly if your
display is limited to 80 characters/line. Inserting 8 spaces as one
indent is also a bit silly, but if you're going to do it, it's your
responsibility to make sure the line is still less than 80 characters.

- -- 
CPython 3.2.1 | Windows NT 6.1.7601.17592 | Thunderbird 5.0
PGP/GPG Public Key ID: 0xF88E034060A78FCB
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/

iQEcBAEBAwAGBQJOIpSlAAoJEPiOA0Bgp4/L7JwH/3zysmIUDPyy6f4X7oKAFye0
YcjgC5vM5gHQ4HGemGrIGBuurYffcC1XL3Cf7V5y4Rf6F+XwueLN1C4YEl8r1dtw
r+E6pVsFM4e5keLoWb4s+IeBu0HV6GqHyXkEmj8kV8QG9dZJbWML42+AwGauXdO/
IUne0zp1ojHbAY5lDVJnRako3hMyXuxJjpERZXXh/Qe+z9GyaQ4/AHrVFsYyWS3A
ZE9L7y/Yv/Bba9DjYLs1sgFDGVF996yQFAnhPw52cmlahh3/1vbpV+CPQhIeVVH8
PqObrFw9cdAMoo/kVoPRmcNBU+Xf9tlTDUS5w6bn7WjrYdnd28VesZ03uaapWx8=
=tWjf
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

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

#9699

Steven D'Aprano wrote:
 > I can't fathom why 8 position tabs were *ever* the default, let alone why
 > they are still the default.

That's because they were not invented as a means for programmers to vary 
indentation.

Originally, tabs were a navigation device: When you press the tab key, you skip 
ahead to the next tab column.  The notion that whitespace characters are 
inserted into the text would have been very alien to someone using text 
processing software anno 1970.  Same thing with space and enter; on typewriters
the space bar doesn't "type" anything onto the paper, it moves to the next 
column, and that thinking carried over to computers.

The reason the tab stop is a full 8 positions: for faster navigation.  If it 
were 3 positions, it would take forever to skip from the start of line to column 
60.  You'd appreciate that, if you were e.g. writing a fiduciary report with 
some text to the left and two number columns to the right, back in the day 
before spreadsheets and word processor tables.  Skip a column or two too far? 
Adjust by backspacing (another navigation key).

As for why 8 is still the default - well, what else should it be? 2, 3, 4, 5?  I 
for one am thankful that we have so far been spared the flamewar armegeddon of 
all the world's programmers trying to agree on that.

 > Cameron Simpson wrote:
 >> Personally, I like to use the tab _key_ as an input device, but to have
 >> my editor write real spaces to the file in consequence.

Just like in the old days:)

regards, Anders

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

#9722

On Jul 17, 4:49 am, "Anders J. Munch" <2...@jmunch.dk> wrote:

> Originally, tabs were a navigation device: When you press the tab key, you skip
> ahead to the next tab column.  The notion that whitespace characters are
> inserted into the text would have been very alien to someone using text
> processing software anno 1970.  Same thing with space and enter; on typewriters
> the space bar doesn't "type" anything onto the paper, it moves to the next
> column, and that thinking carried over to computers.

And how much longer are we going to live in the past? Who cares about
backward compatible tabs. Mandate the four space tab now! Mandate that
Python takes four space and four space only! We shall lead the charge
for universal tab unity in all programming languages.

How long are you going to accept this multiplicity? It's ridiculous.

> The reason the tab stop is a full 8 positions: for faster navigation.  If it
> were 3 positions, it would take forever to skip from the start of line to column
> 60.  You'd appreciate that, if you were e.g. writing a fiduciary report with
> some text to the left and two number columns to the right, back in the day
> before spreadsheets and word processor tables.

Just in case you were not aware this the year 2011. Spreadsheets have
been around for a LONG time. Stop living the past.

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

#9723

On Mon, Jul 18, 2011 at 2:53 AM, rantingrick <rantingrick@gmail.com> wrote:
> [a whole lot of guff]

Rick, you need to:

1) Grab the Python source code
2) Make your own version of Python that works the way you want it
3) Call it something different
4) Start your own mailing list.

Put your money - or, in this case, development time - where your big
ranting mouth is. Prove that your ideas are worth something by acting
on them.

Chris Angelico

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

#9725

On Jul 17, 12:11 pm, Chris Angelico <ros...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 18, 2011 at 2:53 AM, rantingrick <rantingr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > [a whole lot of guff]
>
> Rick, you need to:
>
> 1) Grab the Python source code
> 2) Make your own version of Python that works the way you want it
> 3) Call it something different
> 4) Start your own mailing list.

It's funny you mention this because i am creating a specification for
a Python 4000 fork that removes all ambiguities and multiplicity from
the language. Very soon i will be posting the spec for review within
this group. Maybe some of you will come to your senses and start
implementing these important features in CPython. If not, i am not
going to waste my time forever trying to convince idiots that the
world is in fact round.

Python as it stands now will be defunct unless we make some serious
changes starting with formatting. We cannot continue to create code
bases that are so haphazardly written just for the sake of personal
freedom. Since people will not self-police we must create a mandate
that forces compliance to a style guide. Years have passed since the
first program was written. It is high time to set the standards for
formatting.

Such a system of rigorous formatting rules requires much less
interpreter logic. Python will be leaner and meaner. There won't be
any more arguing about how to format code. There will only be one way;
the correct way! Choose to follow it or die of exceptions; your
choice.

I am looking to the future and leaving the past where it belongs.
After i get a format style nailed down i will start culling the other
language specific multiplicities. Then it will be time to look outside
of Python and see what is the future of high level programming
languages.

You can choose to join me or choose to rot of old age in the self-
induced hell of antiquity. The past is bickering over selfish personal
freedoms, the future of is unity.

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

#9726

On Mon, Jul 18, 2011 at 3:57 AM, rantingrick <rantingrick@gmail.com> wrote:
> It's funny you mention this because i am creating a specification for
> a Python 4000 fork that removes all ambiguities and multiplicity from
> the language. Very soon i will be posting the spec for review within
> this group. Maybe some of you will come to your senses and start
> implementing these important features in CPython. If not, i am not
> going to waste my time forever trying to convince idiots that the
> world is in fact round.

Oh, I totally agree. And mailman is open source software so you can
even host the new Python-4000 mailing list yourself! Gather unto
thyself thy followers, and begin anew the creation of the world.

Chris Angelico

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

#9727

* rantingrick (Sun, 17 Jul 2011 10:57:10 -0700 (PDT))
> Choose to follow it or die of exceptions; your choice.

One of the best things I've read for a long time :-).

> The past is bickering over selfish personal freedoms, the future of is
> unity.

And a tab is *exactly* four spaces. Not three. Not five. Not eight. For 
you, for me, and for the rest of the world. Amen!

Thorsten

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

#9734

On Jul 17, 1:20 pm, Thorsten Kampe <thors...@thorstenkampe.de> wrote:

> > The past is bickering over selfish personal freedoms, the future of is
> > unity.
>
> And a tab is *exactly* four spaces. Not three. Not five. Not eight. For
> you, for me, and for the rest of the world. Amen!

Not *exactly*.

A tab is just a control char in a string that meant to convey a "user
defined space". When a text editor see's a tab in a string it uses the
current "user defined tab width" and creates the proper space (or
moves the proper distance) in the display. The tab control char
carries no information as to how WIDE a tab must be, no, the editor
makes that choice (based on user input or default).

However a tab can be EQUAL to four spaces, or eight spaces , or even
eight-eight spaces if the user wants it to.

The same is true for font. A string contains chars and the display
font is a decision for the editor to make (based on user input or
default).

We cannot always offer unity and freedom in a programming language.
But there are some exceptions; one of which being tabs.

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

#9741

On Sun, Jul 17, 2011 at 21:20, Thorsten Kampe <thorsten@thorstenkampe.de> wrote:
>> The past is bickering over selfish personal freedoms, the future of is
>> unity.
>
> And a tab is *exactly* four spaces. Not three. Not five. Not eight. For
> you, for me, and for the rest of the world. Amen!
>

Four is the number thou shalt indent, and the number of the indenting
shall be four. Six thou shalt not indent, neither indent thou two,
excepting that thou then proceed to four. Eight is right out.


-- 
Dotan Cohen

http://gibberish.co.il
http://what-is-what.com

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

#9739

On Sun, Jul 17, 2011 at 20:57, rantingrick <rantingrick@gmail.com> wrote:
> Such a system of rigorous formatting rules requires much less
> interpreter logic. Python will be leaner and meaner. There won't be
> any more arguing about how to format code. There will only be one way;
> the correct way! Choose to follow it or die of exceptions; your
> choice.
>

Do you know that Python 4000 is the only language in the world whose
vocabulary gets smaller every year?'

-- 
Dotan Cohen

http://gibberish.co.il
http://what-is-what.com

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

#9766

Chris Angelico wrote:

> On Mon, Jul 18, 2011 at 2:53 AM, rantingrick <rantingrick@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>> [a whole lot of guff]
> 
> Rick, you need to:
> 
> 1) Grab the Python source code
> 2) Make your own version of Python that works the way you want it
> 3) Call it something different
> 4) Start your own mailing list.
> 
> Put your money - or, in this case, development time - where your big
> ranting mouth is. Prove that your ideas are worth something by acting
> on them.

Ha ha, oh that's hilarious!!!

Back in 2007, a n00b calling himself "TheFlyingDutchman" who I am
*reasonably* sure was Rick decided to fork Python:

http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-list/2007-September/1127123.html

Then in 2010, Rick promised that if the Python developers didn't bow to his
demands, he would folk Python, and the silent majority who agreed with him
but were too terrified to say so publicly would drop CPython in a flash and
follow him.

Thread starts here: read and weep.

http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/python/python/835227?do=post_view_threaded#835227

How's that fork going Rick? Written a single line of code yet?



-- 
Steven

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

#9771

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: RIPEMD160

On 2011.07.17 07:54 PM, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
> Then in 2010, Rick promised that if the Python developers didn't bow
> to his demands, he would folk Python, and the silent majority who
> agreed with him but were too terrified to say so publicly would drop
> CPython in a flash and follow him.
> 
> Thread starts here: read and weep.
> 
> http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/python/python/835227?do=post_view_threaded#835227
>
>  How's that fork going Rick? Written a single line of code yet?
I skimmed through the first post a bit and it's hilarious. TL;DR for
now, but I'll read the whole thread later. I'm still surprised how much
entertainment I get from a programming language newsgroup.

- -- 
CPython 3.2.1 | Windows NT 6.1.7601.17592 | Thunderbird 5.0
PGP/GPG Public Key ID: 0xF88E034060A78FCB
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/

iQEcBAEBAwAGBQJOI4vQAAoJEPiOA0Bgp4/LiN4IAMFXmBUxLOr1lYRIVY7kSwWj
Ln+pTvOR6S0og6S1v1fljTeFy8NWsbeLHjF48TahJf5VlEqiuCd7zUQ8r0gDn6ut
+ibDz+rtJJAE2XOG5myBylwcuG31TuaoXcSsNMCTnIMi6ZsoOWeBmkD0rvG66eFM
tPaceBdv7qe/0oNcy/DalEZ8gE2NSfrm6u4g5RQge8E4o4IwCWwMdSOkKRjkJdix
mbCfcCytQtc+X7IFwuUcFMAtFq9f8rzp8Jl45/wCBlxBPvZbLfqJvit9J8hgF81v
KgSeyV9BLKgzRamBOZQdG2/mUwJV8aQwxdSJrtRwZ0YWpQaOPnTZlQsRyAzf4nw=
=9zSp
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

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

#9782

* 2011-07-18T10:54:40+10:00 * Steven D'Aprano wrote:

> Back in 2007, a n00b calling himself "TheFlyingDutchman" who I am
> *reasonably* sure was Rick decided to fork Python:
>
> http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-list/2007-September/1127123.html

I don't know if they are the same person but quite recently
"TheFlyingDutchman" tried to understand symbols, variables' scope,
bindings as well as function and variable namespaces in Common Lisp. It
resulted in a long thread, some of it was quite interesting.

http://groups.google.com/group/comp.lang.lisp/browse_frm/thread/36000a1f37ebb052/5683597dd587fa87

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

#9755

On 17Jul2011 09:53, rantingrick <rantingrick@gmail.com> wrote:
| On Jul 17, 4:49 am, "Anders J. Munch" <2...@jmunch.dk> wrote:
| > Originally, tabs were a navigation device: When you press the tab key, you skip
| > ahead to the next tab column.  The notion that whitespace characters are
| > inserted into the text would have been very alien to someone using text
| > processing software anno 1970.  Same thing with space and enter; on typewriters
| > the space bar doesn't "type" anything onto the paper, it moves to the next
| > column, and that thinking carried over to computers.
| 
| And how much longer are we going to live in the past? Who cares about
| backward compatible tabs.

Anders was explaining, not supporting-for-the-future.

| Mandate the four space tab now! Mandate that
| Python takes four space and four space only! We shall lead the charge
| for universal tab unity in all programming languages.

You really don't know what you're talking about, do you? If Python
mandates this (hahaha!) the Perl crowd will immediately move to a more
advanced standard, likely 5 space indents (nicely decimalisable) while
indenting by two tabs (to flexibly leave room for more intermediate
logic to be inserted later with less diff noise, which they will find
hard to distinguish from program code).

| > The reason the tab stop is a full 8 positions: for faster navigation.  If it
| > were 3 positions, it would take forever to skip from the start of line to column
| > 60.  You'd appreciate that, if you were e.g. writing a fiduciary report with
| > some text to the left and two number columns to the right, back in the day
| > before spreadsheets and word processor tables.
| 
| Just in case you were not aware this the year 2011. Spreadsheets have
| been around for a LONG time. Stop living the past.

The past was better. Always was and will be increasingly so in the
future. Stop fighting the tide!
-- 
Cameron Simpson <cs@zip.com.au> DoD#743
http://www.cskk.ezoshosting.com/cs/

Pardon my driving, I'm trying to reload.

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

#9742

Anders J. Munch wrote:

> Steven D'Aprano wrote:
>> I can't fathom why 8 position tabs were *ever* the default, let alone
>> why they are still the default.
> 
> That's because they were not invented as a means for programmers to vary
> indentation.
> 
> Originally, tabs were a navigation device: When you press the tab key, you
> skip ahead to the next tab column.

No, when you pressed the Tab key on a typewriter (BTDT), you advanced to the 
next tab _stop_.  This made it easier to write tables ("tab" from 
"tabulate") on a typewriter (the alternative was time-consuming and error-
prone use of the space and backspace keys).  With the evolution of the 
(personal) computer, its use in offices and at home, and peripheral devices 
like the dot matrix printer, typewriters fell out of common use, but the 
terms associated with them were incorporated into information technology 
language (cf. "TTY", originally "teletypewriter", e. g.).

> The reason the tab stop is a full 8 positions: for faster navigation.

No, the reason is that table columns should be as far enough away from each 
other to be distinguishable.

> If it were 3 positions, it would take forever to skip from the start of
> line to column 60.  You'd appreciate that, if you were e.g. writing a
> fiduciary report with some text to the left and two number columns to the
> right, back in the day before spreadsheets and word processor tables. 
> Skip a column or two too far?

I am getting the idea here that you mean the right thing, but that you 
explain it wrong.

-- 
PointedEars

Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail. / Please do not Cc: me.

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

#9823

Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
 > I am getting the idea here that you mean the right thing, but that you
 > explain it wrong.

Feel free to write the much longer essay that explains it all unambiguously, I'm 
not going to.

regards, Anders

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

#9754

Anders J. Munch wrote:

>  > Cameron Simpson wrote:
>  >> Personally, I like to use the tab _key_ as an input device, but to have
>  >> my editor write real spaces to the file in consequence.
> 
> Just like in the old days:)

Most editors can be configured to do that.

Where they fall down, in my experience, is that having inserted
those spaces, if you want to delete them you typically have to
backspace over them one at a time.

I don't enjoy that experience, which is why I have BBEdit Lite
set up to use tab-only indentation. If I'm feeling conscientious,
I convert to spaces before sharing the code with others. But tabs
work better for me given the tools I use and the way I like to
work.

-- 
Greg

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

#9815

Gregory Ewing wrote:

> Anders J. Munch wrote:
>>  > Cameron Simpson wrote:
>>  >> Personally, I like to use the tab _key_ as an input device, but to
>>  >> have my editor write real spaces to the file in consequence.
>> Just like in the old days:)
> 
> Most editors can be configured to do that.

True.
 
> Where they fall down, in my experience, is that having inserted
> those spaces, if you want to delete them you typically have to
> backspace over them one at a time.

Now that's a BAD source code editor!  Try one running on the Eclipse 
platform, like PyDev (single plugin or in Aptana, also as Eclipse plugin).
But, even vim(1) has auto-indent *and* `<<', so …

> I don't enjoy that experience, which is why I have BBEdit Lite
> set up to use tab-only indentation. If I'm feeling conscientious,
> I convert to spaces before sharing the code with others. But tabs
> work better for me given the tools I use and the way I like to
> work.

YMMV, of course.

-- 
PointedEars

Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail. / Please do not Cc: me.

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

Page 3 of 6 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 5 6  Next page →

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

csiph-web