Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.python > #24643 > unrolled thread
| Started by | "Littlefield, Tyler" <tyler@tysdomain.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2012-06-28 20:57 -0600 |
| Last post | 2012-07-06 10:37 +0100 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 134 — 34 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.python
code review "Littlefield, Tyler" <tyler@tysdomain.com> - 2012-06-28 20:57 -0600
Re: code review alex23 <wuwei23@gmail.com> - 2012-06-28 20:58 -0700
Re: code review Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2012-06-29 07:31 +0000
Re: code review Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2012-06-29 17:42 +1000
Re: code review "Littlefield, Tyler" <tyler@tysdomain.com> - 2012-06-29 09:03 -0600
Re: code review Alister <alister.ware@ntlworld.com> - 2012-06-29 19:41 +0000
Re: code review MRAB <python@mrabarnett.plus.com> - 2012-06-29 21:09 +0100
Re: code review "Martin P. Hellwig" <martin.hellwig@gmail.com> - 2012-06-29 13:27 -0700
Re: code review Alister <alister.ware@ntlworld.com> - 2012-06-29 20:43 +0000
Re: code review Dennis Lee Bieber <wlfraed@ix.netcom.com> - 2012-06-29 19:02 -0400
Re: code review Terry Reedy <tjreedy@udel.edu> - 2012-06-29 23:02 -0400
Re: code review "Littlefield, Tyler" <tyler@tysdomain.com> - 2012-06-29 14:49 -0600
Re: code review Alister <alister.ware@ntlworld.com> - 2012-06-30 09:31 +0000
Re: code review Alister <alister.ware@ntlworld.com> - 2012-06-30 09:36 +0000
Re: code review Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2012-06-30 02:28 +0000
Re: code review Alister <alister.ware@ntlworld.com> - 2012-06-30 09:22 +0000
Re: code review Terry Reedy <tjreedy@udel.edu> - 2012-06-29 23:00 -0400
Re: code review Alister <alister.ware@ntlworld.com> - 2012-06-30 10:04 +0000
Re: code review Peter Otten <__peter__@web.de> - 2012-06-30 12:29 +0200
Re: code review Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2012-06-30 20:39 +0200
Re: code review Thomas Jollans <t@jollybox.de> - 2012-06-30 21:38 +0200
Re: code review Alister <alister.ware@ntlworld.com> - 2012-06-30 20:30 +0000
Re: code review Thomas Jollans <t@jollybox.de> - 2012-06-30 22:50 +0200
Re: code review Alain Ketterlin <alain@dpt-info.u-strasbg.fr> - 2012-06-30 23:07 +0200
Re: code review Thomas Jollans <t@jollybox.de> - 2012-06-30 23:35 +0200
Re: code review Terry Reedy <tjreedy@udel.edu> - 2012-06-30 17:47 -0400
Re: code review Thomas Jollans <t@jollybox.de> - 2012-07-01 00:05 +0200
Re: code review Alain Ketterlin <alain@dpt-info.u-strasbg.fr> - 2012-07-01 01:03 +0200
Re: code review Ben Finney <ben+python@benfinney.id.au> - 2012-07-01 10:08 +1000
Re: code review Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2012-07-01 10:37 +1000
Re: code review Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2012-07-01 03:23 +0000
Re: code review Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2012-07-01 13:48 +1000
Re: code review Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2012-07-01 06:54 +0000
Re: code review Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2012-07-01 16:59 +1000
Re: code review Terry Reedy <tjreedy@udel.edu> - 2012-07-01 05:55 -0400
Re: code review Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2012-07-02 01:26 +0000
Re: code review Albert van der Horst <albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl> - 2012-07-13 12:30 +0000
Re: code review Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2012-07-13 15:04 +0000
Re: code review Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2012-07-14 01:36 +1000
Re: code review rusi <rustompmody@gmail.com> - 2012-07-13 09:24 -0700
Re: code review Dennis Lee Bieber <wlfraed@ix.netcom.com> - 2012-07-13 16:39 -0400
Re: code review Duncan Booth <duncan.booth@invalid.invalid> - 2012-07-16 10:43 +0000
Re: code review Ben Finney <ben+python@benfinney.id.au> - 2012-07-16 21:34 +1000
Re: code review Albert van der Horst <albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl> - 2012-07-17 10:54 +0000
Re: code review Terry Reedy <tjreedy@udel.edu> - 2012-07-13 19:09 -0400
Re: code review Ian Kelly <ian.g.kelly@gmail.com> - 2012-07-14 03:26 -0600
Re: code review Terry Reedy <tjreedy@udel.edu> - 2012-07-14 16:42 -0400
Re: code review rusi <rustompmody@gmail.com> - 2012-06-30 21:07 -0700
Re: code review Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2012-07-01 14:20 +1000
Re: code review Ben Finney <ben+python@benfinney.id.au> - 2012-07-01 17:28 +1000
Re: code review Thomas Jollans <t@jollybox.de> - 2012-07-01 09:46 +0200
Re: code review HoneyMonster <nobody@someplace.invalid> - 2012-07-01 20:53 +0000
Re: code review Devin Jeanpierre <jeanpierreda@gmail.com> - 2012-07-01 05:18 -0400
Re: code review Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2012-07-02 00:41 +0000
Re: code review Devin Jeanpierre <jeanpierreda@gmail.com> - 2012-07-01 21:40 -0400
Re: code review Dennis Lee Bieber <wlfraed@ix.netcom.com> - 2012-07-01 13:41 -0400
Re: code review John O'Hagan <research@johnohagan.com> - 2012-07-02 14:43 +1000
Re: Re: code review Evan Driscoll <driscoll@cs.wisc.edu> - 2012-06-30 23:45 -0500
Re: Re: code review Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2012-07-01 08:57 +0200
Re: code review Alister <alister.ware@ntlworld.com> - 2012-07-01 09:54 +0000
Re: Re: code review Evan Driscoll <driscoll@cs.wisc.edu> - 2012-07-01 10:48 -0500
Re: Re: code review lars van gemerden <lars@rational-it.com> - 2012-07-06 04:22 -0700
Re: Re: code review lars van gemerden <lars@rational-it.com> - 2012-07-06 04:22 -0700
Re: code review Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2012-07-06 13:58 +0000
Re: code review Roy Smith <roy@panix.com> - 2012-07-13 08:32 -0700
Re: code review Evan Driscoll <driscoll@cs.wisc.edu> - 2012-06-30 23:57 -0500
Re: code review Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2012-07-01 09:04 +0200
Re: code review Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2012-07-01 02:06 +0000
Re: code review Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2012-07-01 12:20 +1000
Re: code review Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2012-07-01 04:17 +0000
Re: code review Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2012-07-01 14:23 +1000
Re: code review Steven D'Aprano <steve+usenet@pearwood.info> - 2012-07-01 06:27 +0000
Re: code review Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2012-07-01 16:33 +1000
Re: code review Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2012-07-02 01:28 +0000
Re: code review Devin Jeanpierre <jeanpierreda@gmail.com> - 2012-07-01 21:50 -0400
Re: code review Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2012-07-02 07:29 +0000
Re: code review Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2012-07-02 12:04 +1000
Re: code review Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2012-07-02 08:11 +0000
Re: code review Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2012-07-02 18:20 +1000
Re: code review Rick Johnson <rantingrickjohnson@gmail.com> - 2012-07-02 08:57 -0700
Re: code review Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2012-07-03 02:42 +1000
Re: code review Rick Johnson <rantingrickjohnson@gmail.com> - 2012-07-02 11:22 -0700
Re: code review Thomas Jollans <t@jollybox.de> - 2012-07-02 21:06 +0200
Re: code review Rick Johnson <rantingrickjohnson@gmail.com> - 2012-07-02 12:35 -0700
Re: code review Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2012-07-03 07:57 +1000
Re: code review Neil Cerutti <neilc@norwich.edu> - 2012-07-03 12:19 +0000
Re: code review Dennis Lee Bieber <wlfraed@ix.netcom.com> - 2012-07-02 01:20 -0400
Re: code review Thomas Jollans <t@jollybox.de> - 2012-07-02 16:41 +0200
Re: code review Terry Reedy <tjreedy@udel.edu> - 2012-07-02 11:33 -0400
Re: code review Thomas Jollans <t@jollybox.de> - 2012-07-01 09:35 +0200
Re: code review Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2012-07-02 00:43 +0000
Re: code review Thomas Jollans <t@jollybox.de> - 2012-07-02 16:26 +0200
Re: code review Rick Johnson <rantingrickjohnson@gmail.com> - 2012-07-02 08:16 -0700
Re: code review Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2012-07-03 02:55 +1000
Re: code review Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2012-07-03 00:57 +0000
Re: code review Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2012-07-03 11:22 +1000
Re: code review John O'Hagan <research@johnohagan.com> - 2012-07-03 12:25 +1000
Re: code review Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2012-07-03 04:11 +0000
Re: code review Dennis Lee Bieber <wlfraed@ix.netcom.com> - 2012-07-03 02:09 -0400
Re: code review Roy Smith <roy@panix.com> - 2012-07-03 08:33 -0400
Re: code review Mark Lawrence <breamoreboy@yahoo.co.uk> - 2012-07-03 16:53 +0100
Re: code review Dennis Lee Bieber <wlfraed@ix.netcom.com> - 2012-07-03 17:32 -0400
Re: code review rusi <rustompmody@gmail.com> - 2012-07-02 22:10 -0700
Re: code review Ben Finney <ben+python@benfinney.id.au> - 2012-07-03 15:46 +1000
Re: code review John O'Hagan <research@johnohagan.com> - 2012-07-04 00:59 +1000
Re: code review Mark Lawrence <breamoreboy@yahoo.co.uk> - 2012-07-03 16:50 +0100
Re: code review Paul Rudin <paul.nospam@rudin.co.uk> - 2012-07-04 10:29 +0100
Re: code review Mark Lawrence <breamoreboy@yahoo.co.uk> - 2012-07-04 17:25 +0100
Re: code review Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2012-07-04 01:53 +1000
Re: code review Mark Lawrence <breamoreboy@yahoo.co.uk> - 2012-07-03 17:05 +0100
Re: code review Dave Angel <d@davea.name> - 2012-07-03 16:13 -0400
Re: code review Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2012-07-04 07:54 +1000
Re: code review Mark Lawrence <breamoreboy@yahoo.co.uk> - 2012-07-04 09:28 +0100
Re: code review rusi <rustompmody@gmail.com> - 2012-06-30 19:37 -0700
Re: code review Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2012-07-01 09:25 +1000
Re: code review Thomas Jollans <t@jollybox.de> - 2012-07-01 01:50 +0200
Re: code review "Martin P. Hellwig" <martin.hellwig@gmail.com> - 2012-06-30 14:48 -0700
Re: code review Ian Kelly <ian.g.kelly@gmail.com> - 2012-07-02 13:16 -0600
Re: code review Alister <alister.ware@ntlworld.com> - 2012-06-30 20:25 +0000
Re: code review Kushal Kumaran <kushal.kumaran+python@gmail.com> - 2012-07-03 23:23 +0530
Re: code review John Gordon <gordon@panix.com> - 2012-07-03 18:18 +0000
Re: code review Ian Kelly <ian.g.kelly@gmail.com> - 2012-07-03 12:27 -0600
Re: code review Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2012-07-04 07:51 +1000
Re: code review Ian Kelly <ian.g.kelly@gmail.com> - 2012-07-03 12:19 -0600
Re: code review kushal.kumaran+python@gmail.com - 2012-07-04 08:27 +0530
Re: code review Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2012-07-04 13:53 +1000
Re: code review Simon Cropper <simoncropper@fossworkflowguides.com> - 2012-07-04 14:55 +1000
Re: code review "Littlefield, Tyler" <tyler@tysdomain.com> - 2012-07-03 23:39 -0600
Re: code review alex23 <wuwei23@gmail.com> - 2012-07-03 23:17 -0700
Re: code review rusi <rustompmody@gmail.com> - 2012-07-04 00:05 -0700
Apology for OT posts (was: code review) John O'Hagan <research@johnohagan.com> - 2012-07-06 12:06 +1000
Re: Apology for OT posts Simon Cropper <simoncropper@fossworkflowguides.com> - 2012-07-06 15:30 +1000
Re: Apology for OT posts Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2012-07-06 17:45 +1000
Re: Apology for OT posts Mark Lawrence <breamoreboy@yahoo.co.uk> - 2012-07-06 10:37 +0100
Page 6 of 7 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 Next page →
| From | Mark Lawrence <breamoreboy@yahoo.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-07-03 16:53 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <mailman.1750.1341330908.4697.python-list@python.org> |
| In reply to | #24803 |
On 03/07/2012 07:09, Dennis Lee Bieber wrote: > On 03 Jul 2012 04:11:22 GMT, Steven D'Aprano > <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> declaimed the following in > gmane.comp.python.general: > > >> One of my favourites is the league, which in the Middle Ages was actually >> defined as the distance that a man, or a horse, could walk in an hour. > > From the "Explanatory Supplement to the Astronomical Almanac" [1992 > University Science Books], Table 15.15, the speed of light is > > 1.80261750E12 furlongs/fortnight > +1 most useless piece of information garnered this week. -- Cheers. Mark Lawrence.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Dennis Lee Bieber <wlfraed@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-07-03 17:32 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <mailman.1759.1341351129.4697.python-list@python.org> |
| In reply to | #24803 |
On Tue, 03 Jul 2012 16:53:37 +0100, Mark Lawrence
<breamoreboy@yahoo.co.uk> declaimed the following in
gmane.comp.python.general:
> On 03/07/2012 07:09, Dennis Lee Bieber wrote:
> > From the "Explanatory Supplement to the Astronomical Almanac" [1992
> > University Science Books], Table 15.15, the speed of light is
> >
> > 1.80261750E12 furlongs/fortnight
> >
>
> +1 most useless piece of information garnered this week.
Well, the book IS 20 years old <G>
--
Wulfraed Dennis Lee Bieber AF6VN
wlfraed@ix.netcom.com HTTP://wlfraed.home.netcom.com/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rusi <rustompmody@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-07-02 22:10 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <3f15d831-45bb-471c-8d49-a2db21e67c7a@nl1g2000pbc.googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #24801 |
On Jul 3, 7:25 am, John O'Hagan <resea...@johnohagan.com> wrote: > > I agree to some extent, but as a counter-example, when I was a child there > a subject called "Weights and Measures" which is now redundant because of the > Metric system. I don't miss hogsheads and fathoms at all. > > Music is another field which could do with a "metrification": I get tired of > explaining to beginners why there's no B#, except when it's C. Check outhttp://musicnotation.org You assume that equal temperament is the only way to have music. Apart from the fact that there are non-tempered musics all over the world, even Bach Mozart and Beethoven did not write for/to equal temperament. In a pure/untempered C-scale A-flat is almost half a semitone sharper than G-sharp -- 8/5 vs 25/16. Similar for standardized languages: Python's indentation is nice -- except when you have to embed it into say, html
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ben Finney <ben+python@benfinney.id.au> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-07-03 15:46 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <87pq8dpfc0.fsf@benfinney.id.au> |
| In reply to | #24805 |
rusi <rustompmody@gmail.com> writes: > Similar for standardized languages: Python's indentation is nice -- > except when you have to embed it into say, html If you can't write a ‘pre’ element for pre-formatted text, you don't have HTML <URL:http://www.w3.org/TR/html401/struct/text.html#h-9.3.4>. -- \ “Pinky, are you pondering what I'm pondering?” “Uh, I think so, | `\ Brain, but we'll never get a monkey to use dental floss.” | _o__) —_Pinky and The Brain_ | Ben Finney
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | John O'Hagan <research@johnohagan.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-07-04 00:59 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <mailman.1745.1341327575.4697.python-list@python.org> |
| In reply to | #24805 |
On Mon, 2 Jul 2012 22:10:00 -0700 (PDT) rusi <rustompmody@gmail.com> wrote: > On Jul 3, 7:25 am, John O'Hagan <resea...@johnohagan.com> wrote: > > > > I agree to some extent, but as a counter-example, when I was a child there > > a subject called "Weights and Measures" which is now redundant because of > > the Metric system. I don't miss hogsheads and fathoms at all. > > > > Music is another field which could do with a "metrification": I get tired of > > explaining to beginners why there's no B#, except when it's C. Check > > outhttp://musicnotation.org > > You assume that equal temperament is the only way to have music. > Apart from the fact that there are non-tempered musics all over the > world, even Bach Mozart and Beethoven did not write for/to equal > temperament. In a pure/untempered C-scale A-flat is almost half a > semitone sharper than G-sharp -- 8/5 vs 25/16. > [...] I don't assume that at all :) If you didn't already, have look at the link. I was talking about notation of the normal everyday contemporary tempered system where there is no pitch difference between Ab and G#. But even in a just system, any difference between them depends on the system itself, the key, and whether you choose to call them that. I've never heard anyone claim that C is sharper than B#, although in the key of E the relationship would be the same. AIUI there is any number of whole number ratios which fall between seven and nine tempered semitones above the fundamental (to take your example), and in C, any one of them could be called either Ab or G# depending on the key signature or other context. IMHO, that's the aspect that could benefit from a simplified representation. To the OP, I'm deeply sorry! -- John
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Mark Lawrence <breamoreboy@yahoo.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-07-03 16:50 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <mailman.1748.1341330556.4697.python-list@python.org> |
| In reply to | #24794 |
On 03/07/2012 03:25, John O'Hagan wrote: > On Tue, 3 Jul 2012 11:22:55 +1000 > > I agree to some extent, but as a counter-example, when I was a child there > a subject called "Weights and Measures" which is now redundant because of the > Metric system. I don't miss hogsheads and fathoms at all. > > John > I weigh 13st 8lb - does this make me redundant? -- Cheers. Mark Lawrence.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Paul Rudin <paul.nospam@rudin.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-07-04 10:29 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <87y5mz7u32.fsf@no-fixed-abode.cable.virginmedia.net> |
| In reply to | #24823 |
Mark Lawrence <breamoreboy@yahoo.co.uk> writes: > On 03/07/2012 03:25, John O'Hagan wrote: >> On Tue, 3 Jul 2012 11:22:55 +1000 >> >> I agree to some extent, but as a counter-example, when I was a child there >> a subject called "Weights and Measures" which is now redundant because of the >> Metric system. I don't miss hogsheads and fathoms at all. >> >> John >> > > I weigh 13st 8lb - does this make me redundant? It might mean that you have some redundant weight :)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Mark Lawrence <breamoreboy@yahoo.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-07-04 17:25 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <mailman.1795.1341419098.4697.python-list@python.org> |
| In reply to | #24855 |
On 04/07/2012 10:29, Paul Rudin wrote: > Mark Lawrence <breamoreboy@yahoo.co.uk> writes: > >> On 03/07/2012 03:25, John O'Hagan wrote: >>> On Tue, 3 Jul 2012 11:22:55 +1000 >>> >>> I agree to some extent, but as a counter-example, when I was a child there >>> a subject called "Weights and Measures" which is now redundant because of the >>> Metric system. I don't miss hogsheads and fathoms at all. >>> >>> John >>> >> >> I weigh 13st 8lb - does this make me redundant? > > It might mean that you have some redundant weight :) > True indeed, although my beer free diet of the last 10 days (yes, 10 whole days) has at least got it down from 14 stone 2 pounds. -- Cheers. Mark Lawrence.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-07-04 01:53 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <mailman.1749.1341330795.4697.python-list@python.org> |
| In reply to | #24794 |
On Wed, Jul 4, 2012 at 1:50 AM, Mark Lawrence <breamoreboy@yahoo.co.uk> wrote: > On 03/07/2012 03:25, John O'Hagan wrote: >> >> On Tue, 3 Jul 2012 11:22:55 +1000 >> >> I agree to some extent, but as a counter-example, when I was a child there >> a subject called "Weights and Measures" which is now redundant because of >> the >> Metric system. I don't miss hogsheads and fathoms at all. >> >> John >> > > I weigh 13st 8lb - does this make me redundant? Yes, because somewhere in the world is someone who weighs (... pulls out calculator...) 86kg. After all, the French had a bloody revolution to get us a new system without any of the old baggage. We don't want to disappoint the French now, do we! ChrisA lemme just dislodge my tongue from my cheek, it seems to be stuck...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Mark Lawrence <breamoreboy@yahoo.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-07-03 17:05 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <mailman.1751.1341331439.4697.python-list@python.org> |
| In reply to | #24794 |
On 03/07/2012 16:53, Chris Angelico wrote: > On Wed, Jul 4, 2012 at 1:50 AM, Mark Lawrence <breamoreboy@yahoo.co.uk> wrote: >> On 03/07/2012 03:25, John O'Hagan wrote: >>> >>> On Tue, 3 Jul 2012 11:22:55 +1000 >>> >>> I agree to some extent, but as a counter-example, when I was a child there >>> a subject called "Weights and Measures" which is now redundant because of >>> the >>> Metric system. I don't miss hogsheads and fathoms at all. >>> >>> John >>> >> >> I weigh 13st 8lb - does this make me redundant? > > Yes, because somewhere in the world is someone who weighs (... pulls > out calculator...) 86kg. After all, the French had a bloody revolution > to get us a new system without any of the old baggage. We don't want > to disappoint the French now, do we! > > ChrisA > lemme just dislodge my tongue from my cheek, it seems to be stuck... > If I go to the moon I will weigh 2st 10lb (if my sums are correct :) but the equivalent Frenchman will still be 86kg. I hereby put this forward as proof that the metric system is rubbish and we should revert back to imperial goodies. -- Cheers. Mark Lawrence.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Dave Angel <d@davea.name> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-07-03 16:13 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <mailman.1756.1341346459.4697.python-list@python.org> |
| In reply to | #24794 |
On 07/03/2012 12:05 PM, Mark Lawrence wrote: > On 03/07/2012 16:53, Chris Angelico wrote: >> On Wed, Jul 4, 2012 at 1:50 AM, Mark Lawrence >> <breamoreboy@yahoo.co.uk> wrote: >>> On 03/07/2012 03:25, John O'Hagan wrote: >>>> >>>> On Tue, 3 Jul 2012 11:22:55 +1000 >>>> >>>> I agree to some extent, but as a counter-example, when I was a >>>> child there >>>> a subject called "Weights and Measures" which is now redundant >>>> because of >>>> the >>>> Metric system. I don't miss hogsheads and fathoms at all. >>>> >>>> John >>>> >>> >>> I weigh 13st 8lb - does this make me redundant? >> >> Yes, because somewhere in the world is someone who weighs (... pulls >> out calculator...) 86kg. After all, the French had a bloody revolution >> to get us a new system without any of the old baggage. We don't want >> to disappoint the French now, do we! >> >> ChrisA >> lemme just dislodge my tongue from my cheek, it seems to be stuck... >> > > If I go to the moon I will weigh 2st 10lb (if my sums are correct :) > but the equivalent Frenchman will still be 86kg. I hereby put this > forward as proof that the metric system is rubbish and we should > revert back to imperial goodies. > 86 kg is not a weight, it's a mass. So it doesn't depend on the local gravity situation. DaveA -- DaveA
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-07-04 07:54 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <mailman.1762.1341352489.4697.python-list@python.org> |
| In reply to | #24794 |
On Wed, Jul 4, 2012 at 6:13 AM, Dave Angel <d@davea.name> wrote: > On 07/03/2012 12:05 PM, Mark Lawrence wrote: >> If I go to the moon I will weigh 2st 10lb (if my sums are correct :) >> but the equivalent Frenchman will still be 86kg. I hereby put this >> forward as proof that the metric system is rubbish and we should >> revert back to imperial goodies. >> > > 86 kg is not a weight, it's a mass. So it doesn't depend on the local > gravity situation. Indeed it is, as he says. But I believe he may be right in that 'stone' is a unit of weight. Hard to be sure, though, given that it's not an SI unit (for instance, the Wikipedia article text refers to weight, but its picture shows a man measuring mass). ChrisA
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Mark Lawrence <breamoreboy@yahoo.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-07-04 09:28 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <mailman.1785.1341390610.4697.python-list@python.org> |
| In reply to | #24794 |
On 03/07/2012 22:54, Chris Angelico wrote: > On Wed, Jul 4, 2012 at 6:13 AM, Dave Angel <d@davea.name> wrote: >> On 07/03/2012 12:05 PM, Mark Lawrence wrote: >>> If I go to the moon I will weigh 2st 10lb (if my sums are correct :) >>> but the equivalent Frenchman will still be 86kg. I hereby put this >>> forward as proof that the metric system is rubbish and we should >>> revert back to imperial goodies. >>> >> >> 86 kg is not a weight, it's a mass. So it doesn't depend on the local >> gravity situation. > > Indeed it is, as he says. But I believe he may be right in that > 'stone' is a unit of weight. Hard to be sure, though, given that it's > not an SI unit (for instance, the Wikipedia article text refers to > weight, but its picture shows a man measuring mass). > > ChrisA > Stone is a unit of weight (Brits know important things like this). And with the consistency that the English language is reknowned for the plural is, yes you've guessed it, stone :) -- Cheers. Mark Lawrence.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rusi <rustompmody@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-06-30 19:37 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <e60f7646-8451-485d-897d-0447414ba403@f9g2000pbd.googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #24708 |
On Jul 1, 3:05 am, Thomas Jollans <t...@jollybox.de> wrote: > Yes. My sole point, really, is that "normally", one would expect these > two expressions to be equivalent: > > a < b < c > (a < b) < c > > This is clearly not true. That's the inconsistency here.... I dont see the inconsistency with the specific example as you've given. However if we consider the argument in general, there is something to be said for being (more) careful to distinguish associative and conjunctive interpretation of operators. IOW for an arbitrary operator * (not standard multiply): If * : t x t -> t, the only meaningful semantics of a*b*c is (a*b)*c or a*(b*c) If * : t x t -> Bool the only meaningful semantics of a*b*c is a*b + b*c where the most reasonable instance of '+' is 'and' What happens when t = Bool? Both cases match. And there is something to be said for notationally allowing for both cases Dijkstra/Scholten and David Gries books on logic in computer science expand on this. A short net-reachable paper is http://wwwhome.ewi.utwente.nl/~fokkinga/mmf2001a.pdf
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-07-01 09:25 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <mailman.1664.1341098734.4697.python-list@python.org> |
| In reply to | #24703 |
On Sun, Jul 1, 2012 at 8:05 AM, Thomas Jollans <t@jollybox.de> wrote:
> Yes. My sole point, really, is that "normally", one would expect these
> two expressions to be equivalent:
>
> a < b < c
> (a < b) < c
>
> This is clearly not true.
Python has quite a few things like that, actually. The most noticeable
for C programmers is:
a = b = c = d = e = 0
which in C is identical to
a = (b = (c = (d = (e = 0))))
because assignment is an expression, but in Python is equivalent to
nothing because assignment is simply allowed to do multiple. Downside:
*Only* simple assignment can be chained. Augmented assignment cannot:
>>> a+=10 # That's fine.
>>> a+=b+=10
File "<stdin>", line 1
a+=b+=10
^
SyntaxError: invalid syntax
>>> a=b+=10
File "<stdin>", line 1
a=b+=10
^
SyntaxError: invalid syntax
>>> a+=b=10
File "<stdin>", line 1
a+=b=10
^
SyntaxError: invalid syntax
In C, these are all well-defined and valid, and are evaluated
right-to-left, and do what you would expect. (And yes, it's handy at
times to do this sort of thing.)
So it's not a special case for the comparison operators; it's a more
general case that Python handles certain chains of operators as single
entities, rather than breaking everything down into "OPERAND OPERATOR
OPERAND" and evaluating one at a time. Is it better than/worse than C?
Not really. It's a design choice and we code within it. (My personal
preference is for the C style, as it makes for a more expressive
language with less mental glitching, but as I say, that's personal
preference.)
ChrisA
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Jollans <t@jollybox.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-07-01 01:50 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <mailman.1665.1341100210.4697.python-list@python.org> |
| In reply to | #24703 |
On 07/01/2012 01:25 AM, Chris Angelico wrote: > On Sun, Jul 1, 2012 at 8:05 AM, Thomas Jollans <t@jollybox.de> wrote: >> Yes. My sole point, really, is that "normally", one would expect these >> two expressions to be equivalent: >> >> a < b < c >> (a < b) < c >> >> This is clearly not true. > > Python has quite a few things like that, actually. The most noticeable > for C programmers is: > > a = b = c = d = e = 0 > > which in C is identical to > > a = (b = (c = (d = (e = 0)))) > > because assignment is an expression, but in Python is equivalent to > nothing because assignment is simply allowed to do multiple. Downside: > *Only* simple assignment can be chained. Augmented assignment cannot: > >>>> a+=10 # That's fine. >>>> a+=b+=10 > File "<stdin>", line 1 > a+=b+=10 > ^ > SyntaxError: invalid syntax >>>> a=b+=10 > File "<stdin>", line 1 > a=b+=10 > ^ > SyntaxError: invalid syntax >>>> a+=b=10 > File "<stdin>", line 1 > a+=b=10 > ^ > SyntaxError: invalid syntax > > > In C, these are all well-defined and valid, and are evaluated > right-to-left, and do what you would expect. (And yes, it's handy at > times to do this sort of thing.) > > So it's not a special case for the comparison operators; it's a more > general case that Python handles certain chains of operators as single > entities, rather than breaking everything down into "OPERAND OPERATOR > OPERAND" and evaluating one at a time. Is it better than/worse than C? > Not really. It's a design choice and we code within it. (My personal > preference is for the C style, as it makes for a more expressive > language with less mental glitching, but as I say, that's personal > preference.) Nicely put. Of course it's not catastrophic, it's just a feature of Python that I'm not particularly fond of. Another operator with special chaining behaviour that occurred to me is the tuple-building "," operator. This is a particularly interesting one since the "," symbol is also used in other contexts where it is not an operator, and the symbol can be considered an operator in the way it can be in Python only in very few (if any) other programming languages.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Martin P. Hellwig" <martin.hellwig@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-06-30 14:48 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <2e7167a8-ab55-422d-808c-9ddb7c44639d@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #24701 |
On Saturday, 30 June 2012 21:30:45 UTC+1, Alister wrote:
> On Sat, 30 Jun 2012 21:38:58 +0200, Thomas Jollans wrote:
>
> > On 06/30/2012 08:39 PM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> >> Peter Otten wrote:
> >>
> >>> If you spell it
> >>>
> >>> def is_valid_password(password):
> >>> return mud.minpass <= len(password) <= mud.maxpass
> >>>
<cut>
> Surely this fits perfectly with the lines 1 & 7 in the zen of python
> (import this)
> "Beautifull is better than ugly" and "Readability counts"
>
Agree, however I like to stress the "don't make me unnecessary read with care" rule. Meaning if I read that line, I have to read it carefully to make sure I understand what is happening, the following would not do that although syntax wise equal:
def length_between_min_max(password):
return(mud.minpass <= len(password) <= mud.maxpass)
def is_valid_password(password):
valid = True
if not length_between_max_min(password):
valid = False
if some_other_test(password):
valid = False
return(valid)
This I can read, typically I would not even read what the function length_beteen_max_min does as long as there is no bug in it because, it is perfectly english clear what the intention is.
--
mph
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ian Kelly <ian.g.kelly@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-07-02 13:16 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <mailman.1718.1341256624.4697.python-list@python.org> |
| In reply to | #24701 |
On Sat, Jun 30, 2012 at 2:50 PM, Thomas Jollans <t@jollybox.de> wrote: > Which of the two comparisons is done first anyway? > "In the face of ambiguity, refuse the temptation to guess." I would consider that a pro, not a con, because the C-like way is much worse in this regard. Using operator chaining, is "1 < 2 < 3" equivalent to: 1 < 2 and 2 < 3 # assuming left-to-right evaluation order for "and" 2 < 3 and 1 < 2 The former seems pretty obvious to me (since it more closely matches the original syntax) and also turns out to be correct, but more to the point, most of the time it really doesn't matter which is evaluated first. It's only relevant if: a) your comparison operator has side-effects (bad programmer! bad!); or b) one of the comparisons is significantly faster than the other -- but since usually both comparisons will be of the same type (e.g. both comparing two numbers), this is also a corner case. On the other hand, using the C-like interpretation, is "1 < 2 < 3" equivalent to: (1 < 2) < 3 1 < (2 < 3) I would guess the former is more common, but I really have no basis for that guess beyond some experience with languages that use this syntax. I can see no particular advantages to either interpretation and can certainly imagine that some languages might choose the latter instead. Moreover, the distinction actually matters in this case, because the first expression is true (at least in Python) while the second is false. I will take ambiguity that is mostly unimportant over ambiguity that is critical to the meaning of the expression any day of the week. Cheers, Ian
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Alister <alister.ware@ntlworld.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-06-30 20:25 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <7hJHr.500116$jl.425893@fx19.am4> |
| In reply to | #24693 |
On Sat, 30 Jun 2012 12:29:31 +0200, Peter Otten wrote: > Alister wrote: > >> I think I may be on firmer grounds with the next few: >> >> isValidPassword can be simplified to >> >> def isValidPassword(password: >> count=len(password) >> return count>= mud.minpass and count<= mud.maxpass >> >> ( I used count to save finding the length of password twice although it >> probably makes no difference in this scenario) > > If you spell it > > def is_valid_password(password): > return mud.minpass <= len(password) <= mud.maxpass > > it is even easier to see that you are performing an interval check. I realise that was possible, that is brilliant! it is exactly how you would write it ass a mathematical definition. -- "The only real way to look younger is not to be born so soon." -- Charles Schulz, "Things I've Had to Learn Over and Over and Over"
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Kushal Kumaran <kushal.kumaran+python@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-07-03 23:23 +0530 |
| Message-ID | <mailman.1753.1341338042.4697.python-list@python.org> |
| In reply to | #24692 |
On Sat, Jun 30, 2012 at 3:34 PM, Alister <alister.ware@ntlworld.com> wrote: > On Fri, 29 Jun 2012 09:03:22 -0600, Littlefield, Tyler wrote: > >> On 6/29/2012 1:31 AM, Steven D'Aprano wrote: >>> On Thu, 28 Jun 2012 20:58:15 -0700, alex23 wrote: >>> >>>> On Jun 29, 12:57 pm, "Littlefield, Tyler" <ty...@tysdomain.com> wrote: >>>>> I was curious if someone wouldn't mind poking at some code. The >>>>> project page is at:http://code.google.com/p/pymud Any information is >>>>> greatly appreciated. >>>> I couldn't find any actual code at that site, the git repository is >>>> currently empty. >> >> OOPS, sorry. Apparently I'm not as good with git as I thought. >> Everything's in the repo now. > > I think I may be on firmer grounds with the next few: > > isValidPassword can be simplified to > > def isValidPassword(password: > count=len(password) > return count>= mud.minpass and count<= mud.maxpass > I haven't actually seen the rest of the code, but I would like to point out that applications placing maximum length limits on passwords are extremely annoying. > <snip> -- regards, kushal
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 6 of 7 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.python
csiph-web