Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.python > #84181 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2015-01-22 15:30 +1100 |
| Last post | 2015-01-30 02:11 +0000 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 277 — 34 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.python
Python is DOOMED! Again! Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2015-01-22 15:30 +1100
Re: Python is DOOMED! Again! Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2015-01-22 15:43 +1100
Re: Python is DOOMED! Again! Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2015-01-21 21:35 -0800
Re: Python is DOOMED! Again! Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2015-01-21 21:56 -0800
Re: Python is DOOMED! Again! Mark Lawrence <breamoreboy@yahoo.co.uk> - 2015-01-22 06:12 +0000
Re: Python is DOOMED! Again! Nicholas Cole <nicholas.cole@gmail.com> - 2015-01-22 05:50 +0000
Re: Python is DOOMED! Again! Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2015-01-22 16:56 +1100
Re: Python is DOOMED! Again! Ethan Furman <ethan@stoneleaf.us> - 2015-01-21 22:02 -0800
Re: Python is DOOMED! Again! Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2015-01-22 18:23 +1100
Re: Python is DOOMED! Again! Mario Figueiredo <marfig@gmail.com> - 2015-01-22 09:10 +0100
Re: Python is DOOMED! Again! Nicholas Cole <nicholas.cole@gmail.com> - 2015-01-22 09:37 +0000
Re: Python is DOOMED! Again! alex23 <wuwei23@gmail.com> - 2015-01-23 20:10 +1000
Re: Python is DOOMED! Again! Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2015-01-22 21:09 +1100
Re: Python is DOOMED! Again! Mario Figueiredo <marfig@gmail.com> - 2015-01-22 10:37 +0000
Re: Python is DOOMED! Again! Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2015-01-22 21:44 +1100
Re: Python is DOOMED! Again! Mario Figueiredo <marfig@gmail.com> - 2015-01-22 11:06 +0000
Re: Python is DOOMED! Again! Rick Johnson <rantingrickjohnson@gmail.com> - 2015-01-22 12:24 -0800
Re: Python is DOOMED! Again! Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2015-01-23 01:57 +1100
Re: Python is DOOMED! Again! Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2015-01-23 02:13 +1100
Python is DOOMED! Again! Nicholas Cole <nicholas.cole@gmail.com> - 2015-01-22 10:46 +0000
Re: Python is DOOMED! Again! Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2015-01-22 21:50 +1100
Re: Python is DOOMED! Again! Mario Figueiredo <marfig@gmail.com> - 2015-01-22 11:12 +0000
Re: Python is DOOMED! Again! Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2015-01-22 23:14 +1100
Re: Python is DOOMED! Again! Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2015-01-23 01:16 +1100
Re: Python is DOOMED! Again! Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.co.uk> - 2015-01-22 14:33 +0000
Re: Python is DOOMED! Again! Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2015-01-23 02:11 +1100
Re: Python is DOOMED! Again! Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2015-01-23 21:59 +1100
Re: Python is DOOMED! Again! Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2015-01-23 22:38 +1100
Re: Python is DOOMED! Again! Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2015-01-24 17:35 +1100
Re: Python is DOOMED! Again! Mark Lawrence <breamoreboy@yahoo.co.uk> - 2015-01-24 14:42 +0000
Re: Python is DOOMED! Again! Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2015-01-25 03:00 +1100
Re: Python is DOOMED! Again! Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2015-01-25 03:27 +1100
Re: Python is DOOMED! Again! Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2015-01-25 04:31 +1100
Re: Python is DOOMED! Again! Tim Chase <python.list@tim.thechases.com> - 2015-01-24 12:46 -0600
Re: Python is DOOMED! Again! Rustom Mody <rustompmody@gmail.com> - 2015-01-24 10:59 -0800
Re: Python is DOOMED! Again! Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2015-01-25 13:22 +1100
Re: Python is DOOMED! Again! alister <alister.nospam.ware@ntlworld.com> - 2015-01-24 21:14 +0000
Re: Python is DOOMED! Again! Ian Kelly <ian.g.kelly@gmail.com> - 2015-01-24 14:51 -0700
Re: Python is DOOMED! Again! Mario Figueiredo <marfig@gmail.com> - 2015-01-24 23:30 +0100
Re: Python is DOOMED! Again! BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-01-26 17:00 +0000
Re: Python is DOOMED! Again! Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2015-01-27 11:22 +1100
Re: Python is DOOMED! Again! Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2015-01-22 11:25 -0800
Re: Python is DOOMED! Again! Mark Lawrence <breamoreboy@yahoo.co.uk> - 2015-01-22 19:56 +0000
Re: Python is DOOMED! Again! Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2015-01-23 12:41 +1100
Re: Python is DOOMED! Again! Ian Kelly <ian.g.kelly@gmail.com> - 2015-01-22 14:24 -0700
Re: Python is DOOMED! Again! Rustom Mody <rustompmody@gmail.com> - 2015-01-22 18:59 -0800
Re: Python is DOOMED! Again! Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2015-01-23 00:11 -0800
Re: Python is DOOMED! Again! Ian Kelly <ian.g.kelly@gmail.com> - 2015-01-23 09:28 -0700
Re: Python is DOOMED! Again! Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2015-01-23 16:37 +1100
Re: Python is DOOMED! Again! Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2015-01-22 11:23 -0800
Re: Python is DOOMED! Again! Rick Johnson <rantingrickjohnson@gmail.com> - 2015-01-22 00:42 -0800
Re: Python is DOOMED! Again! Marko Rauhamaa <marko@pacujo.net> - 2015-01-22 12:05 +0200
Re: Python is DOOMED! Again! Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2015-01-22 21:13 +1100
Re: Python is DOOMED! Again! Sturla Molden <sturla.molden@gmail.com> - 2015-01-22 18:11 +0000
Re: Python is DOOMED! Again! Mario Figueiredo <marfig@gmail.com> - 2015-01-22 10:31 +0000
Re: Python is DOOMED! Again! Rick Johnson <rantingrickjohnson@gmail.com> - 2015-01-22 12:23 -0800
Re: Python is DOOMED! Again! MRAB <python@mrabarnett.plus.com> - 2015-01-22 20:46 +0000
Re: Python is DOOMED! Again! Mario Figueiredo <marfig@gmail.com> - 2015-01-22 22:06 +0100
Re: Python is DOOMED! Again! albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) - 2015-02-08 00:45 +0000
Re: Python is DOOMED! Again! Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2015-02-08 12:01 +1100
Re: Python is DOOMED! Again! Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2015-02-08 18:55 +1100
Re: Python is DOOMED! Again! Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2015-02-08 19:21 +1100
Re: Python is DOOMED! Again! Ian Kelly <ian.g.kelly@gmail.com> - 2015-02-08 01:31 -0700
Re: Python is DOOMED! Again! Marko Rauhamaa <marko@pacujo.net> - 2015-02-08 12:17 +0200
Re: Python is DOOMED! Again! Mark Lawrence <breamoreboy@yahoo.co.uk> - 2015-01-22 06:22 +0000
Re: Python is DOOMED! Again! Rick Johnson <rantingrickjohnson@gmail.com> - 2015-01-21 22:25 -0800
Re: Python is DOOMED! Again! Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2015-01-21 22:48 -0800
Re: Python is DOOMED! Again! Rick Johnson <rantingrickjohnson@gmail.com> - 2015-01-22 00:24 -0800
Re: Python is DOOMED! Again! Mark Lawrence <breamoreboy@yahoo.co.uk> - 2015-01-22 08:40 +0000
Re: Python is DOOMED! Again! Grant Edwards <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2015-01-23 03:40 +0000
Re: Python is DOOMED! Again! Terry Reedy <tjreedy@udel.edu> - 2015-01-22 14:20 -0500
Re: Python is DOOMED! Again! Nicholas Cole <nicholas.cole@gmail.com> - 2015-01-22 07:40 +0000
Re: Python is DOOMED! Again! Mark Lawrence <breamoreboy@yahoo.co.uk> - 2015-01-22 09:10 +0000
Re: Python is DOOMED! Again! Sturla Molden <sturla.molden@gmail.com> - 2015-01-22 18:03 +0000
Re: Python is DOOMED! Again! Marko Rauhamaa <marko@pacujo.net> - 2015-01-22 21:08 +0200
Re: Python is DOOMED! Again! wxjmfauth@gmail.com - 2015-01-23 01:19 -0800
Re: Python is DOOMED! Again! Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2015-01-23 16:34 +1100
Re: Python is DOOMED! Again! Skip Montanaro <skip.montanaro@gmail.com> - 2015-01-22 12:14 -0600
Re: Python is DOOMED! Again! Rick Johnson <rantingrickjohnson@gmail.com> - 2015-01-22 12:38 -0800
Re: Python is DOOMED! Again! Sturla Molden <sturla.molden@gmail.com> - 2015-01-22 18:23 +0000
Re: Python is DOOMED! Again! Mark Lawrence <breamoreboy@yahoo.co.uk> - 2015-01-22 18:28 +0000
Re: Python is DOOMED! Again! Marko Rauhamaa <marko@pacujo.net> - 2015-01-22 21:16 +0200
Re: Python is DOOMED! Again! Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2015-01-22 11:36 -0800
Re: Python is DOOMED! Again! Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2015-01-23 11:16 +1100
Re: Python is DOOMED! Again! Mark Lawrence <breamoreboy@yahoo.co.uk> - 2015-01-23 06:29 +0000
Re: Python is DOOMED! Again! Rick Johnson <rantingrickjohnson@gmail.com> - 2015-01-22 12:44 -0800
Re: Python is DOOMED! Again! Mark Lawrence <breamoreboy@yahoo.co.uk> - 2015-01-22 20:50 +0000
Re: Python is DOOMED! Again! Mario Figueiredo <marfig@gmail.com> - 2015-01-22 23:25 +0100
Re: Python is DOOMED! Again! Rick Johnson <rantingrickjohnson@gmail.com> - 2015-01-22 17:06 -0800
Re: Python is DOOMED! Again! Terry Reedy <tjreedy@udel.edu> - 2015-01-22 22:59 -0500
Re: Python is DOOMED! Again! Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2015-01-23 15:23 +1100
Re: Python is DOOMED! Again! Rick Johnson <rantingrickjohnson@gmail.com> - 2015-01-23 19:00 -0800
Re: Python is DOOMED! Again! Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2015-01-24 18:48 +1100
Re: Python is DOOMED! Again! Mario Figueiredo <marfig@gmail.com> - 2015-01-24 09:30 +0000
Re: Python is DOOMED! Again! Rick Johnson <rantingrickjohnson@gmail.com> - 2015-01-24 15:20 -0800
Re: Python is DOOMED! Again! Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2015-01-25 10:30 +1100
Re: Python is DOOMED! Again! Mario Figueiredo <marfig@gmail.com> - 2015-01-25 00:39 +0100
Re: Python is DOOMED! Again! Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2015-01-25 10:44 +1100
Re: Python is DOOMED! Again! Mark Lawrence <breamoreboy@yahoo.co.uk> - 2015-01-24 23:55 +0000
Re: Python is DOOMED! Again! Rick Johnson <rantingrickjohnson@gmail.com> - 2015-01-24 17:00 -0800
Re: Python is DOOMED! Again! Mark Lawrence <breamoreboy@yahoo.co.uk> - 2015-01-25 02:28 +0000
Re: Python is DOOMED! Again! wxjmfauth@gmail.com - 2015-01-25 10:57 -0800
Re: Python is DOOMED! Again! random832@fastmail.us - 2015-01-26 10:01 -0500
Re: Python is DOOMED! Again! Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2015-01-27 11:11 +1100
Re: Python is DOOMED! Again! Dan Sommers <dan@tombstonezero.net> - 2015-01-27 01:09 +0000
Re: Python is DOOMED! Again! Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2015-01-27 17:36 +1100
Re: Python is DOOMED! Again! Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2015-01-27 18:59 +1100
Re: Python is DOOMED! Again! Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2015-01-27 19:03 +1100
Re: Python is DOOMED! Again! random832@fastmail.us - 2015-01-27 12:26 -0500
Re: Python is DOOMED! Again! Mark Lawrence <breamoreboy@yahoo.co.uk> - 2015-01-27 17:40 +0000
Re: Python is DOOMED! Again! Rick Johnson <rantingrickjohnson@gmail.com> - 2015-01-26 17:10 -0800
Re: Python is DOOMED! Again! Steven D'Aprano <steve@pearwood.info> - 2015-01-27 06:32 +0000
Re: Python is DOOMED! Again! random832@fastmail.us - 2015-01-27 12:35 -0500
Re: Python is DOOMED! Again! random832@fastmail.us - 2015-01-27 12:37 -0500
Re: Python is DOOMED! Again! Mario Figueiredo <marfig@gmail.com> - 2015-01-27 18:59 +0100
Re: Python is DOOMED! Again! Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2015-01-28 07:40 +1100
Re: Python is DOOMED! Again! Mario Figueiredo <marfig@gmail.com> - 2015-01-27 21:58 +0100
Re: Python is DOOMED! Again! Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2015-01-28 08:08 +1100
Re: Python is DOOMED! Again! Mario Figueiredo <marfig@gmail.com> - 2015-01-27 22:19 +0100
Re: Python is DOOMED! Again! Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2015-01-28 08:24 +1100
Re: Python is DOOMED! Again! Mario Figueiredo <marfig@gmail.com> - 2015-01-27 22:35 +0100
Re: Python is DOOMED! Again! Mario Figueiredo <marfig@gmail.com> - 2015-01-27 22:39 +0100
Re: Python is DOOMED! Again! Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2015-01-28 08:53 +1100
Re: Python is DOOMED! Again! Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2015-01-28 13:05 +1100
Re: Python is DOOMED! Again! Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2015-01-28 12:26 +1100
Re: Python is DOOMED! Again! Skip Montanaro <skip.montanaro@gmail.com> - 2015-01-28 08:10 -0600
Re: Python is DOOMED! Again! Mario Figueiredo <marfig@gmail.com> - 2015-01-28 16:04 +0100
Re: Python is DOOMED! Again! wxjmfauth@gmail.com - 2015-01-28 07:40 -0800
Re: Python is DOOMED! Again! Ian Kelly <ian.g.kelly@gmail.com> - 2015-01-28 10:33 -0700
Re: Python is DOOMED! Again! Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2015-01-29 11:37 +1100
Re: Python is DOOMED! Again! Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2015-01-29 11:43 +1100
Re: Python is DOOMED! Again! Mario Figueiredo <marfig@gmail.com> - 2015-01-29 09:34 +0100
Re: Python is DOOMED! Again! Ian Kelly <ian.g.kelly@gmail.com> - 2015-01-29 09:30 -0700
Re: Python is DOOMED! Again! Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2015-01-30 03:41 +1100
Re: Python is DOOMED! Again! Mark Lawrence <breamoreboy@yahoo.co.uk> - 2015-01-28 18:16 +0000
Re: Python is DOOMED! Again! Mario Figueiredo <marfig@gmail.com> - 2015-01-29 09:23 +0100
Re: Python is DOOMED! Again! Mark Lawrence <breamoreboy@yahoo.co.uk> - 2015-01-29 08:49 +0000
Re: Python is DOOMED! Again! Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2015-01-30 03:11 +1100
Re: Python is DOOMED! Again! Rick Johnson <rantingrickjohnson@gmail.com> - 2015-01-29 13:12 -0800
Re: Python is DOOMED! Again! Mario Figueiredo <marfig@gmail.com> - 2015-01-30 19:36 +0100
Re: Python is DOOMED! Again! Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2015-02-01 14:06 +1100
Re: Python is DOOMED! Again! Mario Figueiredo <marfig@gmail.com> - 2015-01-30 19:42 +0100
Re: Python is DOOMED! Again! Ian Kelly <ian.g.kelly@gmail.com> - 2015-01-30 14:50 -0700
Re: Python is DOOMED! Again! Skip Montanaro <skip.montanaro@gmail.com> - 2015-01-28 12:34 -0600
Re: Python is DOOMED! Again! Skip Montanaro <skip.montanaro@gmail.com> - 2015-01-28 12:36 -0600
Re: Python is DOOMED! Again! random832@fastmail.us - 2015-01-29 09:08 -0500
Re: Python is DOOMED! Again! Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2015-01-30 02:56 +1100
Re: Python is DOOMED! Again! random832@fastmail.us - 2015-01-29 13:23 -0500
Re: Python is DOOMED! Again! Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2015-01-31 22:56 +1100
Re: Python is DOOMED! Again! Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2015-02-01 01:53 +1100
Re: Python is DOOMED! Again! Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2015-02-01 14:16 +1100
Re: Python is DOOMED! Again! Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2015-02-01 14:46 +1100
Re: Python is DOOMED! Again! Ethan Furman <ethan@stoneleaf.us> - 2015-01-31 20:31 -0800
dunder-docs (was Python is DOOMED! Again!) Rustom Mody <rustompmody@gmail.com> - 2015-01-31 21:36 -0800
Re: dunder-docs (was Python is DOOMED! Again!) Ethan Furman <ethan@stoneleaf.us> - 2015-02-01 00:12 -0800
Re: dunder-docs (was Python is DOOMED! Again!) Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2015-02-02 03:20 +1100
Re: dunder-docs (was Python is DOOMED! Again!) Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2015-02-02 03:55 +1100
Re: dunder-docs (was Python is DOOMED! Again!) Ian Kelly <ian.g.kelly@gmail.com> - 2015-02-01 10:31 -0700
Re: dunder-docs (was Python is DOOMED! Again!) Rustom Mody <rustompmody@gmail.com> - 2015-02-01 19:52 -0800
Re: dunder-docs (was Python is DOOMED! Again!) Rustom Mody <rustompmody@gmail.com> - 2015-02-01 20:04 -0800
Re: dunder-docs (was Python is DOOMED! Again!) Rustom Mody <rustompmody@gmail.com> - 2015-02-01 20:22 -0800
Re: dunder-docs (was Python is DOOMED! Again!) Gregory Ewing <greg.ewing@canterbury.ac.nz> - 2015-02-02 17:55 +1300
Re: dunder-docs (was Python is DOOMED! Again!) Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2015-02-02 18:15 +1100
Re: dunder-docs (was Python is DOOMED! Again!) Devin Jeanpierre <jeanpierreda@gmail.com> - 2015-02-01 23:41 -0800
Re: dunder-docs (was Python is DOOMED! Again!) Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2015-02-02 23:06 +1100
Re: dunder-docs (was Python is DOOMED! Again!) Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2015-02-02 23:09 +1100
Re: dunder-docs (was Python is DOOMED! Again!) Gregory Ewing <greg.ewing@canterbury.ac.nz> - 2015-02-04 00:58 +1300
Re: dunder-docs (was Python is DOOMED! Again!) Devin Jeanpierre <jeanpierreda@gmail.com> - 2015-02-02 05:00 -0800
Re: dunder-docs (was Python is DOOMED! Again!) Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2015-02-03 01:07 +1100
Re: dunder-docs (was Python is DOOMED! Again!) Devin Jeanpierre <jeanpierreda@gmail.com> - 2015-02-03 01:24 -0800
Re: dunder-docs (was Python is DOOMED! Again!) Marko Rauhamaa <marko@pacujo.net> - 2015-02-03 12:38 +0200
Re: dunder-docs (was Python is DOOMED! Again!) Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2015-02-03 21:49 +1100
Re: dunder-docs (was Python is DOOMED! Again!) Marko Rauhamaa <marko@pacujo.net> - 2015-02-03 13:27 +0200
Re: dunder-docs (was Python is DOOMED! Again!) Gregory Ewing <greg.ewing@canterbury.ac.nz> - 2015-02-04 10:12 +1300
Re: dunder-docs (was Python is DOOMED! Again!) Marko Rauhamaa <marko@pacujo.net> - 2015-02-03 23:28 +0200
Re: dunder-docs (was Python is DOOMED! Again!) Gregory Ewing <greg.ewing@canterbury.ac.nz> - 2015-02-04 11:43 +1300
Re: dunder-docs (was Python is DOOMED! Again!) Marko Rauhamaa <marko@pacujo.net> - 2015-02-04 01:32 +0200
Re: dunder-docs (was Python is DOOMED! Again!) Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2015-02-04 10:39 +1100
Re: dunder-docs (was Python is DOOMED! Again!) Mark Lawrence <breamoreboy@yahoo.co.uk> - 2015-02-03 23:41 +0000
Re: dunder-docs (was Python is DOOMED! Again!) Ethan Furman <ethan@stoneleaf.us> - 2015-02-03 15:55 -0800
Re: dunder-docs (was Python is DOOMED! Again!) Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2015-02-04 13:30 +1100
Re: dunder-docs (was Python is DOOMED! Again!) Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2015-02-04 12:57 +1100
Re: dunder-docs (was Python is DOOMED! Again!) Gregory Ewing <greg.ewing@canterbury.ac.nz> - 2015-02-04 19:04 +1300
Re: dunder-docs (was Python is DOOMED! Again!) Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2015-02-04 04:40 +1100
Re: dunder-docs (was Python is DOOMED! Again!) Gregory Ewing <greg.ewing@canterbury.ac.nz> - 2015-02-04 10:39 +1300
Re: dunder-docs (was Python is DOOMED! Again!) Ian Kelly <ian.g.kelly@gmail.com> - 2015-02-03 15:04 -0700
Re: dunder-docs (was Python is DOOMED! Again!) Rick Johnson <rantingrickjohnson@gmail.com> - 2015-02-03 18:31 -0800
Re: dunder-docs (was Python is DOOMED! Again!) Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2015-02-04 09:19 +1100
Re: dunder-docs (was Python is DOOMED! Again!) Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2015-02-04 13:30 +1100
Re: dunder-docs (was Python is DOOMED! Again!) Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2015-02-04 15:58 +1100
Re: dunder-docs (was Python is DOOMED! Again!) Gregory Ewing <greg.ewing@canterbury.ac.nz> - 2015-02-04 19:22 +1300
Re: dunder-docs (was Python is DOOMED! Again!) Gregory Ewing <greg.ewing@canterbury.ac.nz> - 2015-02-04 19:22 +1300
Re: dunder-docs (was Python is DOOMED! Again!) Devin Jeanpierre <jeanpierreda@gmail.com> - 2015-02-02 05:02 -0800
Re: dunder-docs (was Python is DOOMED! Again!) Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2015-02-03 01:20 +1100
Re: dunder-docs (was Python is DOOMED! Again!) Devin Jeanpierre <jeanpierreda@gmail.com> - 2015-02-03 01:25 -0800
Re: dunder-docs (was Python is DOOMED! Again!) Gregory Ewing <greg.ewing@canterbury.ac.nz> - 2015-02-04 00:32 +1300
Re: dunder-docs (was Python is DOOMED! Again!) Vito De Tullio <vito.detullio@gmail.com> - 2015-02-02 06:26 +0100
Re: dunder-docs (was Python is DOOMED! Again!) Rustom Mody <rustompmody@gmail.com> - 2015-02-02 04:27 -0800
Re: dunder-docs (was Python is DOOMED! Again!) Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2015-02-02 23:43 +1100
Re: dunder-docs (was Python is DOOMED! Again!) Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2015-02-02 07:45 +1100
Re: dunder-docs (was Python is DOOMED! Again!) Emile van Sebille <emile@fenx.com> - 2015-02-01 12:51 -0800
Re: Python is DOOMED! Again! Dennis Lee Bieber <wlfraed@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-02-01 11:35 -0500
Re: Python is DOOMED! Again! Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2015-01-31 22:12 -0800
Re: Python is DOOMED! Again! Devin Jeanpierre <jeanpierreda@gmail.com> - 2015-01-31 22:54 -0800
Re: Python is DOOMED! Again! Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2015-02-02 03:34 +1100
Re: Python is DOOMED! Again! Devin Jeanpierre <jeanpierreda@gmail.com> - 2015-02-01 08:54 -0800
Re: Python is DOOMED! Again! Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2015-02-02 04:09 +1100
Re: Python is DOOMED! Again! Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2015-02-01 14:02 -0800
Re: Python is DOOMED! Again! Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2015-02-01 14:27 -0800
Re: Python is DOOMED! Again! Devin Jeanpierre <jeanpierreda@gmail.com> - 2015-02-01 14:52 -0800
Re: Python is DOOMED! Again! Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2015-02-02 13:03 +1100
Re: Python is DOOMED! Again! Gregory Ewing <greg.ewing@canterbury.ac.nz> - 2015-02-02 18:46 +1300
Re: Python is DOOMED! Again! Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2015-02-02 03:31 +1100
Re: Python is DOOMED! Again! Devin Jeanpierre <jeanpierreda@gmail.com> - 2015-02-01 09:45 -0800
Re: Python is DOOMED! Again! Gregory Ewing <greg.ewing@canterbury.ac.nz> - 2015-02-02 18:19 +1300
Re: Python is DOOMED! Again! Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2015-02-02 16:38 +1100
Re: Python is DOOMED! Again! Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2015-02-01 22:07 -0800
Re: Python is DOOMED! Again! Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2015-02-02 17:16 +1100
Re: Python is DOOMED! Again! Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2015-02-01 22:25 -0800
Re: Python is DOOMED! Again! Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2015-02-02 18:18 +1100
Re: Python is DOOMED! Again! Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2015-02-01 23:43 -0800
Re: Python is DOOMED! Again! Rustom Mody <rustompmody@gmail.com> - 2015-02-02 04:12 -0800
Re: Python is DOOMED! Again! Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2015-02-01 22:12 -0800
Re: Python is DOOMED! Again! wxjmfauth@gmail.com - 2015-01-29 10:53 -0800
Re: Python is DOOMED! Again! Mark Lawrence <breamoreboy@yahoo.co.uk> - 2015-01-29 18:54 +0000
Re: Python is DOOMED! Again! Mario Figueiredo <marfig@gmail.com> - 2015-01-30 19:50 +0100
Re: Python is DOOMED! Again! Skip Montanaro <skip.montanaro@gmail.com> - 2015-01-30 13:00 -0600
Re: Python is DOOMED! Again! Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2015-01-28 12:09 +1100
Re: Python is DOOMED! Again! Terry Reedy <tjreedy@udel.edu> - 2015-01-22 22:57 -0500
Re: Python is DOOMED! Again! Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2015-01-23 05:33 +1100
Re: Python is DOOMED! Again! Marko Rauhamaa <marko@pacujo.net> - 2015-01-22 21:22 +0200
Re: Python is DOOMED! Again! Skip Montanaro <skip.montanaro@gmail.com> - 2015-01-22 13:43 -0600
Re: Python is DOOMED! Again! Sturla Molden <sturla.molden@gmail.com> - 2015-01-22 20:56 +0100
Re: Python is DOOMED! Again! Skip Montanaro <skip.montanaro@gmail.com> - 2015-01-22 14:31 -0600
Re: Python is DOOMED! Again! Skip Montanaro <skip.montanaro@gmail.com> - 2015-01-22 14:32 -0600
Re: Python is DOOMED! Again! Rick Johnson <rantingrickjohnson@gmail.com> - 2015-01-22 13:08 -0800
Re: Python is DOOMED! Again! Marko Rauhamaa <marko@pacujo.net> - 2015-01-22 23:25 +0200
Re: Python is DOOMED! Again! random832@fastmail.us - 2015-01-22 13:41 -0500
Re: Python is DOOMED! Again! Mario Figueiredo <marfig@gmail.com> - 2015-01-22 20:10 +0100
Re: Python is DOOMED! Again! Sturla Molden <sturla.molden@gmail.com> - 2015-01-22 20:53 +0100
Re: Python is DOOMED! Again! Mario Figueiredo <marfig@gmail.com> - 2015-01-22 21:03 +0100
Re: Python is DOOMED! Again! Sturla Molden <sturla.molden@gmail.com> - 2015-01-23 01:40 +0100
Re: Python is DOOMED! Again! Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2015-01-22 17:31 -0800
Re: Python is DOOMED! Again! Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2015-01-23 14:53 +1100
Re: Python is DOOMED! Again! Mark Lawrence <breamoreboy@yahoo.co.uk> - 2015-01-23 06:38 +0000
Re: Python is DOOMED! Again! Sturla Molden <sturla.molden@gmail.com> - 2015-01-24 02:00 +0100
Re: Python is DOOMED! Again! Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2015-01-24 16:51 +1100
Re: Python is DOOMED! Again! Nicholas Cole <nicholas.cole@gmail.com> - 2015-01-24 09:04 +0000
Re: Python is DOOMED! Again! Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2015-01-24 12:15 +1100
Re: Python is DOOMED! Again! Mark Lawrence <breamoreboy@yahoo.co.uk> - 2015-01-24 14:40 +0000
Re: Python is DOOMED! Again! Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2015-01-23 12:00 +1100
Re: Python is DOOMED! Again! Emile van Sebille <emile@fenx.com> - 2015-01-22 17:14 -0800
Re: Python is DOOMED! Again! Terry Reedy <tjreedy@udel.edu> - 2015-01-22 22:34 -0500
Re: Python is DOOMED! Again! Mark Lawrence <breamoreboy@yahoo.co.uk> - 2015-01-22 19:05 +0000
Re: Python is DOOMED! Again! Sturla Molden <sturla.molden@gmail.com> - 2015-01-22 19:07 +0000
Re: Python is DOOMED! Again! Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2015-01-23 15:51 +1100
Re: Python is DOOMED! Again! Sturla Molden <sturla.molden@gmail.com> - 2015-01-22 19:09 +0000
Re: Python is DOOMED! Again! Emile van Sebille <emile@fenx.com> - 2015-01-22 13:56 -0800
Re: Python is DOOMED! Again! Ian Kelly <ian.g.kelly@gmail.com> - 2015-01-22 15:08 -0700
Re: Python is DOOMED! Again! Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2015-01-22 15:24 -0800
Re: Python is DOOMED! Again! Ian Kelly <ian.g.kelly@gmail.com> - 2015-01-22 15:12 -0700
Re: Python is DOOMED! Again! Rustom Mody <rustompmody@gmail.com> - 2015-01-22 19:11 -0800
Re: Python is DOOMED! Again! Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2015-01-23 14:52 +1100
Re: Python is DOOMED! Again! Rustom Mody <rustompmody@gmail.com> - 2015-01-22 21:06 -0800
Re: Python is DOOMED! Again! Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2015-01-23 16:33 +1100
Re: Python is DOOMED! Again! Chris Kaynor <ckaynor@zindagigames.com> - 2015-01-22 14:27 -0800
Re: Python is DOOMED! Again! Ian Kelly <ian.g.kelly@gmail.com> - 2015-01-22 15:47 -0700
Re: Python is DOOMED! Again! Mario Figueiredo <marfig@gmail.com> - 2015-01-22 23:54 +0100
Re: Python is DOOMED! Again! Ben Finney <ben+python@benfinney.id.au> - 2015-01-23 10:22 +1100
Re: Python is DOOMED! Again! Sturla Molden <sturla.molden@gmail.com> - 2015-01-23 01:44 +0100
Re: Python is DOOMED! Again! Mark Lawrence <breamoreboy@yahoo.co.uk> - 2015-01-23 06:33 +0000
Re: Python is DOOMED! Again! wxjmfauth@gmail.com - 2015-01-23 01:07 -0800
Re: Python is DOOMED! Again! Tony the Tiger <tony@tiger.invalid> - 2015-01-23 18:08 +0000
Re: Python is DOOMED! Again! BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-01-29 22:57 +0000
Re: Python is DOOMED! Again! Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2015-01-30 10:17 +1100
Re: Python is DOOMED! Again! Chris Kaynor <ckaynor@zindagigames.com> - 2015-01-29 15:25 -0800
Re: Python is DOOMED! Again! MRAB <python@mrabarnett.plus.com> - 2015-01-30 02:11 +0000
Page 4 of 14 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 … 14 Next page →
| From | Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-02-08 18:55 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <54d71681$0$13000$c3e8da3$5496439d@news.astraweb.com> |
| In reply to | #85346 |
Chris Angelico wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 8, 2015 at 11:45 AM, Albert van der Horst
> <albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl> wrote:
>> def square(x): x**2
>> but
>> square = x->x**2
>>
>> or
>>
>> mult = x,y ->
>> result = 0
>> for i in range(x):
>> result +=y
>> return result
>>
>> doing away with the ternary operator def
>>
>> def .. ( .. ) : ..
>>
>> replacing it by two binary operators, one of them (=) being thoroughly
>> familiar.
>
> Thing is, "def" isn't just assignment. It also takes the name and
> stores it in the object. There's a distinct and visible difference
> between:
>
> def square(x): return x**2
>
> and
>
> def func(x): return x**2
> square = func
>
> So if you were to use your alternate syntax everywhere, you'd
> basically be throwing away all the benefits of def over lambda.
If this were syntax, then the compiler could just as easily set the function
name from -> as from def. Lambda has the limitations that it has because it
is an expression, not because of magical "def" properties.
I think it is a total waste of good syntax to limit a hypothetical ->
operator to a mere replacement for "def". It would be much more interesting
for pattern-matching, rather like Haskell:
fact 0 = 1
fact n = n*fact(n-1)
That is more or less equivalent to pseudocode:
def fact(arg):
if arg == 0: return 1
if arg matches n: return n*fact(n-1)
What does it mean to "match n"? Haskell can infer that n must be an integer.
(It might even be able to infer that n must be a *positive* integer. I'd
test it myself except I'm lazy.) So if it receives an integer argument
which isn't 0, it will match n.
Because indentation in Python is significant, we could drop the repeated use
of the function name by indenting the individual patterns, and use type
annotations to specify different types:
fact 0 -> 1
n:int -> n*fact(n-1)
x:float -> math.gamma(x-1)
As I said, this is not a thought-out proposal, just some ideal musings, but
it seems a crying shame to waste a potential pattern match operator for a
mere abbreviation to "def".
--
Steven
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-02-08 19:21 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <mailman.18542.1423383675.18130.python-list@python.org> |
| In reply to | #85350 |
On Sun, Feb 8, 2015 at 6:55 PM, Steven D'Aprano
<steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> wrote:
> If this were syntax, then the compiler could just as easily set the function
> name from -> as from def. Lambda has the limitations that it has because it
> is an expression, not because of magical "def" properties.
True, it could, but it would be odd that what looks like assignment
and an expression is actually magical syntax. But it might be nice to
have something that functions as lambda currently does, unless it
detects that it's being assigned directly to a name, in which case the
magic kicks in and it gets a name.
square = x->x**2 # Name is "square"
operator["square"] = x->x**2 # Maybe?
create_operator("square", x->x**2) # Name is "<lambda>"
But I suspect that this would create some hairy grammatical quirks.
Still, as an "alternate syntax for creating a lambda function", it
seems at least plausible.
ChrisA
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ian Kelly <ian.g.kelly@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-02-08 01:31 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <mailman.18544.1423384358.18130.python-list@python.org> |
| In reply to | #85344 |
On Sat, Feb 7, 2015 at 5:45 PM, Albert van der Horst <albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl> wrote: > It is too bad `` -> '' as a token is now taken. > I wanted to propose to replace the ternary syntax > lambda .. : .. > by a regular operator > .. -> .. > then we could have > x -> x**2 > instead of > lambda x : x**2 Well, I don't think the existing syntax is incompatible with your proposal. As it is, the -> token can only appear after the argument list of a def statement, so there would be no grammatical ambiguity. I do think that such a proposal is unlikely to gain wide support though. > Moreover the value of a function would be a lambda > > not > def square(x): x**2 > but > square = x->x**2 This would be an anti-pattern. The def statement associates the name "square" with the function's __name__ attribute, which is useful for debugging and introspection. The proposed assignment statement does not. > mult = x,y -> > result = 0 > for i in range(x): > result +=y > return result I don't like this at all. I read "x -> x**2" as denoting a mapping from a bound variable to an expression. A whole function body just feels wrong here. > doing away with the ternary operator def def is a statement, not an operator. > replacing it by two binary operators, one of them (=) being thoroughly familiar. = is also not an operator. > Also name:str is the wrong order. I disagree; "name: type" is linguistically correct, with the colon denoting that what comes after describes what comes before. Without the colon, the opposite order would make more sense.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Marko Rauhamaa <marko@pacujo.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-02-08 12:17 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <87a90o6733.fsf@elektro.pacujo.net> |
| In reply to | #85354 |
Ian Kelly <ian.g.kelly@gmail.com>:
> On Sat, Feb 7, 2015 at 5:45 PM, Albert van der Horst
> <albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl> wrote:
>> x -> x**2
>> instead of
>> lambda x : x**2
>
> Well, I don't think the existing syntax is incompatible with your
> proposal. As it is, the -> token can only appear after the argument
> list of a def statement, so there would be no grammatical ambiguity. I
> do think that such a proposal is unlikely to gain wide support though.
I also don't think Python is in the need of any enhancement in this
area.
>> not
>> def square(x): x**2
>> but
>> square = x->x**2
>
> This would be an anti-pattern. The def statement associates the name
> "square" with the function's __name__ attribute, which is useful for
> debugging and introspection. The proposed assignment statement does
> not.
A good point. However, Guile (Scheme) has some builtin magic:
> (define (f x) x)
> (procedure-name f)
$1 = f
> (define g (lambda (x) x))
> (procedure-name g)
$2 = g
> (define h g)
> (procedure-name h)
$3 = g
>> mult = x,y ->
>> result = 0
>> for i in range(x):
>> result +=y
>> return result
>
> I don't like this at all.
The main problem is the missing colon, a cornerstone of Python syntax.
You could have:
mult = x,y ->:
result = 0
for i in range(x):
result +=y
return result
> I read "x -> x**2" as denoting a mapping from a bound variable to an
> expression. A whole function body just feels wrong here.
I don't think syntax like this is in any way wrong. It's just completely
unnecessary given that we have "def".
Some people are trying to make Scheme more Python-like, others are
trying to make Python more Scheme-like. I think you should not dilute
the idiomatic core of a programming language. When in Python, program in
Python, when in Scheme, program in Scheme...
Marko
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Mark Lawrence <breamoreboy@yahoo.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-01-22 06:22 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <mailman.17953.1421907769.18130.python-list@python.org> |
| In reply to | #84181 |
On 22/01/2015 05:56, Chris Angelico wrote: > On Thu, Jan 22, 2015 at 4:50 PM, Nicholas Cole <nicholas.cole@gmail.com> wrote: >> I would have preferred Python to mimic: >> >> Define function add taking price1, the price2, print_error equals true. >> Price1 is a float. Price2 is a float. The function returns a float. >> >> But now this is sounding a little like something from Larry Wall, and so I >> had better stop! > > Actually, it sounds like pre-ANSI C. > *SCREAMS OUT LOUD* at the thought of the Whitesmith's compiler where IIRC printf was spelt format and the formatting codes weren't the same. -- My fellow Pythonistas, ask not what our language can do for you, ask what you can do for our language. Mark Lawrence
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Rick Johnson <rantingrickjohnson@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-01-21 22:25 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <3fbbc664-ab4b-46e1-98a8-3859cb84fbb0@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #84181 |
On Wednesday, January 21, 2015 at 10:31:12 PM UTC-6, Steven D'Aprano wrote: > Occasionally you find people spreading Fear, Uncertainty, Doubt about > Python. Python is now over 20 years old and one of the most popular > languages in the world no matter how you measure popularity: What's next, are you going to drool over the TIOBE index again? I can't help but giggle when folks put faith in crap like that. You wanna know why python-list gets so much spam? Because "Guido-bot" is attempting to improve Python's TIOBE rating. > so you don't often get FUD these days. When you do, it's > usually about whitespace, or "Python is too slow", or > occasionally "Python 3 is killing Python", but the latest > FUD is about PEP 484 and type-hinting: Yeah because people *NEVER* complain when they have *REAL* problems, do they "Mr DeWaldo"? > So what is this unspeakable, nightmarish, cryptic > abomination going to look like? Here's an example from PEP > 484: > > def greeting(name: str) -> str: > return 'Hello ' + name > > I don't know about you, but I think anyone who cannot read > that and intuit that argument `name` is a string and the > return result is also a string is probably going to have > bigger troubles with Python than just type-hinting. > > Remember too that type-hinting will *absolutely* remain > *completely* optional for Python. Developers can choose to > use it or not, But they cannot choose whether to *READ* it or not. Once it's out there, it's out there, and everyone who has to maintain code or read tutorials will have to suffer reading noise they did not choose to write. This is not a "self- inflicted" wound Steven, this is "assault with a noisy weapon"! > they can mix hinted code with regular unhinted code, they > can use type declarations purely as documentation or they > can run an optional type-checker, as they choose. The only thing worse than a bad idea is an inconsistent bad idea! > Here's a potential real-world example, from the statistics > module in Python 3.4, before and after adding annotations: > > def median_grouped(data, interval=1): ... > > def median_grouped(data:Iterable[Real], interval:Real=1)->Real: ... Nice! I like how the first "toy example" was less noisy, and then way down here you show us the real butt-uglyness of this "feature from hell"! > I think it is clear that Python's annotation syntax > remains quite close to executable pseudo-code. Sure, for some perverted definition of "quite" and "close"! > Fears that type-hints will doom Python are not credible. Listen, there is a way that type hints can be introduced *WITHOUT* forcing folks who don't care about them to read them. If Mr Van Rossom would like my assistance, tell him to send me a private email or ask me in this thread. However, if he refuses and continues down this "road to perdition", i will be unable to help him save the Python language, and all his work will have been for nothing. For the sake of this community and the many noobs who have not found programming bliss via Python, i implore you to do everything in your power to convince GvR that he is making a grave mistake, for which no recovery will be possible.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-01-21 22:48 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <8738738g5a.fsf@jester.gateway.sonic.net> |
| In reply to | #84198 |
Rick Johnson <rantingrickjohnson@gmail.com> writes: >> def median_grouped(data:Iterable[Real], interval:Real=1)->Real: ... > > Nice! I like how the first "toy example" was less noisy, > and then way down here you show us the real butt-uglyness of > this "feature from hell"! It looks fine to me. I'm still using Python 2.7 because I haven't found a really compelling reason to migrate to Python 3, but this makes it start looking worthwhile. > Listen, there is a way that type hints can be introduced *WITHOUT* > forcing folks who don't care about them to read them. You could write some IDE features to suppress visibility of the hints. Or maybe it could be done with a decorator-like construct: @-spec(Iterable[Real], Real) -> Real > For the sake of this community and the many noobs who have not found > programming bliss via Python, i implore you to do everything in your > power to convince GvR that he is making a grave mistake, for which no > recovery will be possible. I've always found Python 3 annoying because it broke compatibility with Python 2, but only by a little bit, not enough to add real benefits. This is a real benefit so IMHO it makes the language more attractive rather than less.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Rick Johnson <rantingrickjohnson@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-01-22 00:24 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <2d7880a5-9c2d-4a04-81f0-aa1e1d493e1a@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #84200 |
On Thursday, January 22, 2015 at 12:48:46 AM UTC-6, Paul Rubin wrote: > Sir Richard Johnson writes: > You could write some IDE features to suppress visibility > of the hints. Or maybe it could be done with a decorator- > like construct: > > @-spec(Iterable[Real], Real) -> Real Yes, YES, *YES*!!!! That would be my first choice, or docstrings as a secondary. But to introduce new syntax into the method signatures is SUICIDE! What the hell is this man thinking? > > For the sake of this community and the many noobs who > > have not found programming bliss via Python, i implore > > you to do everything in your power to convince GvR that > > he is making a grave mistake, for which no recovery will > > be possible. > > I've always found Python 3 annoying because it broke > compatibility with Python 2, but only by a little bit, not > enough to add real benefits. This is a real benefit so > IMHO it makes the language more attractive rather than > less. Agreed. I'm not against the idea, heck, i want to see Python improve just like anybody who loves this language, but the implementation just plain sucks! Please convince GvR to move this noisy syntax OUTSIDE of the signature! It's too noisy and its going to turn people off.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Mark Lawrence <breamoreboy@yahoo.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-01-22 08:40 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <mailman.17961.1421916074.18130.python-list@python.org> |
| In reply to | #84209 |
On 22/01/2015 08:24, Rick Johnson wrote: > > Yes, YES, *YES*!!!! That would be my first choice, or > docstrings as a secondary. But to introduce new syntax > into the method signatures is SUICIDE! What the hell is > this man thinking? I take it you mean these men Guido van Rossum <guido at python.org>, Jukka Lehtosalo <jukka.lehtosalo at iki.fi>, Łukasz Langa <lukasz at langa.pl> as they are the authors of PEP484? > > Agreed. I'm not against the idea, heck, i want to see Python > improve just like anybody who loves this language, but the > implementation just plain sucks! Please convince GvR to move > this noisy syntax OUTSIDE of the signature! It's too noisy > and its going to turn people off. > What implementation? The PEP is quite clearly marked as draft. The Re-enactment of the Battle of Pearl Harbour is currently ongoing over on python-ideas regarding exactly what should be implemented. There is also nothing to stop you writing another PEP with an alternative proposal, although I suspect there is as much chance of that ever happening as there is of ever seeing RickedPython(3). -- My fellow Pythonistas, ask not what our language can do for you, ask what you can do for our language. Mark Lawrence
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Grant Edwards <invalid@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-01-23 03:40 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <m9sfrg$kvs$1@reader1.panix.com> |
| In reply to | #84211 |
On 2015-01-22, Mark Lawrence <breamoreboy@yahoo.co.uk> wrote: > What implementation? The PEP is quite clearly marked as draft. The > Re-enactment of the Battle of Pearl Harbour is currently ongoing > over on python-ideas regarding exactly what should be implemented. I, for one, shall certainly sleep easier knowing the Batley Townswomens' Guild is looking out for our interestes. -- Grant
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Terry Reedy <tjreedy@udel.edu> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-01-22 14:20 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <mailman.17988.1421954422.18130.python-list@python.org> |
| In reply to | #84209 |
On 1/22/2015 3:24 AM, Rick Johnson wrote: > Yes, YES, *YES*!!!! That would be my first choice, or > docstrings as a secondary. But to introduce new syntax > into the method signatures is SUICIDE! What the hell is > this man thinking? You are years late for complaining about new signature syntax. The 'new' annotation syntax was introduced 5+ years ago in 3.0 and is already being used for various purposes, but mostly for type hinting. The current proposal is to introduce a new module that standardizes the type-hinting use. It is true that it will likely make the use of annotation more common. -- Terry Jan Reedy
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Nicholas Cole <nicholas.cole@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-01-22 07:40 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <mailman.17957.1421912430.18130.python-list@python.org> |
| In reply to | #84181 |
On Thu, Jan 22, 2015 at 5:56 AM, Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 22, 2015 at 4:50 PM, Nicholas Cole <nicholas.cole@gmail.com> wrote:
>> I would have preferred Python to mimic:
>>
>> Define function add taking price1, the price2, print_error equals true.
>> Price1 is a float. Price2 is a float. The function returns a float.
>>
>> But now this is sounding a little like something from Larry Wall, and so I
>> had better stop!
>
> Actually, it sounds like pre-ANSI C. Something like this:
>
> float add(price1, price2)
> float price1;
> float price2;
> {
> ... body of function ...
> }
>
> Compare the more modern C style:
I hadn't thought of that, but yes, you are quite right right. I think
my point stands. I've ever programmed anything serious in any kind of
C, but the pre-ANSI C style is instantly readable to me (except maybe
that I had to look three times to find the return signature because my
eye glossed over the float at the start.
Far more intuitive than what is being proposed^W^W is part of Python 3. :-)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Mark Lawrence <breamoreboy@yahoo.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-01-22 09:10 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <mailman.17963.1421918106.18130.python-list@python.org> |
| In reply to | #84181 |
On 22/01/2015 04:30, Steven D'Aprano wrote: > Occasionally you find people spreading Fear, Uncertainty, Doubt about > Python. Python is now over 20 years old and one of the most popular > languages in the world no matter how you measure popularity: > > http://import-that.dreamwidth.org/1388.html > > so you don't often get FUD these days. When you do, it's usually about > whitespace, or "Python is too slow", or occasionally "Python 3 is killing > Python", but the latest FUD is about PEP 484 and type-hinting: > > https://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0484/ > > Here's a typical example: > > Python is already headed towards obscurity. ... it seems that > GvR intends to drive the final nail in python's coffin with > this "type hinting" crap that will convert Python syntax from > a readable pseudo code into a cryptic nightmare. > > Type hinting violates the very ESSENCE of what Python was > meant to be, that is: a "clean and intuitive syntax". > > > (Google for it if you care for the source.) > So it's doomed again, big deal, it's the third time this week and the dustmen simply won't take it. -- My fellow Pythonistas, ask not what our language can do for you, ask what you can do for our language. Mark Lawrence
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sturla Molden <sturla.molden@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-01-22 18:03 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <mailman.17978.1421949825.18130.python-list@python.org> |
| In reply to | #84181 |
Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> wrote: > Remember too that type-hinting will *absolutely* remain *completely* > optional for Python. Developers can choose to use it or not, No! Developers have to do what managers and customers tell them to do. They will start to require type hinting everywhere. And then the question is what Python has to offer over Java or Swift. Python will no longer be dynamic, it will just be a slow static language. Yes, Python could still be used as a dynamic language, but nobody will allow you to do it. Even packages in widespread use will be banned because they don't typehint. And then there will be complaint about lack of such packages. And in 5 years every textbook read by new Python programmers will require type hinting as a "best practice". Forget about compatibility with Python 2. People will upgrade from Python 2 to Swift. And then goodbye. Sturla
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Marko Rauhamaa <marko@pacujo.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-01-22 21:08 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <871tmmhbvn.fsf@elektro.pacujo.net> |
| In reply to | #84243 |
Sturla Molden <sturla.molden@gmail.com>: > No! Developers have to do what managers and customers tell them to do. > They will start to require type hinting everywhere. And then the > question is what Python has to offer over Java or Swift. Yes, but that's what GvR is after, I'm guessing: have Python take over the realms of Java and C#. > Python will no longer be dynamic, it will just be a slow static language. Defeating Java will be worth the loss! The business value of the disillusioned early adopters is minuscule compared with the bounty of enterprise computing. Py3EE — how cool is that! > Yes, Python could still be used as a dynamic language, but nobody will > allow you to do it. Even packages in widespread use will be banned > because they don't typehint. And then there will be complaint about > lack of such packages. The managers want type checking, not to optimize, but to mechanically guarantee the correctness of the code. Most people they hire aren't all that skilled at coding and will fall in every trap they can. They'd like automated tools to put straitjackets on their reports so they can do as little damage as possible. Then there will be the optimizers, enthusiastic hackers who just need to tweak with nanoseconds, overclock and benchmark everything and add liquid nitrogen cooling on top of that. They will sprinkle elaborate type declarations anywhere they can and indirectly force applications that interface with their code to declare types as well. Marko
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | wxjmfauth@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-01-23 01:19 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <c74d87a2-751b-4be7-bc08-780bab304dac@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #84252 |
Le jeudi 22 janvier 2015 20:08:25 UTC+1, Marko Rauhamaa a écrit : > Sturla Molden <sturla.molden@gmail.com>: > > > No! Developers have to do what managers and customers tell them to do. > > They will start to require type hinting everywhere. And then the > > question is what Python has to offer over Java or Swift. > > Yes, but that's what GvR is after, I'm guessing: have Python take over > the realms of Java and C#. > With such a unicode handling. I doubt. jmf
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-01-23 16:34 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <54c1dd57$0$13000$c3e8da3$5496439d@news.astraweb.com> |
| In reply to | #84243 |
Sturla Molden wrote:
> Python will no longer be dynamic, it will just be a slow static language.
It is worth explaining why this is wrong.
First, we need some definitions.
A *statically typed language* is one where variables have a type known to
the compiler at compile-time. That may be because the programmer declares
the type like in C:
int n = 23;
or because the compiler can logically derive the type, like in Haskell:
n = 23
(the compiler knows that 23 is an int, not a string or a Widget or a list,
and therefore on the assumption that you know what you are doing, n must be
an int too). Later, when you go to do an operation on n:
n.append('foo')
the compiler knows that this must be an error, because n is an int, and ints
don't have an append method. And when you go to do an assignment:
n = 'foo'
the compiler will prevent it because n is an int variable, not a string
variable.
In *dynamically typed languages*, variables don't have types, but *values*
do. Since variables don't have types, the compiler won't prevent you from
re-assigning a string to the same name that once held an int:
n = 23
n = 'foo'
but nor can it tell at compile time that n is an int and doesn't have an
append method. The way it tells is to wait until runtime and then attempt
to call the append method and see if it fails.
But... that's not a law of physics. Just because dumb compilers are dumb
doesn't mean that you can't have smarter compiles. 30 years ago the state
of the art for dynamic languages like Lisp and Smalltalk was good enough to
reason about type errors just as well as we human beings can. If we see:
n = 23
n.append('foo')
we know that this is going to fail. We don't need to run the code because we
can reason that at the time n.append is called, n is bound to an int and
ints don't have append methods. That's not very hard. Even Barry the intern
can do that, why can't Python?
Why can't Python tell me that 1+"1" will fail ahead of time?
Even in languages like C, the type-checking is done during a separate phase
of compilation, before code generation. So we can split the code-checker
out from the compiler, and make it a separate program which analyses the
source code, and stick it in your editor or IDE. Now when you start to
type:
L = []
L.appe
the IDE can guess that L is a list, and offer to auto-complete "append". But
given
n.appe
it can predict that n isn't a list, and flag the word in red or beep or
something, depending on how annoying it wants to be. Or you can run the
type-checker as a separate program, like a linter or PEP-8 checker, and it
will analyse the source code and point out that on page 2 you assign n=23
and then on page 4 you call n.append but nowhere in the intermediate code
was n reassigned to a list.
If this was Java, the compiler would refuse to generate code while there are
any compile-time errors. But this is Python, and the type-checker is a
separate tool, so you can ignore it and run your script and sure enough you
will get an AttributeError when it tries to call n.append. Because maybe
you wanted an AttributeError.
This doesn't remove the dynamicism from the language. It's still dynamically
typed, it still has powerful runtime features. You won't even have to
declare types for everything if you don't want to.
--
Steven
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Skip Montanaro <skip.montanaro@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-01-22 12:14 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <mailman.17980.1421950499.18130.python-list@python.org> |
| In reply to | #84181 |
[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw
On Thu, Jan 22, 2015 at 12:03 PM, Sturla Molden <sturla.molden@gmail.com> wrote: > Python will no longer be dynamic, it will just be a slow static language. > > Yes, Python could still be used as a dynamic language, but nobody will > allow you to do it. Even packages in widespread use will be banned because > they don't typehint. And then there will be complaint about lack of such > packages. > FUD? What evidence do you have that this will be the way things shake out? Skip
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Rick Johnson <rantingrickjohnson@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-01-22 12:38 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <bdccca3a-3793-446f-bf50-2fe49b7bba5d@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #84245 |
On Thursday, January 22, 2015 at 12:15:11 PM UTC-6, Skip Montanaro wrote: > On Thu, Jan 22, 2015 at 12:03 PM, Sturla Molden <sturla...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > Python will no longer be dynamic, it will just be a slow > > static language. Yes, Python could still be used as a > > dynamic language, but nobody will allow you to do it. > > Even packages in widespread use will be banned because > > they don't typehint. And then there will be complaint > > about lack of such packages. > > FUD? What evidence do you have that this will be the way > things shake out? And what evidence do *YOU* have that supports your argument? You cannot invalidate an unproven argument by juxtaposing it with another unproven argument.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sturla Molden <sturla.molden@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-01-22 18:23 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <mailman.17981.1421951024.18130.python-list@python.org> |
| In reply to | #84181 |
Skip Montanaro <skip.montanaro@gmail.com> wrote: > FUD? What evidence do you have that this will be the way things shake out? I don't underestimate the stupidity of those who are not writing the code themselves.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 4 of 14 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 … 14 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.python
csiph-web