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 12 of 14 — ← Prev page 1 … 10 11 [12] 13 14 Next page →
| From | Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-02-01 23:43 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <874mr43giw.fsf@jester.gateway.sonic.net> |
| In reply to | #85062 |
Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> writes: > No apples and no oranges aren't the same thing, but if somebody is expecting > no apples, and I give them no oranges instead, it would be churlish for them > to complain that none of them are the wrong kind of fruit. https://davedevine.wordpress.com/2011/01/20/the-sartre-joke/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Rustom Mody <rustompmody@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-02-02 04:12 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <aee0a982-4827-42ae-b0b1-344d46779c0d@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #85065 |
On Monday, February 2, 2015 at 1:13:30 PM UTC+5:30, Paul Rubin wrote: > Steven D'Aprano writes: > > No apples and no oranges aren't the same thing, but if somebody is expecting > > no apples, and I give them no oranges instead, it would be churlish for them > > to complain that none of them are the wrong kind of fruit. > > https://davedevine.wordpress.com/2011/01/20/the-sartre-joke/ Actually the Sartre joke is more applicable to haskell than it might appear at first blush. li = [1,2,3] : [Int] -- a monomorphic type just as lc = ['a','b','c'] : [Char] lli = [[1,2],[3]] : [[Int]] However [] is a polymorphic value ie [] : [t] -- t is a type variable And now if we take tail (tail (tail li)) you get [] just as if you take tail (tail lli) However the two '[]-s' are of different types and so if you try to say append them you will get a Sartre error: The list of no integers is incompatible with the list of no lists of integers
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-02-01 22:12 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <87h9v43kq1.fsf@jester.gateway.sonic.net> |
| In reply to | #85002 |
Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> writes: > if type(ptr) == A: > if ptr != Anil: ... > if type(ptr) == B: > if ptr != Bnil: ... > etc. That would be insane. So how does Haskell do this? That wouldn't make sense in Haskell: the types are known at compile time, so you wouldn't do that runtime switching on them. > At the bottom of the page is a link to a .mov version. Didn't see that earlier. Managed to download and mplayer is able to show it. Thanks! You might like: http://learnyouahaskell.com/chapters
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | wxjmfauth@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-01-29 10:53 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <509ce40c-0271-4a09-bbc7-ee91d92a291b@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #84821 |
Le jeudi 29 janvier 2015 16:56:59 UTC+1, Steven D'Aprano a écrit : > > There are degrees of strength, and I think that Python comes closer to the > Foo end than the Bar end. There are few automatic coercions, and most of > those are in the numeric tower according to the usual mathematical rules. > The set of elements N, Z, Q, I, R, C, .... are, in mathematics, *not* building a tower.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Mark Lawrence <breamoreboy@yahoo.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-01-29 18:54 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <mailman.18277.1422557674.18130.python-list@python.org> |
| In reply to | #84821 |
On 29/01/2015 18:23, random832@fastmail.us wrote: > > Statically typed lanugages by definition can never give you a TypeError > - there are no runtime conversions that can succeed or fail based on the > type of the arguments. What makes a statically typed language strong or > weak? Are statically typed languages always weak? > They can give you lots of warnings about possible loss of data or similar. Yes, you can silence these warnings if you know what you're doing. You can also silence them if you don't know what you're doing. The end result could be a lovely, friendly segfault to debug. What joy? No, they're not always weakly typed. The aim of the spreadsheet put up by Skip was to sort out (roughly) which languages belong in which camp. I do not regard myself as suitably qualified to fill the thing out. Perhaps by now others have? -- 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 | Mario Figueiredo <marfig@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-01-30 19:50 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <MPG.2f35f0cce3d003db9896b7@nntp.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #84836 |
In article <mailman.18277.1422557674.18130.python-list@python.org>, breamoreboy@yahoo.co.uk says... > > No, they're not always weakly typed. The aim of the spreadsheet put up > by Skip was to sort out (roughly) which languages belong in which camp. > I do not regard myself as suitably qualified to fill the thing out. > Perhaps by now others have? It would help that if instead of weakly typed or strongly typed box, they could be classified comparatively to each other. The terms are better suited to describe two languages as they stand to each other. Weakly Typed ------------------------------------------> Strongly Typed From C to Lisp (arguably) with languages closer to each other indicating a more similar type system model.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Skip Montanaro <skip.montanaro@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-01-30 13:00 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <mailman.18317.1422644458.18130.python-list@python.org> |
| In reply to | #84913 |
[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw
On Fri, Jan 30, 2015 at 12:50 PM, Mario Figueiredo <marfig@gmail.com> wrote: > It would help that if instead of weakly typed or strongly typed box, > they could be classified comparatively to each other. The terms are > better suited to describe two languages as they stand to each other. > > Weakly Typed ------------------------------------------> Strongly Typed > The spreadsheet should be world-writable. Knock yourself out. :-) http://preview.tinyurl.com/kcrcq4y Skip
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-01-28 12:09 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <54c836d9$0$12980$c3e8da3$5496439d@news.astraweb.com> |
| In reply to | #84655 |
random832@fastmail.us wrote: > On Mon, Jan 26, 2015, at 19:11, Steven D'Aprano wrote: >> random832@fastmail.us wrote: >> - lexical analysis has to look for twice as many files (it has to >> hit the hard drive for a stub file before looking at the source), >> and we know from importing that file system access is a >> significant and expensive part of the process. > > The idea is that the type hinting files would not participate in > execution at all, only static analysis, so the interpreter doesn't need > to look for these things at all, it only needs to ignore them. Yes, but the *type-checker* needs to look for all those files, which slows the type-checker down. My estimate of time savings, plucked completely from thin air, is that type-checkers will save around 5% time by not using a separate stub file. (Anyone actually using MyPy care to measure it?) Of course, that will differ according to circumstances: a stub file on a slow CD/DVD media mounted over the network will be much more expensive than a stub file on a RAM disk or SSD drive. Regardless of exactly how much more expensive it is, two sets of file I/O by definition will be more expensive than one set of file I/O. But really, this is the minor point against header files. The icing on the cake, not the cake itself. The big reason for avoiding them is dependency management and the splitting of information about a single thing into two files. -- Steven
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Terry Reedy <tjreedy@udel.edu> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-01-22 22:57 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <mailman.18015.1421985483.18130.python-list@python.org> |
| In reply to | #84272 |
On 1/22/2015 3:44 PM, Rick Johnson wrote: > On Thursday, January 22, 2015 at 12:28:47 PM UTC-6, Mark Lawrence wrote: >> Evidence in completely the opposite direction if I'm >> reading this correctly [snip link] >> >> "The main use case of type hinting is static analysis >> using an external tool without executing the analyzed >> program. Existing tools used for that purpose like >> pyflakes [pyflakes] or pylint [pylint] might be extended >> to support type checking. New tools, like mypy's mypy -S >> mode, can be adopted specifically for this purpose. > > So if the purpose is "static analysis", what is the > justification for injecting new syntax into function sigs? The syntax was put there years ago. > I'm not *TOTALLY* against the idea of "type hints", but i am > *TOTALLY* against their proposed location. Unlike other annotations, type annotations can be put in a separate stub file. -- Terry Jan Reedy
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-01-23 05:33 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <mailman.17983.1421951583.18130.python-list@python.org> |
| In reply to | #84181 |
On Fri, Jan 23, 2015 at 5:03 AM, Sturla Molden <sturla.molden@gmail.com> wrote: > 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. Uhh... if your managers and customers are stipulating non-Pythonic coding styles, then it's time to find new managers/customers. If they're not writing the code, code quality shouldn't be their concern. Of course, if you want to switch to Swift, sure, but I'm going to keep working on Python. Just please don't FUD this list. ChrisA
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Marko Rauhamaa <marko@pacujo.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-01-22 21:22 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <87sif2fwmk.fsf@elektro.pacujo.net> |
| In reply to | #84248 |
Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com>: > Uhh... if your managers and customers are stipulating non-Pythonic > coding styles, then it's time to find new managers/customers. Hah! What's considered Pythonic seems to be changing. Old-school Pythonic will be heresy, and new-school Pythonic will be exalted to dogma. > Just please don't FUD this list. Why do you think opinions on Python's future should be kept off this list? Marko
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Skip Montanaro <skip.montanaro@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-01-22 13:43 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <mailman.17989.1421955798.18130.python-list@python.org> |
| In reply to | #84257 |
[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw
On Thu, Jan 22, 2015 at 1:22 PM, Marko Rauhamaa <marko@pacujo.net> wrote: > > Just please don't FUD this list. > > Why do you think opinions on Python's future should be kept off this > list? The way you couched your opinion as a certainty, as if you could see the future, not as if you had an opinion stated like, "do you think this might happen?" Skip
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sturla Molden <sturla.molden@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-01-22 20:56 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <mailman.17992.1421956807.18130.python-list@python.org> |
| In reply to | #84257 |
On 22/01/15 20:43, Skip Montanaro wrote: > The way you couched your opinion as a certainty, as if you could see the > future, How do you know I cannot?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Skip Montanaro <skip.montanaro@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-01-22 14:31 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <mailman.17994.1421958699.18130.python-list@python.org> |
| In reply to | #84257 |
[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw
On Thu, Jan 22, 2015 at 1:56 PM, Sturla Molden <sturla.molden@gmail.com> wrote: > On 22/01/15 20:43, Skip Montanaro wrote: > > The way you couched your opinion as a certainty, as if you could see the >> future, >> > > How do you know I cannot? Perhaps you can, but then your statements are opinions, then are they? Skip
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Skip Montanaro <skip.montanaro@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-01-22 14:32 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <mailman.17995.1421958772.18130.python-list@python.org> |
| In reply to | #84257 |
[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw
On Thu, Jan 22, 2015 at 2:31 PM, Skip Montanaro <skip.montanaro@gmail.com> wrote: > Perhaps you can, but then your statements are opinions, then are they? Crap. I meant: "... then your statements aren't opinions ..." S
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Rick Johnson <rantingrickjohnson@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-01-22 13:08 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <07b43d77-aee3-41de-b3eb-61719061226a@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #84257 |
On Thursday, January 22, 2015 at 1:23:11 PM UTC-6, Marko Rauhamaa wrote: > Chris Angelico: > > > Just please don't FUD this list. > > Why do you think opinions on Python's future should be > kept off this list? Because he's one of the more prevalent boot licking rabbid fanboys of GvR. If you don't believe me then Google this thread: [Python-ideas] Need help converting HTML doc to ReST He replied within 15 mins with great enthusiasm to do his "master's bidding". How pathetic! Python is not as "open" as the PSF policy statements would have you believe. You either agree with GvR (and his minions), or you don't exist. It's that simple.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Marko Rauhamaa <marko@pacujo.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-01-22 23:25 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <87h9vifqyz.fsf@elektro.pacujo.net> |
| In reply to | #84276 |
Rick Johnson <rantingrickjohnson@gmail.com>: > On Thursday, January 22, 2015 at 1:23:11 PM UTC-6, Marko Rauhamaa wrote: > Because he's one of the more prevalent boot licking rabbid > fanboys of GvR. You are out of line, but then, you never pretended otherwise. Marko
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | random832@fastmail.us |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-01-22 13:41 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <mailman.17984.1421952098.18130.python-list@python.org> |
| In reply to | #84181 |
On Thu, Jan 22, 2015, at 13:28, Mark Lawrence wrote: > Evidence in completely the opposite direction if I'm reading this > correctly https://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0484/#usage-patterns > > "The main use case of type hinting is static analysis using an external > tool without executing the analyzed program. Existing tools used for > that purpose like pyflakes [pyflakes] or pylint [pylint] might be > extended to support type checking. New tools, like mypy's mypy -S mode, > can be adopted specifically for this purpose. How is that the opposite direction? It's a short jump from there to "pylint [or whatever tool] will consider a lack of type hinting to be something to warn for" and "managers/customers will consider this warning to mean your program has failed and is unacceptable".
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Mario Figueiredo <marfig@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-01-22 20:10 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <MPG.2f2b697d288c74b2989685@nntp.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #84249 |
In article <mailman.17984.1421952098.18130.python-list@python.org>, random832@fastmail.us says... > How is that the opposite direction? It's a short jump from there to > "pylint [or whatever tool] will consider a lack of type hinting to be > something to warn for" and "managers/customers will consider this > warning to mean your program has failed and is unacceptable". Customers don't have access to static analysis output and project managers should know better than to demand static analysis without properly contextualize it. I just don't see a project manager having no idea what static analysis means. I think you are completely of the mark here, if you think type annotations will become some sort of obligatory feature. The criticism is about the choices regarding its syntax and whether it should couple so tightly with our source code (as is suggested on the PEP) and whether it should be entirely moved to comment-like structures. No one in their right mind looks at static analysis as an obligatory feature in Python, or any other programming language.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sturla Molden <sturla.molden@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-01-22 20:53 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <mailman.17990.1421956437.18130.python-list@python.org> |
| In reply to | #84254 |
On 22/01/15 20:10, Mario Figueiredo wrote: > Customers don't have access to static analysis output and project > managers should know better than to demand static analysis without > properly contextualize it. I just don't see a project manager having no > idea what static analysis means. I don't know how it works in you country, but here projects managers are selected for having any kind of skill other than technical knowledge. I know of one who got the job because he was a professional hockey player. So yes, they can very well be unaware what static analysis means. But what they will do is pick up "buzzwords" from the kind of journals that project managers read. And then they want that buzzword implemented. Sturla
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 12 of 14 — ← Prev page 1 … 10 11 [12] 13 14 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.python
csiph-web