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 5 of 14 — ← Prev page 1 … 3 4 [5] 6 7 … 14 Next page →
| From | Mark Lawrence <breamoreboy@yahoo.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-01-22 18:28 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <mailman.17982.1421951313.18130.python-list@python.org> |
| In reply to | #84181 |
On 22/01/2015 18:14, Skip Montanaro wrote: > > On Thu, Jan 22, 2015 at 12:03 PM, Sturla Molden <sturla.molden@gmail.com > <mailto: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? > 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. Type checking based on type hints is understood as a best-effort mechanism. In other words, whenever types are not annotated and cannot be inferred, the type checker considers such code valid. Type errors are only reported in case of explicit or inferred conflict. Moreover, as a mechanism that is not tied to execution of the code, it does not affect runtime behaviour. In other words, even in the case of a typing error, the program will continue running. The implementation of a type checker, whether linting source files or enforcing type information during runtime, is out of scope for this PEP." -- 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 | Marko Rauhamaa <marko@pacujo.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-01-22 21:16 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <87wq4efwwr.fsf@elektro.pacujo.net> |
| In reply to | #84247 |
Mark Lawrence <breamoreboy@yahoo.co.uk>: > Evidence in completely the opposite direction if I'm reading this > correctly https://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0484/#usage-patterns That's not evidence, that's a prophecy. What I'm seeing is a bad shift in the Python culture. What's next? Unboxed objects? Unsafe objects? Micromanaged GC? I'm afraid Python will lose its taste. Why not let Java handle its niche? Maybe Go is the way to go for some applications? C++ might have its uses. C is still the weapon of choice in many situations. Python is perfect already. It doesn't need to get any faster. Marko
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-01-22 11:36 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <87a91a7glf.fsf@jester.gateway.sonic.net> |
| In reply to | #84255 |
>> correctly https://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0484/#usage-patterns > That's not evidence, that's a prophecy. > What I'm seeing is a bad shift in the Python culture. What's next? > Unboxed objects? Unsafe objects? Micromanaged GC? Why are you freaking out so much? The "prophecy" is for something like the Erlang Dialyzer, which has been very successful and useful in the Erlang world. Erlang is still dynamically typed (it's essentially Lisp under the skin) but you can include some annotations that let external tools (Dialyzer) check your program for type consistency. Lots of bugs in supposedly reliable production code were found after the Dialyzer was deployed. It would be great to have something like it for Python.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-01-23 11:16 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <54c192d4$0$13006$c3e8da3$5496439d@news.astraweb.com> |
| In reply to | #84255 |
Marko Rauhamaa wrote: > Python is perfect already. I have no words. -- Steven
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Mark Lawrence <breamoreboy@yahoo.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-01-23 06:29 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <mailman.18023.1421994586.18130.python-list@python.org> |
| In reply to | #84291 |
On 23/01/2015 00:16, Steven D'Aprano wrote: > Marko Rauhamaa wrote: > >> Python is perfect already. > > I have no words. > https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-list/2002-November/154258.html -- 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 | 2015-01-22 12:44 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <6eb91c4b-92ff-44a8-b5a9-6ef04c71f4cb@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #84247 |
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? I'm not *TOTALLY* against the idea of "type hints", but i am *TOTALLY* against their proposed location.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Mark Lawrence <breamoreboy@yahoo.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-01-22 20:50 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <mailman.17997.1421959834.18130.python-list@python.org> |
| In reply to | #84272 |
On 22/01/2015 20:44, 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? > I'm not *TOTALLY* against the idea of "type hints", but i am > *TOTALLY* against their proposed location. > Fine, just write an alternative PEP. Personally I couldn't give one hoot let alone two whether or not this proposal ever sees the light of day. -- 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 | 2015-01-22 23:25 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <MPG.2f2b9739d70d7220989688@nntp.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #84272 |
In article <6eb91c4b-92ff-44a8-b5a9-6ef04c71f4cb@googlegroups.com>, rantingrickjohnson@gmail.com says... > > So if the purpose is "static analysis", what is the > justification for injecting new syntax into function sigs? 1. Annotations where created exactly for this purpose. So there's some preassure to put them to work on what they were always meant to be used for. 2. Docstrings are meant as source of code documentation and to fill the object's __doc__ attribute, as per PEP 257. As such they aren't good consistent candidates for type hinting for purposes of static analysis tools. 3. Decorators are meant as function transformation tools, as per PEP 318 and, as such, are them too not suitable to include type annotations for the purpose of static analysis. 4. There is no other formal annotation mechanism, other than these potential three. Arguably, you can make a case against 1. And that's my own issue with type hinting as it is being proposed on PEP 484. The real problem is annotations as they were defined are a really bad idea. To couple type annotations so tightly with code, just results in plain ugly and hard to read code. Personally I would love to see the present annotations just go away and a new docstring-like structure to emerge in their place. But that's probably not going to happen. What I agree can't be done though, is to use docstrings or decorators as a source for type annotations.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Rick Johnson <rantingrickjohnson@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-01-22 17:06 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <35a40ec6-3763-448b-9ea4-4a233a04979b@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #84282 |
On Thursday, January 22, 2015 at 4:25:37 PM UTC-6, Mario Figueiredo wrote:
> 1. Annotations where created exactly for this purpose. So
> there's some preassure to put them to work on what they
> were always meant to be used for.
>
> 2. Docstrings are meant as source of code documentation
> and to fill the object's __doc__ attribute, as per PEP
> 257. As such they aren't good consistent candidates for
> type hinting for purposes of static analysis tools.
>
> 3. Decorators are meant as function transformation tools,
> as per PEP 318 and, as such, are them too not suitable to
> include type annotations for the purpose of static
> analysis.
>
> 4. There is no other formal annotation mechanism, other
> than these potential three.
>
> Arguably, you can make a case against 1. And that's my own
> issue with type hinting as it is being proposed on PEP
> 484. The real problem is annotations as they were defined
> are a really bad idea. To couple type annotations so
> tightly with code, just results in plain ugly and hard to
> read code.
Yes, i whole heartily agree!
> Personally I would love to see the present annotations
> just go away and a new docstring-like structure to emerge
> in their place. But that's probably not going to happen.
>
> What I agree can't be done though, is to use docstrings or
> decorators as a source for type annotations.
I have a completely different idea.
============================================================
Python Sanity Proposal: "Type Hinting Sanity"
============================================================
Note: This is the closest you're going to get to a PEP from me!
Okay, i have found a solution to the type hinting problem
that will appease both sides. On one side we have those who
are proposing type hinting annotations within function sigs,
and on the other side, we have those who oppose the
implementation of type hinting via this method because of
the readability concerns. The solution is move the type
hinting syntax completely out of the source file and into
another file -- think of it as a "Python Type Hinting Header
File".
============================================================
Summary
============================================================
(1) Agree on a file extension that python will recognize
as containing "type hint specs". Unfortunately we cannot
use ".pth", which would be the perfect acronym for "Python
Type Hints", so choose something else. :-(
(2) Define a spec for writing annotations that will map to
funcs/methods of the same name. I would argue to keep the
spec compact, but i really don't care about the spec at
this point.
============================================================
Simplistic Example Code utilizing two files:
============================================================
#
# scriptA.py
#
def greeting(name):
return 'Hello ' + name
#
# scriptA.typehints
#
greeting{name:str} -> str
============================================================
Benefits:
============================================================
(1) Removes the noisy syntax from the source file. Python
code will remain as clean tomorrow as it is today.
(2) Puts the onerous on the author *NOT* on the reader.
This system utilizes a concept known as "Level Of Detail"
(or LOD). LOD means that i should not need to see a type
hint unless i *WANT* to see a type hint. You can think of
it as akin to "Java @string resources".
(3) If i decide i don't want type hints in my code, all i
have to do is delete or rename a file, which is much less
error prone then editing source code.
(4) Has the added benefit of aiding when debugging type hints.
--
My suggestion is the only way to implement type hints
without destroying Python! I just hope that GvR will give it
serious objective consideration.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Terry Reedy <tjreedy@udel.edu> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-01-22 22:59 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <mailman.18016.1421985609.18130.python-list@python.org> |
| In reply to | #84295 |
On 1/22/2015 8:06 PM, Rick Johnson wrote: > On Thursday, January 22, 2015 at 4:25:37 PM UTC-6, Mario Figueiredo wrote: >> 1. Annotations where created exactly for this purpose. So >> there's some preassure to put them to work on what they >> were always meant to be used for. > Yes, i whole heartily agree! > I have a completely different idea. See my response to this where is was posted in a new thread. -- Terry Jan Reedy
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-01-23 15:23 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <54c1ccc8$0$13005$c3e8da3$5496439d@news.astraweb.com> |
| In reply to | #84295 |
Rick Johnson wrote:
> The solution is move the type
> hinting syntax completely out of the source file and into
> another file -- think of it as a "Python Type Hinting Header
> File".
The 1970s called, they want their bad ideas back.
I can do no better than to quote from the Go FAQs:
Dependency management is a big part of software development
today but the “header files” of languages in the C tradition
are antithetical to clean dependency analysis—and fast
compilation.
http://golang.org/doc/faq#What_is_the_purpose_of_the_project
Things that go together should appear together. Imagine a language where you
declared the function name in one file, the function parameters in a second
file, any default values in a third file, and the function body in a fourth
file. Ridiculous. Ideally, all these things should be found together,
preferably close enough for the reader to take it all in at a glance
(although some function bodies may be too large).
There may be times where splitting related things are unavoidable, but they
should be a last resort, only to be used when any other solution is
unacceptable.
We know from Pascal and other languages that declaring types in the
parameter list works well and is very readable:
function calc(a: Real, b: Real): Integer;
...
We also know from Pascal that separating the declaration from the value
doesn't work so well:
function calc(a: Real, b: Real): Integer;
var
x: Integer;
y: Real;
z: array[1...100] of Something;
begin
{code goes here}
{possibly a lot of it}
{and finally we get to this}
x = some_function(a, 2*b+1); {what's the type of x again?}
end;
--
Steven
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Rick Johnson <rantingrickjohnson@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-01-23 19:00 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <9a6694a5-5774-415a-b28a-7a9425a9112a@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #84313 |
On Thursday, January 22, 2015 at 10:23:48 PM UTC-6, Steven D'Aprano wrote: > Rick Johnson wrote: > > > The solution is move the type hinting syntax completely > > out of the source file and into another file -- think of > > it as a "Python Type Hinting Header File". > > The 1970s called, they want their bad ideas back. [...] > Things that go together should appear together. Imagine a > language where you declared the function name in one file, > the function parameters in a second file, any default > values in a third file, and the function body in a fourth > file. Ridiculous. Ideally, all these things should be > found together, preferably close enough for the reader to > take it all in at a glance (although some function bodies > may be too large). Anyone else care for a pipping hot cup of Reductio ad absurdum? > There may be times where splitting related things are > unavoidable, but they should be a last resort, only to be > used when any other solution is unacceptable. Duh! Do you think i just pulled stub files out my arse without giving all the other alternatives due consideration? But you had your fun so that's all that matters. ;-) PS: Man, you need to invest in some formatting tools. I format all my posts with a max width of 60, but then when you quote them back i see strange line breaks. Does your editor think that 60 chars is too wide? What's going on?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-01-24 18:48 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <54c34e68$0$12976$c3e8da3$5496439d@news.astraweb.com> |
| In reply to | #84426 |
Rick Johnson wrote:
> On Thursday, January 22, 2015 at 10:23:48 PM UTC-6, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
>> Rick Johnson wrote:
>>
>> > The solution is move the type hinting syntax completely
>> > out of the source file and into another file -- think of
>> > it as a "Python Type Hinting Header File".
>>
>> The 1970s called, they want their bad ideas back. [...]
>> Things that go together should appear together. Imagine a
>> language where you declared the function name in one file,
>> the function parameters in a second file, any default
>> values in a third file, and the function body in a fourth
>> file. Ridiculous. Ideally, all these things should be
>> found together, preferably close enough for the reader to
>> take it all in at a glance (although some function bodies
>> may be too large).
>
> Anyone else care for a pipping hot cup of Reductio ad absurdum?
Rick, you seem to be under the misapprehension that a reductio ad absurdum
argument is a fallacy. It is not. From Webster's dictionary:
Indirect demonstration, or Negative demonstration (called
also reductio ad absurdum), in which the correct
conclusion is an inference from the demonstration that any
other hypothesis must be incorrect.
And from Wordnet:
reductio ad absurdum
n 1: (reduction to the absurd) a disproof by showing that the
consequences of the proposition are absurd; or a proof of a
proposition by showing that its negation leads to a
contradiction [syn: reductio ad absurdum, reductio]
Example:
Argument:
Human population growth can continue forever, without any limits
at all. There shall never come a time where lack of resources
will constrain growth.
Refutation by reductio ad absurdum:
If human population doubles every fifty years, in 718 years every
square metre of the world's land surface will have a person in it.
In 840 years we will be jammed shoulder-to-shoulder. In 2335 years
there will be a million people per square inch of the planet's
surface (including oceans). Before that, after just 2155 years, the
entire mass of the planet will be converted to human flesh. In 6760
years, the entire solar system will be a solid sphere of humans,
expanding outward at 15840400 km per hour.
Since this is clearly absurd, something (war, famine, disease,
reduced fertility) must reduce or halt population growth.
(Aside: those numbers are more or less correct, as best as I can calculate
them.)
Reductio arguments can, of course, be fallacious. "The world cannot be a
sphere. If the world was a sphere, people on the bottom would fall off!"
This argument is fallacious because it fails to understand that gravity
acts towards the centre of the Earth, not "down" relative to outer space.
>> There may be times where splitting related things are
>> unavoidable, but they should be a last resort, only to be
>> used when any other solution is unacceptable.
>
> Duh! Do you think i just pulled stub files out my arse
> without giving all the other alternatives due consideration?
Actually, yes.
I think that had Guido proclaimed that C-style header files were the only
way to give type hints, you would be arguing right now that they were awful
and that the one and only correct way to do type-hinting is to use
annotations.
> But you had your fun so that's all that matters. ;-)
>
> PS: Man, you need to invest in some formatting tools. I format
> all my posts with a max width of 60, but then when you quote
> them back i see strange line breaks. Does your editor think
> that 60 chars is too wide? What's going on?
I don't know what you are talking about. My editor doesn't re-wrap quoted
text unless it exceeds 76 columns wide, which yours does not, and I don't
see any strange line breaks. Can you point me to an example in the
archives?
--
Steven
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Mario Figueiredo <marfig@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-01-24 09:30 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <1a194e0a0b3f8d205d7f4660b75@nntp.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #84445 |
Steven D'Aprano, > Rick, you seem to be under the misapprehension that a reductio ad > absurdum argument is a fallacy. It is not. From Webster's dictionary: > > Indirect demonstration, or Negative demonstration (called > also reductio ad absurdum), in which the correct > conclusion is an inference from the demonstration that any > other hypothesis must be incorrect. > And from Wordnet: > > reductio ad absurdum > n 1: (reduction to the absurd) a disproof by showing that the > consequences of the proposition are absurd; or a proof of a > proposition by showing that its negation leads to a > contradiction [syn: reductio ad absurdum, reductio] > Example: > > Argument: > > Human population growth can continue forever, without any limits > at all. There shall never come a time where lack of resources > will constrain growth. > Refutation by reductio ad absurdum: > > If human population doubles every fifty years, in 718 years every > square metre of the world's land surface will have a person in it. > In 840 years we will be jammed shoulder-to-shoulder. In 2335 years > there will be a million people per square inch of the planet's > surface (including oceans). Before that, after just 2155 years, > the > entire mass of the planet will be converted to human flesh. In > 6760 > years, the entire solar system will be a solid sphere of humans, > expanding outward at 15840400 km per hour. > Since this is clearly absurd, something (war, famine, disease, > reduced fertility) must reduce or halt population growth. > (Aside: those numbers are more or less correct, as best as I can > calculate them.) > > Reductio arguments can, of course, be fallacious. "The world cannot be > a sphere. If the world was a sphere, people on the bottom would fall > off!" This argument is fallacious because it fails to understand that > gravity acts towards the centre of the Earth, not "down" relative to > outer space. And that's cherry picking. Another fallacy. That is, presenting only results that support your argument. When Reductio ad absurdum fails to respect the principle of non-contradition it is no longer a proof by contradiction devise, but a proper fallacy. Reductio ad absurdum becomes then one of the well know forms of straw man argument. Your argument that the 70s things were bad and Rick wanted to go back to those times is both debatable (the 70s brought much of what we use today as gospel, like design patterns, for instance). You also try to reduce rick argument to the absurd by insinuating he is trying to support the idea that we should declare function names in one file, function parameters in another file and the function body in another file. That's a proper reductio ad absurdum straw man argument if I ever saw one.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Rick Johnson <rantingrickjohnson@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-01-24 15:20 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <e072e82f-1faa-4be3-814f-9addaea971ef@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #84445 |
On Saturday, January 24, 2015 at 1:49:08 AM UTC-6, Steven D'Aprano wrote: > Rick Johnson wrote: > > [... snip absurdities...] > > > Duh! Do you think i just pulled stub files out my arse > > without giving all the other alternatives due consideration? > > Actually, yes. I think that had Guido proclaimed that > C-style header files were the only way to give type hints, > you would be arguing right now that they were awful and > that the one and only correct way to do type-hinting is to > use annotations. So now we arrive at the true nature of our conflict: your "false projections" of my "true intentions". Listen, I hold a deep respect for Guido's achievements and his intellectual prowess, but i'm not about to kiss is backside when i feel he is wrong, and this "type hints" idea is dangerously wrong! Diversity, dissension, and conflict are our friends, not enemies to be feared. We must embrace those ideas that are foreign to us, give them due consideration, and objectively apply "weighted values" to them. Whereas, sitting in a room surrounded by mirrors and becoming lost in the recursive "reflection of self", is not evolution, but merely, an illusion. Besides, why does he need *ME* to lick his boots when he already has plenty of fan-boys over at python-ideas and python-dev lining up. This community is *NOT*, and should never be, a homogeneous block -- for we would be doing ourselves a disservice. So if you cannot provide me with respect that i *DESERVE* as a member of this fine community, then you should at least admit that my presence is a vital counterbalance to prevent this tiny life-vessel from capsizing as it's thrashed around the treacherous "seas of evolution".
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-01-25 10:30 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <mailman.18107.1422142244.18130.python-list@python.org> |
| In reply to | #84513 |
On Sun, Jan 25, 2015 at 10:20 AM, Rick Johnson <rantingrickjohnson@gmail.com> wrote: > Besides, why does he need *ME* to lick his boots when he > already has plenty of fan-boys over at python-ideas and > python-dev lining up. This community is *NOT*, and should > never be, a homogeneous block -- for we would be doing > ourselves a disservice. Wow. You think that, without you, python-ideas is homogeneous? I don't think so. If it were, it would be called python-idea. ChrisA
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Mario Figueiredo <marfig@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-01-25 00:39 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <MPG.2f2e4b8fbbfa6d22989699@nntp.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #84515 |
In article <mailman.18107.1422142244.18130.python-list@python.org>, rosuav@gmail.com says... > > On Sun, Jan 25, 2015 at 10:20 AM, Rick Johnson > <rantingrickjohnson@gmail.com> wrote: > > Besides, why does he need *ME* to lick his boots when he > > already has plenty of fan-boys over at python-ideas and > > python-dev lining up. This community is *NOT*, and should > > never be, a homogeneous block -- for we would be doing > > ourselves a disservice. > > Wow. You think that, without you, python-ideas is homogeneous? I don't > think so. If it were, it would be called python-idea. He didn't say python-ideas is homogeneous. He didn't say either that he is the only one who dissents. There's already too much of "not wanting to listen to what the other person is saying" by both sides of this debate. Let's not add more...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-01-25 10:44 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <mailman.18110.1422143090.18130.python-list@python.org> |
| In reply to | #84517 |
On Sun, Jan 25, 2015 at 10:39 AM, Mario Figueiredo <marfig@gmail.com> wrote: > In article <mailman.18107.1422142244.18130.python-list@python.org>, > rosuav@gmail.com says... >> >> On Sun, Jan 25, 2015 at 10:20 AM, Rick Johnson >> <rantingrickjohnson@gmail.com> wrote: >> > Besides, why does he need *ME* to lick his boots when he >> > already has plenty of fan-boys over at python-ideas and >> > python-dev lining up. This community is *NOT*, and should >> > never be, a homogeneous block -- for we would be doing >> > ourselves a disservice. >> >> Wow. You think that, without you, python-ideas is homogeneous? I don't >> think so. If it were, it would be called python-idea. > > He didn't say python-ideas is homogeneous. He didn't say either that he > is the only one who dissents. > > There's already too much of "not wanting to listen to what the other > person is saying" by both sides of this debate. Let's not add more... True. But anyone who's actually participated in python-ideas knows that there are PLENTY of dissenting voices. :) ChrisA
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Mark Lawrence <breamoreboy@yahoo.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-01-24 23:55 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <mailman.18112.1422143751.18130.python-list@python.org> |
| In reply to | #84513 |
On 24/01/2015 23:20, Rick Johnson wrote: > On Saturday, January 24, 2015 at 1:49:08 AM UTC-6, Steven D'Aprano wrote: >> Rick Johnson wrote: >> >> [... snip absurdities...] >> >>> Duh! Do you think i just pulled stub files out my arse >>> without giving all the other alternatives due consideration? >> >> Actually, yes. I think that had Guido proclaimed that >> C-style header files were the only way to give type hints, >> you would be arguing right now that they were awful and >> that the one and only correct way to do type-hinting is to >> use annotations. > > So now we arrive at the true nature of our conflict: your > "false projections" of my "true intentions". > > Listen, I hold a deep respect for Guido's achievements and > his intellectual prowess, but i'm not about to kiss is > backside when i feel he is wrong, and this "type hints" idea > is dangerously wrong! For at least the third time the PEP was written by three people, one of whom was the BDFL. Why do you keep insisting that "he" is wrong, surely it should be "they" ? > > Diversity, dissension, and conflict are our friends, not > enemies to be feared. We must embrace those ideas that are > foreign to us, give them due consideration, and objectively > apply "weighted values" to them. Whereas, sitting in a room > surrounded by mirrors and becoming lost in the recursive > "reflection of self", is not evolution, but merely, an > illusion. > > Besides, why does he need *ME* to lick his boots when he > already has plenty of fan-boys over at python-ideas and > python-dev lining up. This community is *NOT*, and should > never be, a homogeneous block -- for we would be doing > ourselves a disservice. A substantial number of people on both lists are perfectly happy to speak their mind, to the extent that Guido has been known to do u-turns. Nobody has any need to lick anybody's boots, and to suggest that this is the case I find highly insulting to the entire Python community. > > So if you cannot provide me with respect that i *DESERVE* as > a member of this fine community, then you should at least > admit that my presence is a vital counterbalance to prevent > this tiny life-vessel from capsizing as it's thrashed around > the treacherous "seas of evolution". > You (singular) have to *EARN* respect, you do not deserve it. If you were to stick to subjects that you have knowledge of, such as tkinter/IDLE, you would earn that respect. Serving up dross as you do so often gets you nothing except plonks. -- 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 | 2015-01-24 17:00 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <a40df9a9-a343-4459-b973-bd8a2bc2fd76@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #84524 |
On Saturday, January 24, 2015 at 5:56:02 PM UTC-6, Mark Lawrence wrote: > For at least the third time the PEP was written by three > people, one of whom was the BDFL. Why do you keep > insisting that "he" is wrong, surely it should be "they" ? TWO REASONS: (1) I don't know either of those people. And they have never attempted to contact me, or even participate in discussions on this list. BUT MORE IMPORTANTLY: (2) Final decisions for additions to Python are via GvR. Why should i waste my time "appealing for sanity" to numerous people, when i can focus my attention on the only one that matters? But why must Guido be sheltered from dissent? With power comes responsibility! > A substantial number of people on both lists are perfectly > happy to speak their mind, to the extent that Guido has > been known to do u-turns. Nobody has any need to lick > anybody's boots, and to suggest that this is the case I > find highly insulting to the entire Python community. Enough with the spin-doctoring of my words, only boot lickers would be offended by what i said, and that is the whole point of saying it! Do you think boot lickers are a valuable resource of this (or any) community? Or could it be that you just cannot accept an inconvenient truth. > You (singular) have to *EARN* respect, you do not deserve > it. If you were to stick to subjects that you have > knowledge of, such as tkinter/IDLE, Oh i see. I'm allowed to participate so long as i don't step on YOUR toes or offend YOUR delicate sensibilities? So long as i volunteer to be locked in YOUR little rat cage, and do exactly what YOU say. Sorry Mark, but YOUR secret aspirations for tyrannical rule are not going to be "entertained" by THIS community. This character assassination of me has to stop, and your one of the prolific assassins on this list. Show me one time that i have *EVER* intentionally misled a noob on this list? You may find a sample where i've made an honest mistake, or mis-comprehended a question, but don't you *DARE* question my morals! I am one of the most honest and trustworthy people in this community. You may find my style to be annoying, (that is your opinion), but you have no right (and no evidence) to question my integrity. You can call me any name in the book you want; you can curse me; you can ridicule me; and all of it i can ignore; but i will NOT allow you to paint me as dishonest. I hold honesty as the most important of *ALL* virtues. You owe me an apology for slandering my integrity!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 5 of 14 — ← Prev page 1 … 3 4 [5] 6 7 … 14 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.python
csiph-web