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

Groups > comp.lang.python > #45649 > unrolled thread

Re: How to run a python script twice randomly in a day?

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

This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.

Contents

  Re: How to run a python script twice randomly in a day? Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2013-05-21 17:56 +1000
    Re: How to run a python script twice randomly in a day? Jussi Piitulainen <jpiitula@ling.helsinki.fi> - 2013-05-21 11:21 +0300
      Re: How to run a python script twice randomly in a day? Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2013-05-21 19:18 +1000

#45649 — Re: How to run a python script twice randomly in a day?

On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 11:12 AM, Cameron Simpson <cs@zip.com.au> wrote:
> Ok, good. Some minor remarks:
>
> Personally, I always use:
>
>   #!/bin/sh
>
> instead of requiring bash. All UNIX systems have sh, bash is only
> common. And even when present, it may not be in /bin. /bin/sh is
> always there, and unless you're doing something quite unusual, it
> works just fine.

Also, on many systems, /bin/sh is a much lighter interpreter than bash
(eg Debian uses dash). It's more efficient to use that when you can,
even if you use bash for your login shell.

> On 20May2013 15:05, Avnesh Shakya <avnesh.nitk@gmail.com> wrote:
> | but when I m using like
> |
> | import random
> | a = random.randrange(0, 59)
> | */a * * * * bash /home/avin/cronJob/test.sh
> | then it's showing error becose of varable 'a', so now how can i take
> | variable?

You put that into your crontab? I do not think this means what you
think it means; cron does not execute arbitrary Python code.

> - randrange() is like other python ranges: it does not include the end value.
>   So your call picks a number from 0..58, not 0..59.
>   Say randrange(0,60). Think "start, length".

Nitpick: It's not start, length; it's start, stop-before. If the start
is 10 and the second argument is 20, you'll get numbers from 10 to 19.
But your conclusion is still accurate :)

ChrisA
(two Princess Bride references in as many threads, doing well!)

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#45651

Chris Angelico writes:

> > On 20May2013 15:05, Avnesh Shakya wrote:
> >   So your call picks a number from 0..58, not 0..59.
> >   Say randrange(0,60). Think "start, length".
> 
> Nitpick: It's not start, length; it's start, stop-before. If the
> start is 10 and the second argument is 20, you'll get numbers from
> 10 to 19.  But your conclusion is still accurate :)

I've sometimes named the latter index "past", as in just past the
range. I'm also happy to call it just "end". The inclusive-style names
might be "first" and "last", so "past" is "last + 1".

The length of the range from "start" to "end" is "end - start" without
a "pest" term that is either -1 or +1 though I forget which; two
consecutive ranges are from b to m, then from m to e; an empty range
is from b to b.

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

#45659

On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 6:21 PM, Jussi Piitulainen
<jpiitula@ling.helsinki.fi> wrote:
> Chris Angelico writes:
>
>> > On 20May2013 15:05, Avnesh Shakya wrote:
>> >   So your call picks a number from 0..58, not 0..59.
>> >   Say randrange(0,60). Think "start, length".
>>
>> Nitpick: It's not start, length; it's start, stop-before. If the
>> start is 10 and the second argument is 20, you'll get numbers from
>> 10 to 19.  But your conclusion is still accurate :)
>
> I've sometimes named the latter index "past", as in just past the
> range. I'm also happy to call it just "end". The inclusive-style names
> might be "first" and "last", so "past" is "last + 1".
>
> The length of the range from "start" to "end" is "end - start" without
> a "pest" term that is either -1 or +1 though I forget which; two
> consecutive ranges are from b to m, then from m to e; an empty range
> is from b to b.

Agreed. The inclusive-exclusive range is by far the most useful.
There's unfortunately a massive case of lock-in here, but Scripture
references would be ever so much more convenient as inc-exc. For
instance, today in family devotions we read Galatians 2:1 - 2:21. At a
glance, do you know whether that's the entire chapter? What if it were
written as Galatians 2 to Galatians 3? Simple!

ChrisA

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

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

csiph-web