Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.python > #108830 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Herkermer Sherwood <theherk@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2016-05-19 09:31 -0700 |
| Last post | 2016-06-16 11:19 +1000 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 282 — 43 participants |
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.
for / while else doesn't make sense Herkermer Sherwood <theherk@gmail.com> - 2016-05-19 09:31 -0700
Re: for / while else doesn't make sense Ned Batchelder <ned@nedbatchelder.com> - 2016-05-19 10:22 -0700
Re: for / while else doesn't make sense Steven D'Aprano <steve@pearwood.info> - 2016-05-20 04:02 +1000
Re: for / while else doesn't make sense theherk@gmail.com - 2016-05-19 11:47 -0700
Re: for / while else doesn't make sense Marko Rauhamaa <marko@pacujo.net> - 2016-05-19 23:28 +0300
Re: for / while else doesn't make sense David Jardine <david@jardine.de> - 2016-05-19 21:49 +0200
Re: for / while else doesn't make sense Steven D'Aprano <steve@pearwood.info> - 2016-05-20 03:46 +1000
Re: for / while else doesn't make sense Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.co.uk> - 2016-05-19 17:55 +0000
Re: for / while else doesn't make sense Steven D'Aprano <steve@pearwood.info> - 2016-05-20 10:06 +1000
Re: for / while else doesn't make sense gst <g.starck@gmail.com> - 2016-05-19 19:02 -0700
Re: for / while else doesn't make sense Stephen Hansen <me+python@ixokai.io> - 2016-05-19 23:53 -0700
Re: for / while else doesn't make sense Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.co.uk> - 2016-05-20 11:55 +0000
Re: for / while else doesn't make sense Dennis Lee Bieber <wlfraed@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-05-20 19:57 -0400
Re: for / while else doesn't make sense Steven D'Aprano <steve@pearwood.info> - 2016-05-21 21:26 +1000
Re: for / while else doesn't make sense Ethan Furman <ethan@stoneleaf.us> - 2016-05-20 16:58 -0700
Re: for / while else doesn't make sense Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.co.uk> - 2016-05-21 00:24 +0000
Re: for / while else doesn't make sense Steven D'Aprano <steve@pearwood.info> - 2016-05-21 13:50 +1000
Re: for / while else doesn't make sense Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2016-05-21 14:01 +1000
Re: for / while else doesn't make sense Steven D'Aprano <steve@pearwood.info> - 2016-05-21 19:56 +1000
Re: for / while else doesn't make sense Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2016-05-21 20:08 +1000
Re: for / while else doesn't make sense Steven D'Aprano <steve@pearwood.info> - 2016-05-21 20:55 +1000
Re: for / while else doesn't make sense Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2016-05-21 21:10 +1000
Re: for / while else doesn't make sense Erik <python@lucidity.plus.com> - 2016-05-21 08:20 +0100
Re: for / while else doesn't make sense Marko Rauhamaa <marko@pacujo.net> - 2016-05-21 11:37 +0300
Re: for / while else doesn't make sense Steven D'Aprano <steve@pearwood.info> - 2016-05-21 20:39 +1000
Re: for / while else doesn't make sense Erik <python@lucidity.plus.com> - 2016-05-21 21:48 +0100
Re: for / while else doesn't make sense Steven D'Aprano <steve@pearwood.info> - 2016-05-22 12:57 +1000
Re: for / while else doesn't make sense Michael Selik <michael.selik@gmail.com> - 2016-05-22 02:55 +0000
Re: for / while else doesn't make sense Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2016-05-21 17:29 +1000
Re: for / while else doesn't make sense Bob Martin <bob.martin@excite.com> - 2016-05-20 07:45 +0100
Re: for / while else doesn't make sense Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2016-05-20 06:01 +1000
Re: for / while else doesn't make sense Ian Kelly <ian.g.kelly@gmail.com> - 2016-05-19 14:11 -0600
Re: for / while else doesn't make sense Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2016-05-20 06:27 +1000
Re: for / while else doesn't make sense Gregory Ewing <greg.ewing@canterbury.ac.nz> - 2016-05-20 11:51 +1200
Re: for / while else doesn't make sense Erik <python@lucidity.plus.com> - 2016-05-20 09:09 +0100
Re: for / while else doesn't make sense Zachary Ware <zachary.ware+pylist@gmail.com> - 2016-05-20 10:59 -0500
Re: for / while else doesn't make sense Christopher Reimer <christopher_reimer@icloud.com> - 2016-05-20 12:20 -0700
Re: for / while else doesn't make sense Steven D'Aprano <steve@pearwood.info> - 2016-05-21 08:43 +1000
Re: for / while else doesn't make sense theherk@gmail.com - 2016-05-20 16:24 -0700
Re: for / while else doesn't make sense Marko Rauhamaa <marko@pacujo.net> - 2016-05-21 09:03 +0300
Re: for / while else doesn't make sense Steven D'Aprano <steve@pearwood.info> - 2016-05-21 21:26 +1000
Re: for / while else doesn't make sense Ian Kelly <ian.g.kelly@gmail.com> - 2016-05-21 07:51 -0600
Re: for / while else doesn't make sense Grant Edwards <grant.b.edwards@gmail.com> - 2016-05-21 15:20 +0000
Re: for / while else doesn't make sense Ben Finney <ben+python@benfinney.id.au> - 2016-05-21 10:21 +1000
Re: for / while else doesn't make sense Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.co.uk> - 2016-05-21 00:35 +0000
Re: for / while else doesn't make sense Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2016-05-21 12:05 +1000
Re: for / while else doesn't make sense Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.co.uk> - 2016-05-22 14:15 +0000
Re: for / while else doesn't make sense Marko Rauhamaa <marko@pacujo.net> - 2016-05-22 17:58 +0300
Re: for / while else doesn't make sense Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.co.uk> - 2016-05-22 15:09 +0000
Re: for / while else doesn't make sense Rustom Mody <rustompmody@gmail.com> - 2016-05-22 08:26 -0700
Re: for / while else doesn't make sense Random832 <random832@fastmail.com> - 2016-05-22 13:25 -0400
Re: for / while else doesn't make sense Rustom Mody <rustompmody@gmail.com> - 2016-05-22 10:34 -0700
Re: for / while else doesn't make sense Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.co.uk> - 2016-05-22 18:06 +0000
Re: for / while else doesn't make sense Random832 <random832@fastmail.com> - 2016-05-22 14:17 -0400
Re: for / while else doesn't make sense Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2016-05-23 17:09 +1000
Re: for / while else doesn't make sense Steven D'Aprano <steve@pearwood.info> - 2016-05-23 01:19 +1000
Re: for / while else doesn't make sense Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2016-05-23 01:32 +1000
Re: for / while else doesn't make sense Marko Rauhamaa <marko@pacujo.net> - 2016-05-22 18:50 +0300
Re: for / while else doesn't make sense Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.co.uk> - 2016-05-22 15:52 +0000
Re: for / while else doesn't make sense Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2016-05-23 02:35 +1000
Re: for / while else doesn't make sense Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.co.uk> - 2016-05-22 16:46 +0000
Re: for / while else doesn't make sense Rustom Mody <rustompmody@gmail.com> - 2016-05-22 10:22 -0700
Re: for / while else doesn't make sense Random832 <random832@fastmail.com> - 2016-05-22 13:30 -0400
Re: for / while else doesn't make sense Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.co.uk> - 2016-05-22 17:55 +0000
Re: for / while else doesn't make sense Random832 <random832@fastmail.com> - 2016-05-22 14:14 -0400
Re: for / while else doesn't make sense Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-05-22 20:51 +0100
Re: for / while else doesn't make sense Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.co.uk> - 2016-05-23 00:34 +0000
Re: for / while else doesn't make sense Ian Kelly <ian.g.kelly@gmail.com> - 2016-05-22 17:04 -0600
Re: for / while else doesn't make sense Steven D'Aprano <steve@pearwood.info> - 2016-05-23 08:09 +1000
Re: for / while else doesn't make sense Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.co.uk> - 2016-05-23 00:36 +0000
Re: for / while else doesn't make sense Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2016-05-23 11:01 +1000
Re: for / while else doesn't make sense Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.co.uk> - 2016-05-23 01:00 +0000
Re: for / while else doesn't make sense breamoreboy@gmail.com - 2016-05-22 18:47 -0700
Re: for / while else doesn't make sense Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.co.uk> - 2016-05-23 15:35 +0000
Re: for / while else doesn't make sense MRAB <python@mrabarnett.plus.com> - 2016-05-23 02:51 +0100
Re: for / while else doesn't make sense Ben Finney <ben+python@benfinney.id.au> - 2016-05-23 14:13 +1000
Re: for / while else doesn't make sense Rustom Mody <rustompmody@gmail.com> - 2016-05-22 23:09 -0700
Re: for / while else doesn't make sense Marko Rauhamaa <marko@pacujo.net> - 2016-05-23 09:30 +0300
Re: for / while else doesn't make sense Rustom Mody <rustompmody@gmail.com> - 2016-05-22 23:46 -0700
Re: for / while else doesn't make sense Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2016-05-23 18:09 +1000
Re: for / while else doesn't make sense Ian Kelly <ian.g.kelly@gmail.com> - 2016-05-23 08:14 -0600
Re: for / while else doesn't make sense Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-05-23 15:29 +0100
Re: for / while else doesn't make sense Ian Kelly <ian.g.kelly@gmail.com> - 2016-05-23 08:49 -0600
Re: for / while else doesn't make sense Pete Forman <petef4+usenet@gmail.com> - 2016-05-23 19:16 +0100
Re: for / while else doesn't make sense Ian Kelly <ian.g.kelly@gmail.com> - 2016-05-23 13:24 -0600
Re: for / while else doesn't make sense Pete Forman <petef4+usenet@gmail.com> - 2016-05-23 22:50 +0100
Re: for / while else doesn't make sense Gregory Ewing <greg.ewing@canterbury.ac.nz> - 2016-05-24 18:49 +1200
Re: for / while else doesn't make sense Pete Forman <petef4+usenet@gmail.com> - 2016-05-24 19:03 +0100
Re: for / while else doesn't make sense Gregory Ewing <greg.ewing@canterbury.ac.nz> - 2016-05-25 18:35 +1200
Re: for / while else doesn't make sense Steven D'Aprano <steve@pearwood.info> - 2016-05-24 10:38 +1000
Re: for / while else doesn't make sense Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2016-05-24 00:57 +1000
Re: for / while else doesn't make sense Steven D'Aprano <steve@pearwood.info> - 2016-05-24 01:47 +1000
Re: for / while else doesn't make sense Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2016-05-24 01:57 +1000
Re: for / while else doesn't make sense Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-05-23 17:51 +0100
Re: for / while else doesn't make sense Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2016-05-24 02:59 +1000
Re: for / while else doesn't make sense Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-05-23 20:55 +0100
Re: for / while else doesn't make sense Mark Dickinson <mdickinson@enthought.com> - 2016-05-23 20:17 +0000
Re: for / while else doesn't make sense Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-05-23 22:01 +0100
Numerical methods [was Re: for / while else doesn't make sense] Steven D'Aprano <steve@pearwood.info> - 2016-05-24 10:57 +1000
Re: for / while else doesn't make sense Rustom Mody <rustompmody@gmail.com> - 2016-05-23 08:30 -0700
Re: for / while else doesn't make sense Ian Kelly <ian.g.kelly@gmail.com> - 2016-05-23 10:02 -0600
Re: for / while else doesn't make sense Grant Edwards <grant.b.edwards@gmail.com> - 2016-05-23 20:22 +0000
Re: for / while else doesn't make sense Ian Kelly <ian.g.kelly@gmail.com> - 2016-05-23 09:53 -0600
When were real numbers born? (was for / while else doesn't make sense) Rustom Mody <rustompmody@gmail.com> - 2016-05-23 22:02 -0700
Re: for / while else doesn't make sense Christopher Reimer <christopher_reimer@icloud.com> - 2016-05-23 15:36 -0700
Re: for / while else doesn't make sense Steven D'Aprano <steve@pearwood.info> - 2016-05-24 11:05 +1000
Re: for / while else doesn't make sense Ned Batchelder <ned@nedbatchelder.com> - 2016-05-23 19:19 -0700
META Culture of this place [was Re: for / while else doesn't make sense] Steven D'Aprano <steve@pearwood.info> - 2016-05-25 02:43 +1000
Re: META Culture of this place [was Re: for / while else doesn't make sense] boB Stepp <robertvstepp@gmail.com> - 2016-05-24 12:19 -0500
Re: META Culture of this place [was Re: for / while else doesn't make sense] Ned Batchelder <ned@nedbatchelder.com> - 2016-05-24 10:44 -0700
Re: META Culture of this place [was Re: for / while else doesn't make sense] Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2016-05-24 12:54 -0700
Re: for / while else doesn't make sense Grant Edwards <grant.b.edwards@gmail.com> - 2016-05-24 14:23 +0000
Re: for / while else doesn't make sense Christopher Reimer <christopher_reimer@icloud.com> - 2016-05-24 10:40 -0700
Re: for / while else doesn't make sense Gregory Ewing <greg.ewing@canterbury.ac.nz> - 2016-05-25 18:38 +1200
Extended ASCII [was Re: for / while else doesn't make sense] Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2016-05-25 17:30 +1000
Re: for / while else doesn't make sense Christopher Reimer <christopher_reimer@icloud.com> - 2016-05-25 02:10 -0700
Exended ASCII and code pages [was Re: for / while else doesn't make sense] Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2016-05-25 20:19 +1000
Re: Exended ASCII and code pages [was Re: for / while else doesn't make sense] Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2016-05-25 20:30 +1000
Re: Exended ASCII and code pages [was Re: for / while else doesn't make sense] Erik <python@lucidity.plus.com> - 2016-05-25 22:03 +0100
Re: Exended ASCII and code pages [was Re: for / while else doesn't make sense] Jussi Piitulainen <jussi.piitulainen@helsinki.fi> - 2016-05-26 10:21 +0300
Re: Exended ASCII and code pages [was Re: for / while else doesn't make sense] Rustom Mody <rustompmody@gmail.com> - 2016-05-26 00:44 -0700
Re: Exended ASCII and code pages [was Re: for / while else doesn't make sense] Marko Rauhamaa <marko@pacujo.net> - 2016-05-26 12:11 +0300
Re: Exended ASCII and code pages [was Re: for / while else doesn't make sense] Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2016-05-26 19:20 +1000
Re: Exended ASCII and code pages [was Re: for / while else doesn't make sense] Erik <python@lucidity.plus.com> - 2016-05-26 21:54 +0100
Re: Exended ASCII and code pages [was Re: for / while else doesn't make sense] Jussi Piitulainen <jussi.piitulainen@helsinki.fi> - 2016-05-27 08:03 +0300
Re: Exended ASCII and code pages [was Re: for / while else doesn't make sense] Dennis Lee Bieber <wlfraed@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-05-25 21:28 -0400
Re: Exended ASCII and code pages [was Re: for / while else doesn't make sense] Erik <python@lucidity.plus.com> - 2016-05-26 09:11 +0100
Re: Exended ASCII and code pages [was Re: for / while else doesn't make sense] Marko Rauhamaa <marko@pacujo.net> - 2016-05-26 12:20 +0300
Re: Exended ASCII and code pages [was Re: for / while else doesn't make sense] Erik <python@lucidity.plus.com> - 2016-05-26 21:29 +0100
Re: Exended ASCII and code pages [was Re: for / while else doesn't make sense] Marko Rauhamaa <marko@pacujo.net> - 2016-05-27 00:12 +0300
Re: Exended ASCII and code pages [was Re: for / while else doesn't make sense] Steven D'Aprano <steve@pearwood.info> - 2016-05-27 13:35 +1000
Re: Exended ASCII and code pages [was Re: for / while else doesn't make sense] Marko Rauhamaa <marko@pacujo.net> - 2016-05-27 09:10 +0300
Re: Exended ASCII and code pages [was Re: for / while else doesn't make sense] Steven D'Aprano <steve@pearwood.info> - 2016-05-27 16:47 +1000
Re: Exended ASCII and code pages [was Re: for / while else doesn't make sense] Marko Rauhamaa <marko@pacujo.net> - 2016-05-27 10:04 +0300
Re: Exended ASCII and code pages [was Re: for / while else doesn't make sense] Steven D'Aprano <steve@pearwood.info> - 2016-05-27 19:56 +1000
Re: Exended ASCII and code pages [was Re: for / while else doesn't make sense] Random832 <random832@fastmail.com> - 2016-05-27 09:51 -0400
Re: Exended ASCII and code pages [was Re: for / while else doesn't make sense] Rustom Mody <rustompmody@gmail.com> - 2016-05-27 08:53 -0700
Re: Exended ASCII and code pages [was Re: for / while else doesn't make sense] Random832 <random832@fastmail.com> - 2016-05-27 12:09 -0400
Coding systems are political (was Exended ASCII and code pages) Rustom Mody <rustompmody@gmail.com> - 2016-05-27 21:46 -0700
Re: Coding systems are political (was Exended ASCII and code pages) wxjmfauth@gmail.com - 2016-05-28 08:16 -0700
Re: Coding systems are political (was Exended ASCII and code pages) Ned Batchelder <ned@nedbatchelder.com> - 2016-05-28 08:50 -0700
Re: Coding systems are political (was Exended ASCII and code pages) Random832 <random832@fastmail.com> - 2016-05-28 14:05 -0400
Re: Coding systems are political (was Exended ASCII and code pages) Steven D'Aprano <steve@pearwood.info> - 2016-05-29 15:37 +1000
Re: Coding systems are political (was Exended ASCII and code pages) Rustom Mody <rustompmody@gmail.com> - 2016-05-28 23:12 -0700
Re: Coding systems are political (was Exended ASCII and code pages) Terry Reedy <tjreedy@udel.edu> - 2016-05-29 14:46 -0400
Re: Coding systems are political (was Exended ASCII and code pages) Christian Gollwitzer <auriocus@gmx.de> - 2016-05-29 22:29 +0200
Re: Coding systems are political (was Exended ASCII and code pages) wxjmfauth@gmail.com - 2016-05-30 06:35 -0700
Re: Coding systems are political (was Exended ASCII and code pages) Rustom Mody <rustompmody@gmail.com> - 2016-06-04 20:54 -0700
Re: Coding systems are political (was Exended ASCII and code pages) alister <alister.ware@ntlworld.com> - 2016-05-29 06:19 +0000
Re: Coding systems are political (was Exended ASCII and code pages) Gregory Ewing <greg.ewing@canterbury.ac.nz> - 2016-05-29 20:54 +1200
Re: Coding systems are political (was Exended ASCII and code pages) Marko Rauhamaa <marko@pacujo.net> - 2016-05-29 12:56 +0300
Re: Coding systems are political (was Exended ASCII and code pages) wxjmfauth@gmail.com - 2016-05-30 09:11 -0700
Re: Exended ASCII and code pages [was Re: for / while else doesn't make sense] Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2016-05-28 02:16 +1000
Re: Exended ASCII and code pages [was Re: for / while else doesn't make sense] Steven D'Aprano <steve@pearwood.info> - 2016-05-28 18:54 +1000
Re: Exended ASCII and code pages [was Re: for / while else doesn't make sense] Marko Rauhamaa <marko@pacujo.net> - 2016-05-27 22:03 +0300
Re: Exended ASCII and code pages [was Re: for / while else doesn't make sense] Rustom Mody <rustompmody@gmail.com> - 2016-05-27 21:23 -0700
Re: Exended ASCII and code pages [was Re: for / while else doesn't make sense] Rustom Mody <rustompmody@gmail.com> - 2016-05-26 03:39 -0700
Re: Exended ASCII and code pages [was Re: for / while else doesn't make sense] Dennis Lee Bieber <wlfraed@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-05-26 07:07 -0400
Re: for / while else doesn't make sense Marko Rauhamaa <marko@pacujo.net> - 2016-05-25 13:47 +0300
Re: for / while else doesn't make sense Christopher Reimer <christopher_reimer@icloud.com> - 2016-05-25 05:19 -0700
Re: for / while else doesn't make sense Rustom Mody <rustompmody@gmail.com> - 2016-05-25 22:49 -0700
Re: for / while else doesn't make sense Jussi Piitulainen <jussi.piitulainen@helsinki.fi> - 2016-05-26 09:54 +0300
Re: for / while else doesn't make sense Rustom Mody <rustompmody@gmail.com> - 2016-05-26 00:44 -0700
Re: for / while else doesn't make sense wxjmfauth@gmail.com - 2016-05-26 00:52 -0700
Re: for / while else doesn't make sense Marko Rauhamaa <marko@pacujo.net> - 2016-05-26 12:05 +0300
Re: for / while else doesn't make sense Random832 <random832@fastmail.com> - 2016-05-29 14:41 -0400
Re: for / while else doesn't make sense Marko Rauhamaa <marko@pacujo.net> - 2016-05-29 22:01 +0300
Re: for / while else doesn't make sense Dennis Lee Bieber <wlfraed@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-05-23 20:07 -0400
Re: for / while else doesn't make sense Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2016-05-24 10:11 +1000
Re: for / while else doesn't make sense Steven D'Aprano <steve@pearwood.info> - 2016-05-24 02:59 +1000
Re: for / while else doesn't make sense Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.co.uk> - 2016-05-23 17:09 +0000
Re: for / while else doesn't make sense Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2016-05-24 03:33 +1000
Re: for / while else doesn't make sense Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.co.uk> - 2016-05-23 17:57 +0000
Re: for / while else doesn't make sense Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2016-05-24 04:14 +1000
Re: for / while else doesn't make sense Random832 <random832@fastmail.com> - 2016-05-23 13:44 -0400
Re: for / while else doesn't make sense Ian Kelly <ian.g.kelly@gmail.com> - 2016-05-23 11:52 -0600
Re: for / while else doesn't make sense Alan Evangelista <alanoe@linux.vnet.ibm.com> - 2016-05-23 15:06 -0300
Re: for / while else doesn't make sense Steven D'Aprano <steve@pearwood.info> - 2016-05-24 12:15 +1000
Re: for / while else doesn't make sense Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.co.uk> - 2016-05-24 10:54 +0000
Re: for / while else doesn't make sense Steven D'Aprano <steve@pearwood.info> - 2016-05-25 03:44 +1000
Re: for / while else doesn't make sense Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2016-05-25 03:49 +1000
Re: for / while else doesn't make sense MRAB <python@mrabarnett.plus.com> - 2016-05-24 19:57 +0100
Re: for / while else doesn't make sense Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.co.uk> - 2016-05-24 20:10 +0000
Re: for / while else doesn't make sense Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-05-23 20:29 +0100
Re: for / while else doesn't make sense Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2016-05-23 18:33 +1000
Re: for / while else doesn't make sense Grant Edwards <grant.b.edwards@gmail.com> - 2016-05-21 02:17 +0000
Re: for / while else doesn't make sense Christopher Reimer <christopher_reimer@icloud.com> - 2016-05-20 18:23 -0700
Re: for / while else doesn't make sense Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2016-05-21 12:31 +1000
Re: for / while else doesn't make sense Christopher Reimer <christopher_reimer@icloud.com> - 2016-05-20 20:47 -0700
Re: for / while else doesn't make sense Rustom Mody <rustompmody@gmail.com> - 2016-05-20 22:18 -0700
Education [was Re: for / while else doesn't make sense] Steven D'Aprano <steve@pearwood.info> - 2016-05-21 20:05 +1000
Re: Education [was Re: for / while else doesn't make sense] Christopher Reimer <christopher_reimer@icloud.com> - 2016-05-21 08:51 -0700
Re: Education [was Re: for / while else doesn't make sense] Marko Rauhamaa <marko@pacujo.net> - 2016-05-21 20:08 +0300
Re: Education [was Re: for / while else doesn't make sense] Rob Gaddi <rgaddi@highlandtechnology.invalid> - 2016-05-23 16:44 +0000
Re: for / while else doesn't make sense Lawrence D’Oliveiro <lawrencedo99@gmail.com> - 2016-06-01 16:39 -0700
Re: for / while else doesn't make sense Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2016-06-02 13:44 +1000
Re: for / while else doesn't make sense Rob Gaddi <rgaddi@highlandtechnology.invalid> - 2016-06-02 20:09 +0000
Re: for / while else doesn't make sense Ian Kelly <ian.g.kelly@gmail.com> - 2016-06-02 14:46 -0600
Re: for / while else doesn't make sense BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-06-02 21:52 +0100
Re: for / while else doesn't make sense Lawrence D’Oliveiro <lawrencedo99@gmail.com> - 2016-06-02 18:05 -0700
Re: for / while else doesn't make sense BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-06-03 10:23 +0100
Re: for / while else doesn't make sense Lawrence D’Oliveiro <lawrencedo99@gmail.com> - 2016-06-02 19:47 -0700
Re: for / while else doesn't make sense BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-06-03 10:32 +0100
Re: for / while else doesn't make sense Lawrence D’Oliveiro <lawrencedo99@gmail.com> - 2016-06-03 09:22 -0700
Re: for / while else doesn't make sense Steven D'Aprano <steve@pearwood.info> - 2016-06-04 12:20 +1000
Re: for / while else doesn't make sense Lawrence D’Oliveiro <lawrencedo99@gmail.com> - 2016-06-03 20:41 -0700
Re: for / while else doesn't make sense Steven D'Aprano <steve@pearwood.info> - 2016-06-04 19:27 +1000
Re: for / while else doesn't make sense Lawrence D’Oliveiro <lawrencedo99@gmail.com> - 2016-06-04 20:20 -0700
Re: for / while else doesn't make sense BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-06-04 13:55 +0100
Re: for / while else doesn't make sense Lawrence D’Oliveiro <lawrencedo99@gmail.com> - 2016-06-02 18:08 -0700
Re: for / while else doesn't make sense Rob Gaddi <rgaddi@highlandtechnology.invalid> - 2016-06-03 15:52 +0000
Re: for / while else doesn't make sense Lawrence D’Oliveiro <lawrencedo99@gmail.com> - 2016-06-03 09:24 -0700
Re: for / while else doesn't make sense Steven D'Aprano <steve@pearwood.info> - 2016-06-04 13:00 +1000
Re: for / while else doesn't make sense Lawrence D’Oliveiro <lawrencedo99@gmail.com> - 2016-06-03 20:43 -0700
Re: for / while else doesn't make sense Ned Batchelder <ned@nedbatchelder.com> - 2016-06-04 04:37 -0700
Re: for / while else doesn't make sense Lawrence D’Oliveiro <lawrencedo99@gmail.com> - 2016-06-04 20:29 -0700
Re: for / while else doesn't make sense Steven D'Aprano <steve@pearwood.info> - 2016-06-05 16:35 +1000
Re: for / while else doesn't make sense Ned Batchelder <ned@nedbatchelder.com> - 2016-06-05 04:29 -0700
Re: for / while else doesn't make sense Marko Rauhamaa <marko@pacujo.net> - 2016-06-05 14:43 +0300
Re: for / while else doesn't make sense Lawrence D’Oliveiro <lawrencedo99@gmail.com> - 2016-06-06 17:51 -0700
Re: for / while else doesn't make sense Dan Sommers <dan@tombstonezero.net> - 2016-06-07 03:34 +0000
Re: for / while else doesn't make sense Lawrence D’Oliveiro <lawrencedo99@gmail.com> - 2016-06-07 00:53 -0700
Re: for / while else doesn't make sense Dan Sommers <dan@tombstonezero.net> - 2016-06-07 12:27 +0000
Re: for / while else doesn't make sense Lawrence D’Oliveiro <lawrencedo99@gmail.com> - 2016-06-07 14:57 -0700
Re: for / while else doesn't make sense Ian Kelly <ian.g.kelly@gmail.com> - 2016-06-06 22:35 -0600
Re: for / while else doesn't make sense Lawrence D’Oliveiro <lawrencedo99@gmail.com> - 2016-06-07 00:52 -0700
Re: for / while else doesn't make sense Marko Rauhamaa <marko@pacujo.net> - 2016-06-07 11:00 +0300
Re: for / while else doesn't make sense Lawrence D’Oliveiro <lawrencedo99@gmail.com> - 2016-06-07 15:07 -0700
Re: for / while else doesn't make sense Ned Batchelder <ned@nedbatchelder.com> - 2016-06-07 17:31 -0700
Re: for / while else doesn't make sense Lawrence D’Oliveiro <lawrencedo99@gmail.com> - 2016-06-07 18:25 -0700
Re: for / while else doesn't make sense Lawrence D’Oliveiro <lawrencedo99@gmail.com> - 2016-06-07 18:29 -0700
Re: for / while else doesn't make sense Ned Batchelder <ned@nedbatchelder.com> - 2016-06-07 18:40 -0700
Re: for / while else doesn't make sense breamoreboy@gmail.com - 2016-06-07 20:45 -0700
Re: for / while else doesn't make sense Marko Rauhamaa <marko@pacujo.net> - 2016-06-08 08:24 +0300
Re: for / while else doesn't make sense Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2016-06-07 18:36 +1000
Re: for / while else doesn't make sense Ian Kelly <ian.g.kelly@gmail.com> - 2016-06-07 05:52 -0600
Re: for / while else doesn't make sense Lawrence D’Oliveiro <lawrencedo99@gmail.com> - 2016-06-07 14:58 -0700
Re: for / while else doesn't make sense Marko Rauhamaa <marko@pacujo.net> - 2016-06-08 01:06 +0300
Re: for / while else doesn't make sense Lawrence D’Oliveiro <lawrencedo99@gmail.com> - 2016-06-07 15:08 -0700
Re: for / while else doesn't make sense Marko Rauhamaa <marko@pacujo.net> - 2016-06-08 08:27 +0300
Re: for / while else doesn't make sense Lawrence D’Oliveiro <lawrencedo99@gmail.com> - 2016-06-08 17:34 -0700
Re: for / while else doesn't make sense Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2016-06-09 18:19 +1000
Re: for / while else doesn't make sense Ian Kelly <ian.g.kelly@gmail.com> - 2016-06-07 17:11 -0600
Re: for / while else doesn't make sense Lawrence D’Oliveiro <lawrencedo99@gmail.com> - 2016-06-06 17:53 -0700
Re: for / while else doesn't make sense Ethan Furman <ethan@stoneleaf.us> - 2016-06-07 21:13 -0700
Re: for / while else doesn't make sense pavlovevidence@gmail.com - 2016-06-12 00:01 -0700
AttributeError into a bloc try-except AttributeError Vincent Vande Vyvre <vincent.vande.vyvre@telenet.be> - 2016-06-12 09:20 +0200
Re: AttributeError into a bloc try-except AttributeError Vincent Vande Vyvre <vincent.vande.vyvre@telenet.be> - 2016-06-12 10:30 +0200
Re: for / while else doesn't make sense Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2016-06-12 20:06 +1000
Re: for / while else doesn't make sense Michael Selik <michael.selik@gmail.com> - 2016-06-12 18:44 +0000
Re: for / while else doesn't make sense Steven D'Aprano <steve@pearwood.info> - 2016-06-13 12:12 +1000
Re: for / while else doesn't make sense Rustom Mody <rustompmody@gmail.com> - 2016-06-12 20:46 -0700
Re: for / while else doesn't make sense Michael Selik <michael.selik@gmail.com> - 2016-06-13 23:45 +0000
Re: for / while else doesn't make sense Steven D'Aprano <steve@pearwood.info> - 2016-06-14 12:43 +1000
Re: for / while else doesn't make sense Michael Selik <michael.selik@gmail.com> - 2016-06-14 04:37 +0000
Re: for / while else doesn't make sense Rustom Mody <rustompmody@gmail.com> - 2016-06-14 08:33 -0700
Re: for / while else doesn't make sense Lawrence D’Oliveiro <lawrencedo99@gmail.com> - 2016-06-14 16:27 -0700
Re: for / while else doesn't make sense Rustom Mody <rustompmody@gmail.com> - 2016-06-14 18:29 -0700
Re: for / while else doesn't make sense Steven D'Aprano <steve@pearwood.info> - 2016-06-15 13:12 +1000
Re: for / while else doesn't make sense Rustom Mody <rustompmody@gmail.com> - 2016-06-14 20:38 -0700
Re: for / while else doesn't make sense Rustom Mody <rustompmody@gmail.com> - 2016-06-15 04:19 -0700
Re: for / while else doesn't make sense BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-06-15 13:27 +0100
Re: for / while else doesn't make sense Rustom Mody <rustompmody@gmail.com> - 2016-06-15 05:44 -0700
Re: for / while else doesn't make sense Random832 <random832@fastmail.com> - 2016-06-15 09:51 -0400
Re: for / while else doesn't make sense Rustom Mody <rustompmody@gmail.com> - 2016-06-15 07:20 -0700
Re: for / while else doesn't make sense Random832 <random832@fastmail.com> - 2016-06-15 11:54 -0400
Re: for / while else doesn't make sense Rustom Mody <rustompmody@gmail.com> - 2016-06-15 10:03 -0700
Re: for / while else doesn't make sense BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-06-15 18:27 +0100
Re: for / while else doesn't make sense Steven D'Aprano <steve@pearwood.info> - 2016-06-16 11:40 +1000
Re: for / while else doesn't make sense Michael Selik <michael.selik@gmail.com> - 2016-06-15 17:18 +0000
Re: for / while else doesn't make sense Random832 <random832@fastmail.com> - 2016-06-15 13:41 -0400
Re: for / while else doesn't make sense Rustom Mody <rustompmody@gmail.com> - 2016-06-15 07:31 -0700
Re: for / while else doesn't make sense Lawrence D’Oliveiro <lawrencedo99@gmail.com> - 2016-06-15 19:59 -0700
Re: for / while else doesn't make sense Lawrence D’Oliveiro <lawrencedo99@gmail.com> - 2016-06-15 19:54 -0700
What is structured programming (was for/while else doesn't make sense) Rustom Mody <rustompmody@gmail.com> - 2016-06-15 22:48 -0700
Re: What is structured programming (was for/while else doesn't make sense) Lawrence D’Oliveiro <lawrencedo99@gmail.com> - 2016-06-15 22:57 -0700
Re: What is structured programming (was for/while else doesn't make sense) Rustom Mody <rustompmody@gmail.com> - 2016-06-16 04:12 -0700
Re: What is structured programming (was for/while else doesn't make sense) Lawrence D’Oliveiro <lawrencedo99@gmail.com> - 2016-06-16 18:53 -0700
Re: What is structured programming (was for/while else doesn't make sense) Rustom Mody <rustompmody@gmail.com> - 2016-06-17 09:32 -0700
Re: What is structured programming (was for/while else doesn't make sense) Lawrence D’Oliveiro <lawrencedo99@gmail.com> - 2016-06-17 16:07 -0700
Re: for / while else doesn't make sense Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2016-06-15 23:56 +1000
Re: for / while else doesn't make sense Steven D'Aprano <steve@pearwood.info> - 2016-06-16 11:19 +1000
Page 6 of 15 — ← Prev page 1 … 4 5 [6] 7 8 … 15 Next page →
| From | Ian Kelly <ian.g.kelly@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-23 10:02 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <mailman.24.1464019409.20402.python-list@python.org> |
| In reply to | #109001 |
On Mon, May 23, 2016 at 9:53 AM, Ian Kelly <ian.g.kelly@gmail.com> wrote: > I'm not sure where ℝ comes into this in the first place. Existing > Python numeric types only represent various subsets of ℚ (in the case > of fractions.Fraction, the entirety of ℚ). And of course I realized after sending that I forgot about complex numbers. But even there Python merely represents 2-tuples of ℚ.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Grant Edwards <grant.b.edwards@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-23 20:22 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <mailman.35.1464034982.20402.python-list@python.org> |
| In reply to | #109001 |
On 2016-05-23, Ian Kelly <ian.g.kelly@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, May 23, 2016 at 9:53 AM, Ian Kelly <ian.g.kelly@gmail.com> wrote:
>> I'm not sure where ℝ comes into this in the first place. Existing
>> Python numeric types only represent various subsets of ℚ (in the case
>> of fractions.Fraction, the entirety of ℚ).
>
> And of course I realized after sending that I forgot about complex
> numbers. But even there Python merely represents 2-tuples of ℚ.
OK, admit it, now you're all just showing off the fact that you know
how to type in those fancy symbols.
--
Grant Edwards grant.b.edwards Yow! TAILFINS!! ... click
at ...
gmail.com
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ian Kelly <ian.g.kelly@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-23 09:53 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <mailman.36.1464043241.20402.python-list@python.org> |
| In reply to | #109001 |
On Mon, May 23, 2016 at 9:30 AM, Rustom Mody <rustompmody@gmail.com> wrote: > Yes the point is being missed but in a different direction: > The SET (as a completed whole) of real numbers (ℝ) is no more than a 100 years > old. > People may have used fractions earlier > > And even here the first line of Steven's http://nrich.maths.org/2515 says > "Did you know that fractions as we use them today didn't exist in Europe until the 17th century?" > > Egypt and Babylon (and India for that matter) are really only of archaeological > interest in the sense that there is almost complete loss of continuity > from then to now So 13th century European merchants would have been entirely incapable of cutting a cheese wheel in half in order to accommodate a customer who didn't the whole thing? > That the set ℝ legitimately exists was a minority view -- Cantor,Dedekind, > Weierstrass... I'm not sure where ℝ comes into this in the first place. Existing Python numeric types only represent various subsets of ℚ (in the case of fractions.Fraction, the entirety of ℚ). > On the other side Kronecker belligerently declared: > "The good Lord made the natural numbers (Zahlen in German) > All the rest is the work of man" > > This was the MAINSTREAM view in the 1880s. > > As late as 1918 Weyl and Polya took a bet that math concepts such as > real numbers, sets, countability etc would be relegated to history as a bad > dream and the pristine purity of constructive math would be firmly established > -- where "constructive math" basically means ℕ is the only reasonable infinite set and that ℝ is anything but real! > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hermann_Weyl#Foundations_of_mathematics I'm rather skeptical that this bet would have extended to fractions.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Rustom Mody <rustompmody@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-23 22:02 -0700 |
| Subject | When were real numbers born? (was for / while else doesn't make sense) |
| Message-ID | <f99e3f97-a423-4f85-be65-8536962c341f@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #109028 |
On Tuesday, May 24, 2016 at 4:10:59 AM UTC+5:30, Ian wrote: > On Mon, May 23, 2016 at 9:30 AM, Rustom Mody wrote: > > Yes the point is being missed but in a different direction: > > The SET (as a completed whole) of real numbers (ℝ) is no more than a 100 years > > old. > > People may have used fractions earlier > > > > And even here the first line of Steven's http://nrich.maths.org/2515 says > > "Did you know that fractions as we use them today didn't exist in Europe until the 17th century?" > > > > Egypt and Babylon (and India for that matter) are really only of archaeological > > interest in the sense that there is almost complete loss of continuity > > from then to now > > So 13th century European merchants would have been entirely incapable > of cutting a cheese wheel in half in order to accommodate a customer > who didn't the whole thing? That people could compute with fractions does not mean they had reified ℚ as a set. Cantor did something which was a complete No-No in math until that point -- assume that completed infinities are meaningful. A programming example would be the question: What does this program do after it finishes printing? i = 0 while True: print i i += 1 > > > That the set ℝ legitimately exists was a minority view -- Cantor,Dedekind, > > Weierstrass... > > I'm not sure where ℝ comes into this in the first place. Existing > Python numeric types only represent various subsets of ℚ (in the case > of fractions.Fraction, the entirety of ℚ). > > > On the other side Kronecker belligerently declared: > > "The good Lord made the natural numbers (Zahlen in German) > > All the rest is the work of man" > > > > This was the MAINSTREAM view in the 1880s. > > > > As late as 1918 Weyl and Polya took a bet that math concepts such as > > real numbers, sets, countability etc would be relegated to history as a bad > > dream and the pristine purity of constructive math would be firmly established > > -- where "constructive math" basically means ℕ is the only reasonable infinite set and that ℝ is anything but real! > > > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hermann_Weyl#Foundations_of_mathematics > > I'm rather skeptical that this bet would have extended to fractions. Yes... Its hard to guess what Kronecker/Cantor/Hilbert/Brouwer etc believed other than the records we have. But we can make some guesses... Insofar as the fractions are enumerable and computable they would be said to exist (by everyone) Insofar as ℝ is non-denumerable its existence is suspect (by the constructivists) Now float is a ghastly approximation to ℝ doesnt preclude better computable approximations eg continued fractions (by the constructivists)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Christopher Reimer <christopher_reimer@icloud.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-23 15:36 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <mailman.38.1464046609.20402.python-list@python.org> |
| In reply to | #109001 |
> On May 23, 2016, at 1:22 PM, Grant Edwards <grant.b.edwards@gmail.com> wrote: > >> On 2016-05-23, Ian Kelly <ian.g.kelly@gmail.com> wrote: >>> On Mon, May 23, 2016 at 9:53 AM, Ian Kelly <ian.g.kelly@gmail.com> wrote: >>> I'm not sure where ℝ comes into this in the first place. Existing >>> Python numeric types only represent various subsets of ℚ (in the case >>> of fractions.Fraction, the entirety of ℚ). >> >> And of course I realized after sending that I forgot about complex >> numbers. But even there Python merely represents 2-tuples of ℚ. > > OK, admit it, now you're all just showing off the fact that you know > how to type in those fancy symbols. Those symbols are blowing my 8-bit ASCII brain. :) Chris R.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Steven D'Aprano <steve@pearwood.info> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-24 11:05 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <5743a8d2$0$1587$c3e8da3$5496439d@news.astraweb.com> |
| In reply to | #109030 |
On Tue, 24 May 2016 08:36 am, Christopher Reimer wrote: > Those symbols are blowing my 8-bit ASCII brain. :) That's certainly true, because there is no such thing as 8-bit ASCII. ASCII is a 7-bit encoding. (Most implementations set the extra bit to zero, a few *very* old machines might have set it to one, and if I remember correctly, Wordstar used to use it for its own internal purposes.) What people usually mean by "extended 8-bit ASCII" is a large family of many different extensions to ASCII, many of which have multiple names for added confusion, such as Latin-1, ISO-8859-2, MacRoman, and many more. None of these are ASCII, although they contain ASCII as a subset of their characters (just as Unicode does). -- Steven
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ned Batchelder <ned@nedbatchelder.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-23 19:19 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <71549549-f518-4c4c-818e-2751c09e2a32@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #109037 |
On Monday, May 23, 2016 at 9:06:13 PM UTC-4, Steven D'Aprano wrote: > On Tue, 24 May 2016 08:36 am, Christopher Reimer wrote: > > > Those symbols are blowing my 8-bit ASCII brain. :) > > That's certainly true, because there is no such thing as 8-bit ASCII. ASCII > is a 7-bit encoding. (Most implementations set the extra bit to zero, a few > *very* old machines might have set it to one, and if I remember correctly, > Wordstar used to use it for its own internal purposes.) > > What people usually mean by "extended 8-bit ASCII" is a large family of many > different extensions to ASCII, many of which have multiple names for added > confusion, such as Latin-1, ISO-8859-2, MacRoman, and many more. None of > these are ASCII, although they contain ASCII as a subset of their > characters (just as Unicode does). Ugh, can we please stop with the "well, actually" pedantic tangents? I know we are fascinated by the details of computing, and yes, details matter, but this just gets exhausting. The good dynamic here of helping people with Python gets lost in the endless trivia threads, and bickering over details that are four or five times removed from the original question. Assume the best of others, and stay focused :) --Ned.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Steven D'Aprano <steve@pearwood.info> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-25 02:43 +1000 |
| Subject | META Culture of this place [was Re: for / while else doesn't make sense] |
| Message-ID | <574484c6$0$22140$c3e8da3$5496439d@news.astraweb.com> |
| In reply to | #109040 |
On Tue, 24 May 2016 12:19 pm, Ned Batchelder wrote: > Ugh, can we please stop with the "well, actually" pedantic tangents? With respect, no. This is a forum with a very tolerant approach to off-topic and only- slightly-on-topic discussions. If you want a forum that follows strict rules for what's allowed and what's not, you're in the wrong place. There are plenty of such forums available: Stackoverflow, /r/python, #python, Python-Dev, etc, all with their own idiosyncrasies. This is ours: we have a bunch of people here who enjoy extended discussions on computing matters which are sometimes only tangentially related to Python. And why shouldn't we? We're all volunteers here, including the regulars, and if it ceases to be fun for us, we'll leave. Some of us *like* those discussions about the minutia of Unicode, ancient computing platforms, floating point arithmetic, etc. Sometimes we even learn something. I'm sorry that you personally don't appreciate these long threads. Maybe you can mute them in your mail/news editor. Guido often does that on Python-Ideas. Or just hit delete on posts that don't interest you. Or perhaps this place simply isn't a good fit for you, just like #python isn't a good fit for me. I'm not trying to push you away, I really aren't, and if you decide to leave I will miss your contributions, but this is not just a forum for Q&A. It's also a forum for (often spirited) discussions and strongly-held opinions. -- Steven
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | boB Stepp <robertvstepp@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-24 12:19 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: META Culture of this place [was Re: for / while else doesn't make sense] |
| Message-ID | <mailman.61.1464110395.20402.python-list@python.org> |
| In reply to | #109067 |
On Tue, May 24, 2016 at 11:43 AM, Steven D'Aprano <steve@pearwood.info> wrote: [...] > ...Python-Dev, etc, all with their own idiosyncrasies. This is ours: we have a > bunch of people here who enjoy extended discussions on computing matters > which are sometimes only tangentially related to Python. I rarely post on this list, but I now diligently read it. As a person striving to learn both Python, general C.Sc. topics, good programming practices, etc., I have found these diversions of great interest, and like to think I might even have learned some valuable concepts. If I would have a quibble, it might be for diversionary posts to be relabeled in the subject line a bit more diligently, so that one can still keep track of the original subject matter easily, while still enjoying the tangential material. Other than that, I hope that these sorts of discussions continue unabated! boB
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ned Batchelder <ned@nedbatchelder.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-24 10:44 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: META Culture of this place [was Re: for / while else doesn't make sense] |
| Message-ID | <0b7068ec-f558-4ae7-a3a1-a10f41c948ed@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #109067 |
On Tuesday, May 24, 2016 at 12:44:04 PM UTC-4, Steven D'Aprano wrote: > On Tue, 24 May 2016 12:19 pm, Ned Batchelder wrote: > > > Ugh, can we please stop with the "well, actually" pedantic tangents? > > With respect, no. > > This is a forum with a very tolerant approach to off-topic and only- > slightly-on-topic discussions. If you want a forum that follows strict rules > for what's allowed and what's not, you're in the wrong place. I'm not looking for strict rules. The discussions can be good. > There are > plenty of such forums available: Stackoverflow, /r/python, #python, > Python-Dev, etc, all with their own idiosyncrasies. This is ours: we have a > bunch of people here who enjoy extended discussions on computing matters > which are sometimes only tangentially related to Python. Can we compromise? Try to cast these discussions in a "yes" form rather than a "no" form? This very thread got a bit contentious, primarily because it seemed like people weren't trying to assume the best about the others in the thread. Having a discussion about the details of floating point is fine, but do we want to get into fights over it? Those can be avoided, surely. Once the tone gets to picking apart any detail, no matter how trivial, it's just turned into a contest to see who can be more right. When Christopher said "8-bit ASCII," he wasn't claiming that ASCII was defined as an 8-bit character encoding. He was making a light-hearted comment about the use of esoteric symbols. You can accept that comment on those terms, rather than replying, "No, it's 7-bit." How many bits ASCII uses is completely beside the point. You don't need to correct people on every tangential fact. Yes, there are a bunch of people here who enjoy and participate in the extended diversions. But they can also become points of contention, which I hope no one wants. We've seen people vocally not enjoying them. And beyond that, harder to gauge is how much they prevent people from entering the conversation. All I'm asking for is tempering it a bit. I understand we don't want or need strict rules. But can we stay positive and friendly? --Ned.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-24 12:54 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: META Culture of this place [was Re: for / while else doesn't make sense] |
| Message-ID | <871t4rgrl2.fsf@jester.gateway.pace.com> |
| In reply to | #109075 |
Ned Batchelder <ned@nedbatchelder.com> writes: > Once the tone gets to picking apart any detail, no matter how trivial, it's > just turned into a contest to see who can be more right. It helps to use a threaded news/mail reader (I use gnus). When a subtopic starts going off the fails, hitting control-K marks the rest of the thread as read. I do that all the time.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Grant Edwards <grant.b.edwards@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-24 14:23 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <mailman.54.1464099832.20402.python-list@python.org> |
| In reply to | #109037 |
On 2016-05-24, Steven D'Aprano <steve@pearwood.info> wrote:
> On Tue, 24 May 2016 08:36 am, Christopher Reimer wrote:
>
>> Those symbols are blowing my 8-bit ASCII brain. :)
>
> That's certainly true, because there is no such thing as 8-bit ASCII.
He meant to say "my 8-bit, ASCII brain". The adjectives "8-bit" and
"ASCII" were both modifying brain.
--
Grant Edwards grant.b.edwards Yow! I'm pretending that
at we're all watching PHIL
gmail.com SILVERS instead of RICARDO
MONTALBAN!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Christopher Reimer <christopher_reimer@icloud.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-24 10:40 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <mailman.64.1464115222.20402.python-list@python.org> |
| In reply to | #109037 |
On May 24, 2016, at 7:23 AM, Grant Edwards <grant.b.edwards@gmail.com> wrote: > >> On 2016-05-24, Steven D'Aprano <steve@pearwood.info> wrote: >>> On Tue, 24 May 2016 08:36 am, Christopher Reimer wrote: >>> >>> Those symbols are blowing my 8-bit ASCII brain. :) >> >> That's certainly true, because there is no such thing as 8-bit ASCII. > > He meant to say "my 8-bit, ASCII brain". The adjectives "8-bit" and > "ASCII" were both modifying brain. Nope. I meant 8-bit ASCII (0-255). http://www.ascii-code.com Thank you, Chris R.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gregory Ewing <greg.ewing@canterbury.ac.nz> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-25 18:38 +1200 |
| Message-ID | <dqkviiFr38vU2@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #109082 |
Christopher Reimer wrote: > Nope. I meant 8-bit ASCII (0-255). > > http://www.ascii-code.com That page is talking about latin-1, which is just one of many possible 8-bit extensions of ascii. -- Greg
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-25 17:30 +1000 |
| Subject | Extended ASCII [was Re: for / while else doesn't make sense] |
| Message-ID | <5745548e$0$1602$c3e8da3$5496439d@news.astraweb.com> |
| In reply to | #109102 |
On Wednesday 25 May 2016 16:38, Gregory Ewing wrote: > Christopher Reimer wrote: >> Nope. I meant 8-bit ASCII (0-255). >> >> http://www.ascii-code.com > > That page is talking about latin-1, which is just one of many > possible 8-bit extensions of ascii. Yes. It even says "There are *several* different variations of the 8-bit ASCII table." (emphasis added), which is an understatement and a half. Wikipedia claims over 220 different "extended ASCII" encodings: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extended_ASCII That's more than the number of countries in the world, which (depending on how you count them) is generally recognised to be about 194. http://www.worldatlas.com/nations.htm -- Steve
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Christopher Reimer <christopher_reimer@icloud.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-25 02:10 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <mailman.80.1464167464.20402.python-list@python.org> |
| In reply to | #109102 |
> On May 24, 2016, at 11:38 PM, Gregory Ewing <greg.ewing@canterbury.ac.nz> wrote: > > Christopher Reimer wrote: >> Nope. I meant 8-bit ASCII (0-255). >> http://www.ascii-code.com > > That page is talking about latin-1, which is just one of many > possible 8-bit extensions of ascii. Back in the early 1980's, I grew up on 8-bit processors and latin-1 was all we had for ASCII. Over the last several days from reading this thread (and variations thereof), l've seen several extended characters that I have no clue on how to reproduce on my keyboard. I haven't embraced extended character sets yet, which means I still think of ASCII characters as being 0 through 255 (8-bit). Thank you, Chris R.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-25 20:19 +1000 |
| Subject | Exended ASCII and code pages [was Re: for / while else doesn't make sense] |
| Message-ID | <57457c4f$0$11122$c3e8da3@news.astraweb.com> |
| In reply to | #109107 |
On Wednesday 25 May 2016 19:10, Christopher Reimer wrote: > Back in the early 1980's, I grew up on 8-bit processors and latin-1 was all > we had for ASCII. It really, truly wasn't. But you can be forgiven for not knowing that, since until the rise of the public Internet most people weren't exposed to more than one code page or encoding, and it was incredibly common for people to call *any* encoding "ASCII". (That's like calling any computer "an IBM", or any soft-drink "Coke".) But being an old Mac user from the 1980s, I'm very aware that DOS and Mac used different character sets, although even I wasn't aware at the time that the DOS character sets were internationalised with different versions of "extended ASCII". (That's how Anglo-centric I was in the 1980s: I honestly never gave a moment's thought to the fact that, say, Greek computer users would like to be able to type in Greek. I thought that while DOS users and Mac users had different character sets, all DOS users had the same character set, and likewise for Mac users.) The first code pages were from IBM in the 1970s. Different countries had their own national standards for "extended ASCII", as did different computer manufacturers. Apple, Apricot, Atari, Commodore and other hardware manufacturers used their own proprietary extensions. Due to the close partnership between IBM and Microsoft, they kept their register of code pages in sync until they fell out over OS/2 and NT. Since the 1990s, not so much. The Wikipedia articles on "Code page", "Extended ASCII" etc are good for giving a broad overview, but they lack a lot of the finer detail such as the years the different standards were formally created and when they were first made available as code pages on PCs. If you care about that sort of minutia, you will have to go digging. But very broadly speaking, even in the 1980s there was no shortage of extensions to ASCII. While the code page system was necessary at the time, the legacy of them today continues to plague computer users, causing moji-bake, errors on file systems[1], and holding back the adoption of Unicode. [1] I'm speaking from experience there. Take files created on a Windows machine using some legacy code page, and try to copy them to another server using Unicode, and depending on the intelligence of the server, you may not be able to copy them. On the flip side, there are many file names I can easily create on Linux but cannot copy to a FAT file system. -- Steve
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-25 20:30 +1000 |
| Subject | Re: Exended ASCII and code pages [was Re: for / while else doesn't make sense] |
| Message-ID | <mailman.81.1464172258.20402.python-list@python.org> |
| In reply to | #109108 |
On Wed, May 25, 2016 at 8:19 PM, Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> wrote: > While the code page system was necessary at > the time, the legacy of them today continues to plague computer users, causing > moji-bake, errors on file systems[1], and holding back the adoption of Unicode. > > [1] I'm speaking from experience there. Take files created on a Windows machine > using some legacy code page, and try to copy them to another server using > Unicode, and depending on the intelligence of the server, you may not be able > to copy them. On the flip side, there are many file names I can easily create > on Linux but cannot copy to a FAT file system. And getting a .zip file from a Windows user that had a file in it called "Café Sounds.something", extracting it on Linux, and finding it called "Caf\xe9" or something. Very annoying. Fortunately it was only the one file in a large directory. ChrisA
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Erik <python@lucidity.plus.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-25 22:03 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: Exended ASCII and code pages [was Re: for / while else doesn't make sense] |
| Message-ID | <mailman.92.1464210223.20402.python-list@python.org> |
| In reply to | #109108 |
On 25/05/16 11:19, Steven D'Aprano wrote: > On Wednesday 25 May 2016 19:10, Christopher Reimer wrote: > >> Back in the early 1980's, I grew up on 8-bit processors and latin-1 was all >> we had for ASCII. > > It really, truly wasn't. But you can be forgiven for not knowing that, since > until the rise of the public Internet most people weren't exposed to more than > one code page or encoding, and it was incredibly common for people to call > *any* encoding "ASCII". Indeed - at that time, I was working with COBOL on an IBM S/370. On that system, we used EBCDIC ASCII. That was the wierdest ASCII of all <ducks> ;) E.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jussi Piitulainen <jussi.piitulainen@helsinki.fi> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-26 10:21 +0300 |
| Subject | Re: Exended ASCII and code pages [was Re: for / while else doesn't make sense] |
| Message-ID | <lf5fut5jnca.fsf@ling.helsinki.fi> |
| In reply to | #109128 |
Erik writes: > On 25/05/16 11:19, Steven D'Aprano wrote: >> On Wednesday 25 May 2016 19:10, Christopher Reimer wrote: >> >>> Back in the early 1980's, I grew up on 8-bit processors and latin-1 >>> was all we had for ASCII. >> >> It really, truly wasn't. But you can be forgiven for not knowing >> that, since until the rise of the public Internet most people weren't >> exposed to more than one code page or encoding, and it was incredibly >> common for people to call *any* encoding "ASCII". > > Indeed - at that time, I was working with COBOL on an IBM S/370. On > that system, we used EBCDIC ASCII. That was the wierdest ASCII of all > <ducks> ;) UTF-8 ASCII is nice. UTF-16 ASCII is weird. Wierd. Probably all right in an environment that is otherwise set to use UTF-16. Nothing is as weird as a mix of different encodings of a foreign script in the same "plain text" file, said to be "Unicode". <shudder/>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 6 of 15 — ← Prev page 1 … 4 5 [6] 7 8 … 15 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.python
csiph-web