Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.python > #39463 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Piterrr <piterrr.dolinski@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2013-02-21 13:26 -0800 |
| Last post | 2013-02-25 19:37 -0800 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 161 — 34 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.python
Python Newbie Piterrr <piterrr.dolinski@gmail.com> - 2013-02-21 13:26 -0800
Re: Python Newbie Ian Kelly <ian.g.kelly@gmail.com> - 2013-02-21 14:54 -0700
Re: Python Newbie MRAB <python@mrabarnett.plus.com> - 2013-02-21 21:58 +0000
Re: Python Newbie Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2013-02-22 08:59 +1100
Re: Python Newbie Peter Pearson <ppearson@nowhere.invalid> - 2013-02-21 22:03 +0000
Re: Python Newbie Dave Angel <davea@davea.name> - 2013-02-21 17:22 -0500
Re: Python Newbie piterrr.dolinski@gmail.com - 2013-02-21 14:40 -0800
Re: Python Newbie Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2013-02-22 10:21 +1100
Re: Python Newbie piterrr.dolinski@gmail.com - 2013-02-21 15:34 -0800
Re: Python Newbie Mark Lawrence <breamoreboy@yahoo.co.uk> - 2013-02-21 23:48 +0000
Re: Python Newbie Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2013-02-22 11:32 +1100
Re: Python Newbie Michael Torrie <torriem@gmail.com> - 2013-02-23 11:58 -0700
Re: Python Newbie piterrr.dolinski@gmail.com - 2013-02-21 15:34 -0800
Re: Python Newbie Oscar Benjamin <oscar.j.benjamin@gmail.com> - 2013-02-21 23:27 +0000
Re: Python Newbie Ian Kelly <ian.g.kelly@gmail.com> - 2013-02-21 16:55 -0700
Re: Python Newbie rusi <rustompmody@gmail.com> - 2013-02-21 22:57 -0800
Re: Python Newbie Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2013-02-22 10:26 +0000
Re: Python Newbie Steve Simmons <square.steve@gmail.com> - 2013-02-22 12:05 +0100
Re: Python Newbie Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2013-02-22 22:23 +1100
Re: Python Newbie Michael Torrie <torriem@gmail.com> - 2013-02-23 16:04 -0700
Re: Python Newbie Vito De Tullio <vito.detullio@gmail.com> - 2013-02-24 09:23 +0100
Re: Python Newbie "J.R." <groups_jr-1@yahoo.com.br> - 2013-02-24 23:02 -0300
Re: Python Newbie Roy Smith <roy@panix.com> - 2013-02-24 21:03 -0500
Re: Python Newbie "J.R." <groups_jr-1@yahoo.com.br> - 2013-02-24 23:35 -0300
Re: Python Newbie Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2013-02-25 13:31 +1100
Re: Python Newbie Dennis Lee Bieber <wlfraed@ix.netcom.com> - 2013-02-21 19:35 -0500
Re: Python Newbie Mitya Sirenef <msirenef@lightbird.net> - 2013-02-21 23:50 -0500
Re: Python Newbie Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2013-02-22 11:58 +0000
Re: Python Newbie Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2013-02-22 23:12 +1100
Re: Python Newbie Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2013-02-22 13:50 +0000
Re: Python Newbie Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2013-02-23 01:05 +1100
Re: Python Newbie Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2013-02-23 00:03 +0000
Re: Python Newbie Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2013-02-23 11:21 +1100
Re: Python Newbie Duncan Booth <duncan.booth@invalid.invalid> - 2013-02-22 14:26 +0000
Re: Python Newbie Steve Simmons <square.steve@gmail.com> - 2013-02-22 15:45 +0100
Re: Python Newbie Duncan Booth <duncan.booth@invalid.invalid> - 2013-02-22 15:02 +0000
Re: Python Newbie Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2013-02-23 02:06 +1100
Re: Python Newbie piterrr.dolinski@gmail.com - 2013-02-22 13:37 -0800
Re: Python Newbie Oscar Benjamin <oscar.j.benjamin@gmail.com> - 2013-02-22 22:08 +0000
Re: Python Newbie Ian Kelly <ian.g.kelly@gmail.com> - 2013-02-22 15:45 -0700
Re: Python Newbie piterrr.dolinski@gmail.com - 2013-02-22 15:38 -0800
Re: Python Newbie Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2013-02-23 11:17 +1100
Re: Python Newbie Dennis Lee Bieber <wlfraed@ix.netcom.com> - 2013-02-23 13:29 -0500
Re: Python Newbie Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2013-02-24 08:38 +1100
Re: Python Newbie Michael Torrie <torriem@gmail.com> - 2013-02-23 15:52 -0700
Re: Python Newbie Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2013-02-24 10:18 +1100
Re: Python Newbie piterrr.dolinski@gmail.com - 2013-02-23 15:46 -0800
Re: Python Newbie Larry Hudson <orgnut@yahoo.com> - 2013-02-23 20:20 -0800
Re: Python Newbie Mark Lawrence <breamoreboy@yahoo.co.uk> - 2013-02-24 14:34 +0000
Re: Python Newbie piterrr.dolinski@gmail.com - 2013-02-24 07:46 -0800
Re: Python Newbie Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2013-02-25 02:52 +1100
Re: Python Newbie Roy Smith <roy@panix.com> - 2013-02-24 11:22 -0500
Re: Python Newbie Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2013-02-24 17:44 +0000
Re: Python Newbie piterrr.dolinski@gmail.com - 2013-02-24 11:29 -0800
Re: Python Newbie Joshua Landau <joshua.landau.ws@gmail.com> - 2013-02-24 21:35 +0000
Re: Python Newbie piterrr.dolinski@gmail.com - 2013-02-24 14:43 -0800
Re: Python Newbie Joel Goldstick <joel.goldstick@gmail.com> - 2013-02-24 18:05 -0500
Re: Python Newbie Joshua Landau <joshua.landau.ws@gmail.com> - 2013-02-24 23:13 +0000
Re: Python Newbie piterrr.dolinski@gmail.com - 2013-02-24 14:43 -0800
Re: Python Newbie Larry Hudson <orgnut@yahoo.com> - 2013-02-26 00:32 -0800
Re: Python Newbie rurpy@yahoo.com - 2013-02-26 10:23 -0800
Re: Python Newbie Ethan Furman <ethan@stoneleaf.us> - 2013-02-26 10:59 -0800
Re: Python Newbie rurpy@yahoo.com - 2013-02-26 13:30 -0800
Re: Python Newbie Michael Torrie <torriem@gmail.com> - 2013-02-24 18:31 -0700
Re: Python Newbie Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2013-02-25 09:08 +1100
Re: Python Newbie Oscar Benjamin <oscar.j.benjamin@gmail.com> - 2013-02-24 23:18 +0000
Re: Python Newbie Joshua Landau <joshua.landau.ws@gmail.com> - 2013-02-24 22:51 +0000
Re: Python Newbie piterrr.dolinski@gmail.com - 2013-02-24 15:38 -0800
Re: Python Newbie Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2013-02-25 10:45 +1100
Re: Python Newbie Ethan Furman <ethan@stoneleaf.us> - 2013-02-24 15:53 -0800
Re: Python Newbie piterrr.dolinski@gmail.com - 2013-02-24 16:08 -0800
Re: Python Newbie Joshua Landau <joshua.landau.ws@gmail.com> - 2013-02-25 00:28 +0000
Re: Python Newbie Mark Lawrence <breamoreboy@yahoo.co.uk> - 2013-02-25 00:38 +0000
Re: Python Newbie Ethan Furman <ethan@stoneleaf.us> - 2013-02-24 16:33 -0800
Re: Python Newbie Oscar Benjamin <oscar.j.benjamin@gmail.com> - 2013-02-25 00:45 +0000
Re: Python Newbie Roy Smith <roy@panix.com> - 2013-02-24 19:50 -0500
Re: Python Newbie Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2013-02-25 01:04 +0000
Re: Python Newbie Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2013-02-25 12:27 +1100
Re: Python Newbie Michael Torrie <torriem@gmail.com> - 2013-02-24 18:42 -0700
Re: Python Newbie Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2013-02-25 12:24 +1100
Re: Python Newbie Oscar Benjamin <oscar.j.benjamin@gmail.com> - 2013-02-25 01:44 +0000
Re: Python Newbie Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2013-02-25 12:53 +1100
Re: Python Newbie MRAB <python@mrabarnett.plus.com> - 2013-02-25 02:23 +0000
Re: Python Newbie Ethan Furman <ethan@stoneleaf.us> - 2013-02-24 18:59 -0800
Re: Python Newbie piterrr.dolinski@gmail.com - 2013-02-24 16:08 -0800
Re: Python Newbie Roy Smith <roy@panix.com> - 2013-02-24 19:42 -0500
Re: Python Newbie piterrr.dolinski@gmail.com - 2013-02-24 15:38 -0800
Re: Python Newbie Joshua Landau <joshua.landau.ws@gmail.com> - 2013-02-24 23:21 +0000
Re: Python Newbie Dave Angel <davea@davea.name> - 2013-02-24 17:47 -0500
Re: Python Newbie Serhiy Storchaka <storchaka@gmail.com> - 2013-02-25 14:40 +0200
Re: Python Newbie piterrr.dolinski@gmail.com - 2013-02-24 07:46 -0800
Re: Python Newbie Michael Torrie <torriem@gmail.com> - 2013-02-23 22:23 -0700
Re: Python Newbie MRAB <python@mrabarnett.plus.com> - 2013-02-24 00:11 +0000
Re: Python Newbie Dennis Lee Bieber <wlfraed@ix.netcom.com> - 2013-02-24 12:37 -0500
Re: Python Newbie Michael Torrie <torriem@gmail.com> - 2013-02-24 10:56 -0700
Re: Python Newbie Roy Smith <roy@panix.com> - 2013-02-24 13:07 -0500
Re: Python Newbie Dennis Lee Bieber <wlfraed@ix.netcom.com> - 2013-02-24 21:01 -0500
Re: Python Newbie piterrr.dolinski@gmail.com - 2013-02-22 15:38 -0800
Re: Python Newbie Terry Reedy <tjreedy@udel.edu> - 2013-02-22 20:04 -0500
Re: Python Newbie rurpy@yahoo.com - 2013-02-22 18:48 -0800
Re: Python Newbie Mitya Sirenef <msirenef@lightbird.net> - 2013-02-22 20:47 -0500
Re: Python Newbie Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2013-02-23 02:02 +0000
Re: Python Newbie Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2013-02-23 13:18 +1100
Re: Python Newbie Grant Edwards <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2013-02-24 18:19 +0000
Re: Python Newbie Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2013-02-25 07:25 +1100
Re: Python Newbie Mitya Sirenef <msirenef@lightbird.net> - 2013-02-22 21:40 -0500
Re: Python Newbie Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2013-02-23 13:48 +1100
Re: Python Newbie Mark Lawrence <breamoreboy@yahoo.co.uk> - 2013-02-23 02:59 +0000
Re: Python Newbie Dennis Lee Bieber <wlfraed@ix.netcom.com> - 2013-02-23 13:34 -0500
Re: Python Newbie Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2013-02-24 08:40 +1100
Re: Python Newbie Dennis Lee Bieber <wlfraed@ix.netcom.com> - 2013-02-24 12:41 -0500
Re: Python Newbie Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2013-02-23 04:13 +0000
Re: Python Newbie Serhiy Storchaka <storchaka@gmail.com> - 2013-02-23 11:48 +0200
Re: Python Newbie Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2013-02-23 12:30 +0000
Re: Python Newbie Steve Simmons <square.steve@gmail.com> - 2013-02-23 16:43 +0100
Re: Python Newbie jmfauth <wxjmfauth@gmail.com> - 2013-02-23 10:44 -0800
Re: Python Newbie Ian Kelly <ian.g.kelly@gmail.com> - 2013-02-23 12:13 -0700
Re: Python Newbie Ethan Furman <ethan@stoneleaf.us> - 2013-02-23 11:08 -0800
Re: Python Newbie jmfauth <wxjmfauth@gmail.com> - 2013-02-23 12:53 -0800
Re: Python Newbie Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2013-02-24 08:48 +1100
Re: Python Newbie Mark Lawrence <breamoreboy@yahoo.co.uk> - 2013-02-24 00:02 +0000
Re: Python Newbie Michael Torrie <torriem@gmail.com> - 2013-02-23 12:16 -0700
Re: Python Newbie Matej Cepl <mcepl@redhat.com> - 2013-02-24 00:06 +0100
Re: Python Newbie Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2013-02-24 02:51 +1100
Re: Python Newbie Matej Cepl <mcepl@redhat.com> - 2013-02-24 00:04 +0100
Re: Python Newbie Ethan Furman <ethan@stoneleaf.us> - 2013-02-23 08:32 -0800
Re: Python Newbie Steve Simmons <square.steve@gmail.com> - 2013-02-23 18:39 +0100
Re: Python Newbie Michael Torrie <torriem@gmail.com> - 2013-02-23 12:19 -0700
Re: Python Newbie Mark Lawrence <breamoreboy@yahoo.co.uk> - 2013-02-24 17:11 +0000
Re: Python Newbie piterrr.dolinski@gmail.com - 2013-02-24 11:40 -0800
Re: Python Newbie Mitya Sirenef <msirenef@lightbird.net> - 2013-02-24 15:06 -0500
Re: Python Newbie "Michael Ross" <gmx@ross.cx> - 2013-02-24 21:33 +0100
Re: Python Newbie MRAB <python@mrabarnett.plus.com> - 2013-02-24 20:34 +0000
Re: Python Newbie Mark Lawrence <breamoreboy@yahoo.co.uk> - 2013-02-24 20:41 +0000
Re: Python Newbie Ethan Furman <ethan@stoneleaf.us> - 2013-02-24 12:34 -0800
Re: Python Newbie Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2013-02-25 07:42 +1100
Re: Python Newbie Roy Smith <roy@panix.com> - 2013-02-24 15:48 -0500
Re: Python Newbie Joshua Landau <joshua.landau.ws@gmail.com> - 2013-02-24 21:58 +0000
Re: Python Newbie Dennis Lee Bieber <wlfraed@ix.netcom.com> - 2013-02-24 21:08 -0500
Re: Python Newbie Joshua Landau <joshua.landau.ws@gmail.com> - 2013-02-25 02:59 +0000
Re: Python Newbie Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2013-02-25 07:47 +1100
Re: Python Newbie Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2013-02-25 07:58 +1100
Re: Python Newbie Roy Smith <roy@panix.com> - 2013-02-24 16:08 -0500
Re: Python Newbie Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2013-02-25 08:44 +1100
Re: Python Newbie Mitya Sirenef <msirenef@lightbird.net> - 2013-02-24 17:40 -0500
Re: Python Newbie Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2013-02-25 01:11 +0000
Re: Python Newbie Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2013-02-25 00:42 +0000
Re: Python Newbie Michael Torrie <torriem@gmail.com> - 2013-02-24 18:34 -0700
Re: Python Newbie Ethan Furman <ethan@stoneleaf.us> - 2013-02-24 14:33 -0800
Re: Python Newbie Albert Hopkins <marduk@letterboxes.org> - 2013-02-24 18:32 -0500
Re: Python Newbie Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2013-02-25 10:44 +1100
Re: Python Newbie Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2013-02-25 01:06 +0000
Re: Python Newbie piterrr.dolinski@gmail.com - 2013-02-24 11:40 -0800
Re: Python Newbie piterrr.dolinski@gmail.com - 2013-02-22 13:37 -0800
Re: Python Newbie Mitya Sirenef <msirenef@lightbird.net> - 2013-02-22 20:05 -0500
Re: Python Newbie Gene Heskett <gheskett@wdtv.com> - 2013-02-23 12:32 -0500
Re: Python Newbie Steve Simmons <square.steve@gmail.com> - 2013-02-23 19:10 +0100
Re: Python Newbie Michael Torrie <torriem@gmail.com> - 2013-02-23 11:40 -0700
Re: Python Newbie Michael Torrie <torriem@gmail.com> - 2013-02-23 12:15 -0700
Re: Python Newbie Gene Heskett <gheskett@wdtv.com> - 2013-02-23 17:49 -0500
Re: Python Newbie Nick Mellor <thebalancepro@gmail.com> - 2013-02-25 19:37 -0800
Page 8 of 9 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 [8] 9 Next page →
| From | Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-02-25 07:47 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <mailman.2436.1361738870.2939.python-list@python.org> |
| In reply to | #39778 |
On Mon, Feb 25, 2013 at 7:41 AM, Mark Lawrence <breamoreboy@yahoo.co.uk> wrote: > Your words "the use of () has been widespread and mandated by the compilers" > and "have long used () where they are required". As they are neither > mandated nor required in Python it just wastes the time of anybody reading > code as they have to parse something that offers nothing except visual > noise. As for being "visually pleasing" that's simply laughable. I want to > be able to read code, not hang it in an art gallery. Most of what gets hung in art galleries these days is far less visually pleasing than well-written code. ChrisA
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-02-25 07:58 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <mailman.2438.1361739512.2939.python-list@python.org> |
| In reply to | #39778 |
On Mon, Feb 25, 2013 at 7:34 AM, Ethan Furman <ethan@stoneleaf.us> wrote: > One of the things I love about Python is its ability to get out of the way > and let me work: > > - no variable declarations, just use 'em > - no type declarations, just use 'em > - no need to remember what's an object and what's not -- everything is an > object > - no need to cast to bool as everything has a truthy/falsey (something vs > nothing) value Variable declarations can go either way; Python requires you to name all globals that you mutate, and to be careful when working with nested functions. With declared variables, you name all locals, and can enforce scoping and destructors without language features like 'with'. Both options are viable. I absolutely agree with your third point. Treat 'em all as objects! But of *course*, Java is "more object oriented" than Python. Everyone knows that. ChrisA
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Roy Smith <roy@panix.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-02-24 16:08 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <roy-193546.16080124022013@news.panix.com> |
| In reply to | #39793 |
In article <mailman.2438.1361739512.2939.python-list@python.org>, Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> wrote: > > no need to remember what's an object and what's not -- everything is an > > object Well, not quite everything. If I write: if foo: do_this() and_this() the code block making up the body of the "if" statement is not an object. In some languages, it is.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-02-25 08:44 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <mailman.2442.1361742263.2939.python-list@python.org> |
| In reply to | #39798 |
On Mon, Feb 25, 2013 at 8:08 AM, Roy Smith <roy@panix.com> wrote: > In article <mailman.2438.1361739512.2939.python-list@python.org>, > Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> wrote: > >> > no need to remember what's an object and what's not -- everything is an >> > object Careful on the citations - Ethan Furman said that, I just quoted him. > Well, not quite everything. If I write: > > if foo: > do_this() > and_this() > > the code block making up the body of the "if" statement is not an > object. In some languages, it is. Maybe, but the code of an entire function *is*. Granted, it's not an object that can be built up manually (at least, not that I know of), and it offers only limited functionality (dis.dis, but not a lot else), so really it could be seen as just an implementation detail of the function object itself. But it's still an object. ChrisA
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Mitya Sirenef <msirenef@lightbird.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-02-24 17:40 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <mailman.2446.1361745672.2939.python-list@python.org> |
| In reply to | #39798 |
On 02/24/2013 04:44 PM, Chris Angelico wrote: > On Mon, Feb 25, 2013 at 8:08 AM, Roy Smith <roy@panix.com> wrote: >> In article <mailman.2438.1361739512.2939.python-list@python.org>, >> Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>>> no need to remember what's an object and what's not -- everything is an >>>> object > > Careful on the citations - Ethan Furman said that, I just quoted him. > >> Well, not quite everything. If I write: >> >> if foo: >> do_this() >> and_this() >> >> the code block making up the body of the "if" statement is not an >> object. In some languages, it is. > > Maybe, but the code of an entire function *is*. Granted, it's not an > object that can be built up manually (at least, not that I know of), > and it offers only limited functionality (dis.dis, but not a lot > else), so really it could be seen as just an implementation detail of > the function object itself. But it's still an object. > > ChrisA But if block doesn't have to be inside a function, right? It needs to be inside a module, but then again everything is inside a module, but it wouldn't be very object-oriented if the module was the only object in Python :-). -m -- Lark's Tongue Guide to Python: http://lightbird.net/larks/ The press, the machine, the railway, the telegraph are premises whose thousand-year conclusion no one has yet dared to draw. Friedrich Nietzsche
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-02-25 01:11 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <512aba50$0$29998$c3e8da3$5496439d@news.astraweb.com> |
| In reply to | #39806 |
On Sun, 24 Feb 2013 17:40:54 -0500, Mitya Sirenef wrote: > But if block doesn't have to be inside a function, right? It needs to be > inside a module, but then again everything is inside a module, but it > wouldn't be very object-oriented if the module was the only object in > Python :-). Python doesn't have code blocks as distinct values. I suppose you could fake it using compile() and eval() by hand, but it wouldn't work very well. Ruby-style code blocks have been requested for many years. GvR has given his support to this *in principle*, but it depends on somebody thinking up decent, unambiguous syntax that works with the rest of Python. -- Steven
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-02-25 00:42 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <512ab390$0$29998$c3e8da3$5496439d@news.astraweb.com> |
| In reply to | #39798 |
On Sun, 24 Feb 2013 16:08:01 -0500, Roy Smith wrote: > In article <mailman.2438.1361739512.2939.python-list@python.org>, > Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> wrote: > >> > no need to remember what's an object and what's not -- everything is >> > an object > > Well, not quite everything. If I write: > > if foo: > do_this() > and_this() > > the code block making up the body of the "if" statement is not an > object. In some languages, it is. In Python, that code block isn't any *thing*. It's merely a small part of the enclosing code block, which *is* an object. When we say "everything is an object" in Python, we're talking about values, not arbitrary language constructs. The "*3" bit of "y = x*3" is not a value, a for-loop is not a value, and the delay you experience when you call time.sleep(30) is not a value, so none of these things are objects. This is not to reduce the importance of these things as programming concepts, but they aren't the kind of things we mean when we say everything is an object. -- Steven
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Michael Torrie <torriem@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-02-24 18:34 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <mailman.2475.1361756055.2939.python-list@python.org> |
| In reply to | #39798 |
On 02/24/2013 03:40 PM, Mitya Sirenef wrote: > But if block doesn't have to be inside a function, right? It needs > to be inside a module, but then again everything is inside a module, but > it wouldn't be very object-oriented if the module was the only object in > Python :-). A module indeed fits into the OOP paradigm. It's called a singleton and I love the fact that I can define and use them in python without wrapping them in tons of boilerplate class and factory code.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ethan Furman <ethan@stoneleaf.us> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-02-24 14:33 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <mailman.2447.1361745680.2939.python-list@python.org> |
| In reply to | #39778 |
On 02/24/2013 12:58 PM, Chris Angelico wrote: > On Mon, Feb 25, 2013 at 7:34 AM, Ethan Furman <ethan@stoneleaf.us> wrote: >> >> - no variable declarations, just use 'em > > Variable declarations can go either way; Python requires you to name > all globals that you mutate I'm not sure what you mean -- example? -- ~Ethan~
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Albert Hopkins <marduk@letterboxes.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-02-24 18:32 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <mailman.2456.1361748768.2939.python-list@python.org> |
| In reply to | #39778 |
> Most of what gets hung in art galleries these days is far less > visually pleasing than well-written code. +1 QOTW
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-02-25 10:44 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <mailman.2458.1361749463.2939.python-list@python.org> |
| In reply to | #39778 |
On Mon, Feb 25, 2013 at 9:33 AM, Ethan Furman <ethan@stoneleaf.us> wrote: > On 02/24/2013 12:58 PM, Chris Angelico wrote: >> >> On Mon, Feb 25, 2013 at 7:34 AM, Ethan Furman <ethan@stoneleaf.us> wrote: >>> >>> >>> - no variable declarations, just use 'em >> >> >> Variable declarations can go either way; Python requires you to name >> all globals that you mutate > > > I'm not sure what you mean -- example? Whoops, said the wrong thing. All globals that you assign to. >>> a=1 >>> b=[] >>> def foo(x): y=x+1 global a a+=x b.append(y) >>> foo(2) >>> a 3 >>> b [3] Python requires that you name 'a' in a global statement; C would require a declaration for 'y' to make it local. PHP, meanwhile, would require declarations for both a and b. ChrisA
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-02-25 01:06 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <512ab919$0$29998$c3e8da3$5496439d@news.astraweb.com> |
| In reply to | #39778 |
On Sun, 24 Feb 2013 11:40:05 -0800, piterrr.dolinski wrote: >> > if (some statement): # short form >> > >> > rather than >> > >> > if (some statement == true): # long form >> >> >> What all those ugly brackets are for? >> >> > Mark, > > Back in the day when C was king, or take many newer long established > languages (C#, Java), Python is older than either C# or Java. Why have those languages paid no attention to the innovations of Python, instead of copying the misfeatures of C? Pascal and Algol and Fortran are older than C. Why did C introduce unnecessary brackets when these older languages did not need them? > the use of () has been widespread and mandated by > the compilers. I have never heard anyone moan about the requirement to > use parentheses. You have not been paying attention. In many ways, C has been a curse on programming. It has trained large numbers of coders to expect and *demand* poor syntax. > Now come Python in which parens are optional, and all > of a sudden they are considered bad and apparently widely abandoned. Do > you really not see that code with parens is much more pleasing visually? That's funny. Perhaps you should be programming in Lisp. > I could understand someone's reluctance to use parens if they are very > new to programming and Pythons is their first language. But my > impression here is that most group contributors are long-time > programmers and have long used () where they are required. Again, I'm > really surprised the community as a whole ignores the programming > "heritage" and dumps the parens in a heartbeat. (Because they are unnecessary) (visual noise) (that don't add anything) (useful) (to the reader's understanding) (of the code). -- Steven
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | piterrr.dolinski@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-02-24 11:40 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <mailman.2426.1361735580.2939.python-list@python.org> |
| In reply to | #39757 |
> > if (some statement): # short form > > > > rather than > > > > if (some statement == true): # long form > > > What all those ugly brackets are for? > Mark, Back in the day when C was king, or take many newer long established languages (C#, Java), the use of () has been widespread and mandated by the compilers. I have never heard anyone moan about the requirement to use parentheses. Now come Python in which parens are optional, and all of a sudden they are considered bad and apparently widely abandoned. Do you really not see that code with parens is much more pleasing visually? I could understand someone's reluctance to use parens if they are very new to programming and Pythons is their first language. But my impression here is that most group contributors are long-time programmers and have long used () where they are required. Again, I'm really surprised the community as a whole ignores the programming "heritage" and dumps the parens in a heartbeat. Peter
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | piterrr.dolinski@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-02-22 13:37 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <mailman.2304.1361569049.2939.python-list@python.org> |
| In reply to | #39574 |
Thanks to everyone for all the posts, some friendly some not. I read all of them with genuine interest. So I am continuing to learn Python, here are my new observations for your consideration. There seems to be a "heated" argument about Python's apparently intentional ambiguity in conditional statements. Specifically, the issue is, is it more appropriate to write (as an example) if (some statement): # short form rather than if (some statement == true): # long form Some 50(?) years ago, C was designed so that everything other than 0 evaluated to true and was false otherwise. Fast forward to recent memory, when C# was designed, Microsoft claims they reviewed all the features of C, C++ and Java, pulled the best features from each of these languages and designed a new language that would help minimize the potential for planting bugs. Say what you want about MS inventions, but my experience is that to require the long form notation was a good decision. For me the fact that the short notation is legal in Python is a stepback in language design. Python inventors, when creating what is after all considered a contemporary language, should have known better. Call me psychopath if you will (have seen this in one post), but I shall continue to use the aforementioned long form as I always have, and no Python is going to change that. Today I learned the hard way that all function parameters in Python are passed by reference (meaning whatever happens to them inside a function, new values are always passed to caller). Not good. I got caught up on this. To combat the mostly unwanted behavior, inside a function I have to reassign variables intended to be local to new variables. A pain. Can anyone offer ONE reason why Python was designed that way? Out of curiosity, does anyone have any idea why function declarations are preceded by the keyword "def" rather than something more intuitive like "function" or at least "func", perhaps? Does anyone know what the benefit of writing the cryptic "elif" to mean "else if" is? Curiously, the default statement in an if/else chain is preceded by "else" and not "el". Someone said I am too narrow-sited appreciating C# and not open to alternate approaches to language design. Well if that someone says "def" is better than "function" and "elif" is better than "else if", then dare I say, you are obsessed with Python! So far I am getting the impression that Python is a toy language of some kind (similar to Basic of the early 80's), not really suitable for serious work. The only difference between these languages (admittedly, a serious one) is the existence of extensive libraries. Otherwise there would be no good reason for Python to exist. Nevertheless, it does exist and I have to learn it. As long as someone is paying for my time, that's OK with me. Peter
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Mitya Sirenef <msirenef@lightbird.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-02-22 20:05 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <mailman.2321.1361581532.2939.python-list@python.org> |
| In reply to | #39554 |
On 02/22/2013 06:58 AM, Rui Maciel wrote: > Mitya Sirenef wrote: > >> Looks very unclear and confusing to me. Whether it's C# or ruby or >> anything else, most devs don't indent like that; > > The Go programming language makes that style mandatory. > > > Rui Maciel I was referring to different indentation of the if block, not to braces style. -m -- Lark's Tongue Guide to Python: http://lightbird.net/larks/ The doer alone learneth. Friedrich Nietzsche
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gene Heskett <gheskett@wdtv.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-02-23 12:32 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <mailman.2357.1361640760.2939.python-list@python.org> |
| In reply to | #39463 |
On Saturday 23 February 2013 12:03:00 Ethan Furman did opine: > On 02/23/2013 07:51 AM, Chris Angelico wrote: > > Steve, why do you say you're not a developer? A score of languages > > under your belt, choosing to write code in your spare time, and > > speaking competently on the comparative merits of different languages > > and why you made the decision you made - sounds like you're every bit > > a coder. Don't run yourself down so! :) > > +1 I'll add another +1 to that. My /main/ coding expertise, such as it is, is in assembly on the 6x09 cpu's. Sure, I've done stuff in C, and in Basic09, but when I sit down to do a serious bit of code for that platform that doesn't need fancy trig functions, I do it in assembly. Why? The closer I can get to the hardware, the fewer surprises I find. I can handle input errors for every possible error just by testing for legal input, and if not legal, branch to output a help screen to the dummy that cannot type. Often me. :) Quick stuff that does require some math gets done in basic09 which is good to about 8-9 digits, or calculating the next eclipse, based on julian dates, gets done in C where I have doubles and 17 digit floats available. And I have quite a few bash scripts, often running as background daemons, that greatly simplicate my daily activities. KMail for instance, doesn't have to take 2 minute timeouts while it fetches new mail is one of them. So my email is a matter of tapping the + key for the next message, replying if I want to & clicking send. Everything else is automatic. Ditto if I am working on the old machine & need a printout, I just send the text file from the assembler to device /p, and 15 seconds later a laser printer on that desk fires up and spits out my listing at 22 ppm. /p actually feeds a ser-usb adapter, its output is captured on this machine, sent to cups for rendering & sent back down the same cable to the printer also plugged into that usb hub. To me there is zero point in having to stop & look up the command line syntax to drive lp with a 100 character command line when except for the filename to print, it never changes. Put it in a bash script that doesn't make typu's. So I am a programmer in that sense, just not at the level of abstraction that python has to offer. I am here because I was hoping some knowledge leakage would help me to understand python, but at my age I am beginning to have to admit the level of abstraction is something I may never fully grok. If I ever find a python book that literally starts at square one, it _will_ come home with me though. But I have too many hobbies too, I have a BP rifle that needs a trip to the range this afternoon for some exercise. :) Cheers, Gene -- "There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order." -Ed Howdershelt (Author) My web page: <http://coyoteden.dyndns-free.com:85/gene> is up! My views <http://www.armchairpatriot.com/What%20Has%20America%20Become.shtml> The telephone is a good way to talk to people without having to offer them a drink. -- Fran Lebowitz, "Interview" I was taught to respect my elders, but its getting harder and harder to find any...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Steve Simmons <square.steve@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-02-23 19:10 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <mailman.2361.1361643058.2939.python-list@python.org> |
| In reply to | #39463 |
On 23/02/2013 18:32, Gene Heskett wrote: > I am here because I was hoping some knowledge leakage would help me to > understand python, but at my age I am beginning to have to admit the > level of abstraction is something I may never fully grok. If I ever > find a python book that literally starts at square one, it _will_ come > home with me though. But I have too many hobbies too, I have a BP > rifle that needs a trip to the range this afternoon for some exercise. > :) Cheers, Gene I'm using Rapid GUI Programming with Python & Qt (Mark Summerfield ISBN 978-0-13-235418-9) - it fits for me because I needed something that covered GUI development but also had an intro to the language. The first 3 chapters are a Python intro at a sensible level for experienced coders (none of this 'here is the keyboard, there is the screen' nonsense) so it is enough to get you going with Python. The rest is about Qt/PyQt, taught via manageable examples and giving a fairly well thought out dialogue (monologue?) of what each line/function does. It was useful enough for me to want to carry the hardback version with me on my 'commute' from the UK to Nigeria where I am currently working. I've also got two books by Wesley Chun, (Core Python Programming & Core Python Applications Programming) on my Kindle . I can't give you a sensible verdict on those two because, while I've finally settled to reading fiction on the Kindle, I still like to have a real book when it comes to reference works (on any subject) so they haven't had the usage that Summerfield has. Oh, and you're never too old for anything but most things take longer - gives you more time to enjoy them ;-)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Michael Torrie <torriem@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-02-23 11:40 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <mailman.2366.1361644869.2939.python-list@python.org> |
| In reply to | #39463 |
On 02/21/2013 02:26 PM, Piterrr wrote: > Hi folks. I am a long time C sharp dev, just learning Python now due > to job requirements. My initial impression is that Python has got to > be the most ambiguous and vague language I have seen to date. I have > major issues with the fact that white space matters. How do you deal > with this? Well I never use tabs in python files and I don't expect any python source code file to either. Any that do I consider to be a bug. But as for whitespace syntax formatting in general, I love it. Executable pseudo-code makes for more rapid development (and fewer errors) than in any language I have used to date.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Michael Torrie <torriem@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-02-23 12:15 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <mailman.2372.1361646915.2939.python-list@python.org> |
| In reply to | #39463 |
On 02/23/2013 11:10 AM, Steve Simmons wrote: > I'm using Rapid GUI Programming with Python & Qt (Mark Summerfield ISBN > 978-0-13-235418-9) - it fits for me because I needed something that > covered GUI development but also had an intro to the language. Sounds fun. One thing about PyQt is that it's really just C++ thinly wrapped in python calls. It's not really that pythonic. PySide looks to be a bit better, with more pythonic ways of interacting with things (iteration, etc).
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gene Heskett <gheskett@wdtv.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-02-23 17:49 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <mailman.2383.1361659793.2939.python-list@python.org> |
| In reply to | #39463 |
On Saturday 23 February 2013 17:44:21 Steve Simmons did opine: > On 23/02/2013 18:32, Gene Heskett wrote: > > I am here because I was hoping some knowledge leakage would help me to > > understand python, but at my age I am beginning to have to admit the > > level of abstraction is something I may never fully grok. If I ever > > find a python book that literally starts at square one, it _will_ come > > home with me though. But I have too many hobbies too, I have a BP > > rifle that needs a trip to the range this afternoon for some exercise. > > > > :) Cheers, Gene > > I'm using Rapid GUI Programming with Python & Qt (Mark Summerfield ISBN > 978-0-13-235418-9) - it fits for me because I needed something that > covered GUI development but also had an intro to the language. The > first 3 chapters are a Python intro at a sensible level for experienced > coders (none of this 'here is the keyboard, there is the screen' > nonsense) so it is enough to get you going with Python. The rest is > about Qt/PyQt, taught via manageable examples and giving a fairly well > thought out dialogue (monologue?) of what each line/function does. It > was useful enough for me to want to carry the hardback version with me > on my 'commute' from the UK to Nigeria where I am currently working. > I've also got two books by Wesley Chun, (Core Python Programming & Core > Python Applications Programming) on my Kindle . I can't give you a > sensible verdict on those two because, while I've finally settled to > reading fiction on the Kindle, I still like to have a real book when it > comes to reference works (on any subject) so they haven't had the usage > that Summerfield has. > > Oh, and you're never too old for anything but most things take longer - > gives you more time to enjoy them ;-) Humm, but what if you are worrying about having enough time just to finish a bucket list? However, there so much in my bucket, I doubt if I'll ever see the bottom of it. And of course, looking at it from my side of these trifocals, the real question is should I put a smiley, or a frowny after it, so I'll not confuse the issue by doing either. Cheers, Gene -- "There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order." -Ed Howdershelt (Author) My web page: <http://coyoteden.dyndns-free.com:85/gene> is up! My views <http://www.armchairpatriot.com/What%20Has%20America%20Become.shtml> Our missions are peaceful -- not for conquest. When we do battle, it is only because we have no choice. -- Kirk, "The Squire of Gothos", stardate 2124.5 I was taught to respect my elders, but its getting harder and harder to find any...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 8 of 9 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 [8] 9 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.python
csiph-web