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 7 of 9 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 5 6 [7] 8 9 Next page →
| From | Mark Lawrence <breamoreboy@yahoo.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-02-24 00:02 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <mailman.2387.1361664091.2939.python-list@python.org> |
| In reply to | #39711 |
On 23/02/2013 21:48, Chris Angelico wrote: > On Sun, Feb 24, 2013 at 7:53 AM, jmfauth <wxjmfauth@gmail.com> wrote: >> On 23 fév, 20:08, Ethan Furman <et...@stoneleaf.us> wrote: >>> On 02/23/2013 10:44 AM, jmfauth wrote: >>> >>> [snip various stupidities] >>> >>>> jmf >>> >>> Peter, jmfauth is one of our resident trolls. Feel free to ignore him. >>> >>> -- >>> ~Ethan~ >> >> Sorry, what can say? >> More memory and slow down! >> If you see a progress, I'm seeing a regression. > > Potted summary for those who aren't familiar with jmf's trolling: > Python 3.2 had a major bug in its Unicode handling, meaning that > non-BMP characters were mis-handled. Python 3.3 fixes these AND > improves performance on the whole. The complaints are about *very* > specific use-cases, and the overall string-handling benchmarks have > dramatically improved; but more importantly, the bug is fixed. > > There, now you too can killfile him without loss. > > ChrisA > See also http://bugs.python.org/issue16061 for work being done to handle edge cases. -- Cheers. Mark Lawrence
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Michael Torrie <torriem@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-02-23 12:16 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <mailman.2373.1361647003.2939.python-list@python.org> |
| In reply to | #39698 |
On 02/23/2013 11:44 AM, jmfauth wrote: > Very easy to explain: wrong, incorrect, naive unicode > handling. You should get together with ranging rick so that his python fork can have unicode done properly then.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Matej Cepl <mcepl@redhat.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-02-24 00:06 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <slrnkiiis3.5n7.mcepl@wycliff.ceplovi.cz> |
| In reply to | #39698 |
On 2013-02-23, 18:44 GMT, jmfauth wrote: > Very easy to explain: wrong, incorrect, naive unicode > handling. PLONK!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-02-24 02:51 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <mailman.2352.1361634721.2939.python-list@python.org> |
| In reply to | #39615 |
On Sun, Feb 24, 2013 at 2:43 AM, Steve Simmons <square.steve@gmail.com> wrote: > I get the impression that you are a developer of some experience on a single > language. I wouldn't call myself a developer but I have written, modified > and/or debugged software in upwards of 20 languages and, from that > perspective, I would say that the second language you learn is probably the > hardest for the simple reason that you have to put away a bunch of learned > prejudices and learn a whole new set. After three or four, you start to see > the commonalities and differences and 'get' why they exist and you find > yourself with a new set of learned prejudices :-) but you also gain the > perspective that some languages are good at 'this' while others are good at > 'that'. +1000 When you learn your first language, you think you're learning to program, but that's not really accurate. Once you've learned half a dozen, you begin to understand something of the art of coding as distinct from any particular language; after that, you can learn any language fairly easily. 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! :) ChrisA
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Matej Cepl <mcepl@redhat.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-02-24 00:04 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <slrnkiiinv.5n7.mcepl@wycliff.ceplovi.cz> |
| In reply to | #39677 |
On 2013-02-23, 15:51 GMT, Chris Angelico wrote: > When you learn your first language, you think you're learning to > program, but that's not really accurate. Once you've learned half a > dozen, you begin to understand something of the art of coding as > distinct from any particular language; after that, you can learn any > language fairly easily. And then you find out that to be REALLY good in one language, you have to focus on one language, because otherwise you are writing in some kind of mishmash. The point is that you don’t need to know any language but to at home in the whole universe of libraries, idioms, patterns, etc. and if you can manage to be REALLY at home in more than one (or let’s say two) universes, you are better than most (professional programmers) I know. Shakespeare wasn’t good in writing German poetry, as far as I know. Matěj
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ethan Furman <ethan@stoneleaf.us> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-02-23 08:32 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <mailman.2356.1361638303.2939.python-list@python.org> |
| In reply to | #39615 |
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
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Steve Simmons <square.steve@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-02-23 18:39 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <mailman.2358.1361641162.2939.python-list@python.org> |
| In reply to | #39615 |
On 23/02/2013 16:51, 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! :)ChrisA I guess I was a developer back in 1972 when I did 15 months worth of COBOL and for a while in the late 70's when I was coding in assembler for ICL machines (24 bit words!) but since then, I've never done enough with any one language to be able to code without 'the book' open in front of me, so I'd feel a bit of a fraud if I called myself a developer. However, what I have done has taught me every computer works in the same way, from the Raspberry Pi all the way back to those 32Kb 'mainframes' of the 70's and that a compiler/linker or interpreter goes through a very similar process for any language on any architecture, although I'm sure someone will reply to this post to tell me that the Gargleflup 3000 model 6.78.009B was COMPLETELY different or to ask why I hadn't mentioned the Zurp language if I was so damn knowledgeable. ;-) I suppose that if I had to label myself, it would be 'IT Generalist' but I've been doing that for over 40 years so I suppose I'm a Specialist Generalist :-)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Michael Torrie <torriem@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-02-23 12:19 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <mailman.2375.1361647174.2939.python-list@python.org> |
| In reply to | #39615 |
On 02/22/2013 02:37 PM, piterrr.dolinski@gmail.com wrote: > Thanks to everyone for all the posts, some friendly some not. I read > all of them with genuine interest. I just finished reading this entire thread and I don't see any posts that are unfriendly. Perhaps some of them are calling you on your inflexibility and lack of experience in languages other than C#. All in all things seem to be very positive and helpful.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Mark Lawrence <breamoreboy@yahoo.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-02-24 17:11 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <mailman.2415.1361725791.2939.python-list@python.org> |
| In reply to | #39615 |
On 22/02/2013 21:37, piterrr.dolinski@gmail.com wrote: > > if (some statement): # short form > > rather than > > if (some statement == true): # long form > What all those ugly brackets are for? > Peter > -- Cheers. Mark Lawrence
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | piterrr.dolinski@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-02-24 11:40 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <61471a01-ee6e-4bc6-bd08-8696a31ec1eb@googlegroups.com> |
| 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 | Mitya Sirenef <msirenef@lightbird.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-02-24 15:06 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <mailman.2427.1361736401.2939.python-list@python.org> |
| In reply to | #39778 |
On 02/24/2013 02:40 PM, piterrr.dolinski@gmail.com 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), 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 When I write in English, I write: If it rains, I'll get an umbrella. I do not write: If (it rains), I'll get an umbrella. The second example isn't any clearer. The only reason you like unneeded parens is that you're used to them. I've never heard of anyone missing this "feature" after a month or two of using Python. -m -- Lark's Tongue Guide to Python: http://lightbird.net/larks/ The world is a perpetual caricature of itself; at every moment it is the mockery and the contradiction of what it is pretending to be. George Santayana
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Michael Ross" <gmx@ross.cx> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-02-24 21:33 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <mailman.2430.1361738021.2939.python-list@python.org> |
| In reply to | #39778 |
On Sun, 24 Feb 2013 20:40:05 +0100, <piterrr.dolinski@gmail.com> 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), the use of () has been widespread and mandated by
> the compilers. I have never heard anyone moan about the requirement to
> use parentheses.
You've never heard me then. I ... "strongly dislike" having to parse
visual elements which I consider superfluous and implicit.
Does the English language have a proverb like "not being able to see the
forest for the trees"?
To me, a C source looks like all brackets. Can't see the code for all the
brackets.
> 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 guess one can get just as religious about the brackets as one can about
the whitespace.
if ( condition ) { action }
vs
if condition: action
In time estimated, I'd say I can read and understand Python code about 20%
faster than any of these brackety languages, even compared to languages I
worked a with couple of years longer. That's a lot of effort saved.
Michael
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | MRAB <python@mrabarnett.plus.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-02-24 20:34 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <mailman.2431.1361738087.2939.python-list@python.org> |
| In reply to | #39778 |
On 2013-02-24 19:40, piterrr.dolinski@gmail.com 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), 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. > Some languages require parentheses, others don't. C does. C++, Java and C# are descended from, or influenced by, C. Algol didn't (doesn't?). Pascal, Modula-2, Oberon, Ada, and others don't. Parentheses are used where required, but not used where they're not required, in order to reduce visual clutter.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Mark Lawrence <breamoreboy@yahoo.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-02-24 20:41 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <mailman.2432.1361738327.2939.python-list@python.org> |
| In reply to | #39778 |
On 24/02/2013 19:40, piterrr.dolinski@gmail.com 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), 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 hea > rtbeat. > > Peter > 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. -- Cheers. Mark Lawrence
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ethan Furman <ethan@stoneleaf.us> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-02-24 12:34 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <mailman.2433.1361738481.2939.python-list@python.org> |
| In reply to | #39778 |
On 02/24/2013 11:40 AM, piterrr.dolinski@gmail.com wrote: > 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. Python will also allow you to have ';' at the end of your lines. It does nothing for you, but perhaps you also find that "visually pleasing"? I find () to be four extra keystrokes, not visually pleasing, and needed only to override order of operations. 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 From a different email you said PyScripter was showing you all the dunder methods? You might want to try one of the others. -- ~Ethan~
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-02-25 07:42 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <mailman.2434.1361738581.2939.python-list@python.org> |
| In reply to | #39778 |
On Mon, Feb 25, 2013 at 7:34 AM, MRAB <python@mrabarnett.plus.com> wrote:
> Some languages require parentheses, others don't.
>
> C does. C++, Java and C# are descended from, or influenced by, C.
>
> Algol didn't (doesn't?). Pascal, Modula-2, Oberon, Ada, and others
> don't.
>
> Parentheses are used where required, but not used where they're not
> required, in order to reduce visual clutter.
And just to muddy the waters, parens are used in Python when the
condition goes over a line break:
if (condition1
and condition2
and condition3):
ChrisA
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Roy Smith <roy@panix.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-02-24 15:48 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <roy-96A76B.15485124022013@news.panix.com> |
| In reply to | #39788 |
In article <mailman.2434.1361738581.2939.python-list@python.org>, Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> wrote: > On Mon, Feb 25, 2013 at 7:34 AM, MRAB <python@mrabarnett.plus.com> wrote: > > Some languages require parentheses, others don't. > > > > C does. C++, Java and C# are descended from, or influenced by, C. > > > > Algol didn't (doesn't?). Pascal, Modula-2, Oberon, Ada, and others > > don't. > > > > Parentheses are used where required, but not used where they're not > > required, in order to reduce visual clutter. > > And just to muddy the waters, parens are used in Python when the > condition goes over a line break: > > if (condition1 > and condition2 > and condition3): > > ChrisA That could also be written: if condition1 \ and condition2 \ and condition3: but as a practical matter, I would write it in the parens style, if for no other reason than because emacs does a better job of auto-indenting it that way :-)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Joshua Landau <joshua.landau.ws@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-02-24 21:58 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <mailman.2443.1361743157.2939.python-list@python.org> |
| In reply to | #39792 |
[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw
On 24 February 2013 20:48, Roy Smith <roy@panix.com> wrote:
> In article <mailman.2434.1361738581.2939.python-list@python.org>,
> Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Mon, Feb 25, 2013 at 7:34 AM, MRAB <python@mrabarnett.plus.com>
> wrote:
> > > Some languages require parentheses, others don't.
> > >
> > > C does. C++, Java and C# are descended from, or influenced by, C.
> > >
> > > Algol didn't (doesn't?). Pascal, Modula-2, Oberon, Ada, and others
> > > don't.
> > >
> > > Parentheses are used where required, but not used where they're not
> > > required, in order to reduce visual clutter.
> >
> > And just to muddy the waters, parens are used in Python when the
> > condition goes over a line break:
> >
> > if (condition1
> > and condition2
> > and condition3):
> >
> > ChrisA
>
> That could also be written:
>
> if condition1 \
> and condition2 \
> and condition3:
>
> but as a practical matter, I would write it in the parens style, if for
> no other reason than because emacs does a better job of auto-indenting
> it that way :-)
>
Pah,
condition1 = long_condition_expression_1
condition2 = long_condition_expression_2
condition3 = long_condition_expression_3
if condition1 and condition2 and condition3:
STUFF
No multiline needed. If you have *many* conditions, then:
supercondition = all(
condition1,
condition2,
condition3,
condition4,
condition5,
condition6,
condition7,
condition8,
condition9
) # or equiv.
if supercondition:
STUFF
Reason:
Indentation should be *really simple*.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Dennis Lee Bieber <wlfraed@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-02-24 21:08 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <mailman.2481.1361758130.2939.python-list@python.org> |
| In reply to | #39792 |
On Sun, 24 Feb 2013 21:58:36 +0000, Joshua Landau
<joshua.landau.ws@gmail.com> declaimed the following in
gmane.comp.python.general:
>
> condition1 = long_condition_expression_1
> condition2 = long_condition_expression_2
> condition3 = long_condition_expression_3
>
> if condition1 and condition2 and condition3:
> STUFF
>
> No multiline needed. If you have *many* conditions, then:
>
Except that Python does short-circuit evaluation; your scheme will
fail in some situations:
>>> x = 0
>>> if x != 0 and 32 / x > 4:
... print "we passed"
...
>>> c1 = x != 0
>>> c2 = 32 / x > 4
Traceback (most recent call last):
File "<interactive input>", line 1, in <module>
ZeroDivisionError: integer division or modulo by zero
>>>
--
Wulfraed Dennis Lee Bieber AF6VN
wlfraed@ix.netcom.com HTTP://wlfraed.home.netcom.com/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Joshua Landau <joshua.landau.ws@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-02-25 02:59 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <mailman.2486.1361761231.2939.python-list@python.org> |
| In reply to | #39792 |
[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw
On 25 February 2013 02:08, Dennis Lee Bieber <wlfraed@ix.netcom.com> wrote: > On Sun, 24 Feb 2013 21:58:36 +0000, Joshua Landau > <joshua.landau.ws@gmail.com> declaimed the following in > gmane.comp.python.general: > > > > > > condition1 = long_condition_expression_1 > > condition2 = long_condition_expression_2 > > condition3 = long_condition_expression_3 > > > > if condition1 and condition2 and condition3: > > STUFF > > > > No multiline needed. If you have *many* conditions, then: > > > Except that Python does short-circuit evaluation; your scheme will > fail in some situations: > > >>> x = 0 > >>> if x != 0 and 32 / x > 4: > ... print "we passed" > ... > >>> c1 = x != 0 > >>> c2 = 32 / x > 4 > Traceback (most recent call last): > File "<interactive input>", line 1, in <module> > ZeroDivisionError: integer division or modulo by zero > >>> > Yeah, well... context*. There are perfectly legitimate ways of doing that too. A simple one would be: > supercondition = ( > long_condition_expression_1 and > long_condition_expression_2 and > long_condition_expression_3 > ) > > if supercondition: ... Please note the problem of the original is that the indentation dedents and indents in too quick a sequence: > if ( > something_here): # Where do I indent this to? > something_else There are standards, but I don't like the style. I thought it worth mentioning as we were all being subjective anyway ;P. It's much worse than: > if something_here: something_else #on the same line which is already explicitly advised against. * By which I mean: fair point
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 7 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