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

Groups > comp.lang.python > #33217 > unrolled thread

stackoverflow quote on Python

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

Contents

  stackoverflow quote on Python Mark Lawrence <breamoreboy@yahoo.co.uk> - 2012-11-13 03:08 +0000
    Re: stackoverflow quote on Python Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2012-11-13 05:42 +0000
      Re: stackoverflow quote on Python wxjmfauth@gmail.com - 2012-11-13 05:21 -0800
        Re: stackoverflow quote on Python Mark Lawrence <breamoreboy@yahoo.co.uk> - 2012-11-13 15:54 +0000
          Re: stackoverflow quote on Python wxjmfauth@gmail.com - 2012-11-14 00:56 -0800
            Re: stackoverflow quote on Python Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2012-11-14 20:07 +1100
        Re: stackoverflow quote on Python Ethan Furman <ethan@stoneleaf.us> - 2012-11-13 08:04 -0800
        Re: stackoverflow quote on Python Thomas Rachel <nutznetz-0c1b6768-bfa9-48d5-a470-7603bd3aa915@spamschutz.glglgl.de> - 2012-11-13 19:19 +0100
    Re: stackoverflow quote on Python Alister <alister.ware@ntlworld.com> - 2012-11-13 13:13 +0000

#33217 — stackoverflow quote on Python

http://stackoverflow.com/questions/tagged/python

"Python has two major versions (2 and 3) in use which have significant 
differences."

I believe that this is incorrect.  The warts have been removed, but 
significant differences, not in my book.  If there is agreement about 
there not being significant differences, should stackoverflow be asked 
to change their wording?

-- 
Cheers.

Mark Lawrence.

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#33220

On Tue, 13 Nov 2012 03:08:54 +0000, Mark Lawrence wrote:

> http://stackoverflow.com/questions/tagged/python
> 
> "Python has two major versions (2 and 3) in use which have significant
> differences."
> 
> I believe that this is incorrect.  The warts have been removed, but
> significant differences, not in my book.  If there is agreement about
> there not being significant differences, should stackoverflow be asked
> to change their wording?

Define "significant".

If StackOverflow mean "significant like the differences between Lisp and 
Cobol", then they are clearly wrong.

On the other hand, if you are suggesting that nothing short of the 
differences between Lisp and Cobol count as significant, then I think you 
too are wrong.

There are clear differences between the two versions, and the much-talked-
about "print is now a function" is the least among them:

* major reorganisation of parts of the standard library, with many
  libraries being removed, renamed, reorganised, or added;

* file objects are completely re-implemented;

* strings are now proper text strings (Unicode), not byte strings;

* nonlocal;

* keyword-only parameters for functions;

* cannot use grouped parameters in functions, e.g. def spam(a, (b,c), d)
  no longer is allowed;

* cannot use "import *" inside a function;

* dict methods keys(), values(), items() are iterators;

* so are map, reduce, zip;

* builtins like reduce, reload have been moved to modules;

* some itertools functions are now builtins;

* sorted and list.sort no longer support comparison functions;

* comparisons between different types may raise TypeError;

* extended iterable unpacking;

* function annotations;

* dict comprehensions and set literals;

* new metaclass syntax;

* classic classes are gone;

* automatic delegation doesn't work for __dunder__ methods;

* backticks `x` gone;


among others. Are these "significant" differences? Well, maybe.



-- 
Steven

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

#33239

Le mardi 13 novembre 2012 06:42:19 UTC+1, Steven D'Aprano a écrit :
> On Tue, 13 Nov 2012 03:08:54 +0000, Mark Lawrence wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> * strings are now proper text strings (Unicode), not byte strings;
> 
 
----

Let me laugh.

jmf

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

#33246

On 13/11/2012 13:21, wxjmfauth@gmail.com wrote:
> Le mardi 13 novembre 2012 06:42:19 UTC+1, Steven D'Aprano a écrit :
>> On Tue, 13 Nov 2012 03:08:54 +0000, Mark Lawrence wrote:
>>
>> * strings are now proper text strings (Unicode), not byte strings;
>>
>
> ----
>
> Let me laugh.
>
> jmf
>

Presumably because you're looking at yourself in a mirror, and have 
finally realised that you've completely misunderstood the work done with 
unicode in Python 3, specifically Python 3.3?

-- 
Cheers.

Mark Lawrence.

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

#33315

Le mardi 13 novembre 2012 16:53:30 UTC+1, Mark Lawrence a écrit :
> On 13/11/2012 13:21, wxjmfauth@gmail.com wrote:
> 
> > Le mardi 13 novembre 2012 06:42:19 UTC+1, Steven D'Aprano a écrit :
> 
> >> On Tue, 13 Nov 2012 03:08:54 +0000, Mark Lawrence wrote:
> 
> >>
> 
> >> * strings are now proper text strings (Unicode), not byte strings;
> 
> >>
> 
> >
> 
> > ----
> 
> >
> 
> > Let me laugh.
> 
> >
> 
> > jmf
> 
> >
> 
> 
> 
> Presumably because you're looking at yourself in a mirror, and have 
> 
> finally realised that you've completely misunderstood the work done with 
> 
> unicode in Python 3, specifically Python 3.3?
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> 
> Cheers.
> 
> 
> 
> Mark Lawrence.

--------

I'am still fascinated by the mathematically absurd "negative
logic" used in and by the flexible string representation
(algorithm).

jmf

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

#33318

On Wed, Nov 14, 2012 at 7:56 PM,  <wxjmfauth@gmail.com> wrote:
> I'am still fascinated by the mathematically absurd "negative
> logic" used in and by the flexible string representation
> (algorithm).

I am still fascinated that you persist in comparing a buggy old Python
against a bug-free new Python and haven't noticed the difference.

ChrisA

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

#33253

wxjmfauth@gmail.com wrote:
> Le mardi 13 novembre 2012 06:42:19 UTC+1, Steven D'Aprano a écrit :
>> On Tue, 13 Nov 2012 03:08:54 +0000, Mark Lawrence wrote:
>>
>> * strings are now proper text strings (Unicode), not byte strings;
> Let me laugh.

*plonk*

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

#33256

Am 13.11.2012 14:21 schrieb wxjmfauth@gmail.com:

>> * strings are now proper text strings (Unicode), not byte strings;
>
> Let me laugh.

Do so.


Thomas

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

#33238

On Tue, 13 Nov 2012 03:08:54 +0000, Mark Lawrence wrote:

> http://stackoverflow.com/questions/tagged/python
> 
> "Python has two major versions (2 and 3) in use which have significant
> differences."
> 
> I believe that this is incorrect.  The warts have been removed, but
> significant differences, not in my book.  If there is agreement about
> there not being significant differences, should stackoverflow be asked
> to change their wording?
I think you are confusing significant with fundamental

they are significant differences because failing to take them into 
account may cause incorrect operation.
they are not fundamental differences because someone familiar with on 
version should have minimal difficulty in understanding the other.




-- 
Lee's Law:
	Mother said there would be days like this,
	but she never said that there'd be so many!

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

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

csiph-web