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

Groups > comp.lang.python > #106266 > unrolled thread

[beginner] What's wrong?

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

Contents

  [beginner] What's wrong? Michael Okuntsov <okuntsov.mikhail@yandex.ru> - 2016-04-02 03:48 +0600
    Re: [beginner] What's wrong? Michael Okuntsov <okuntsov.mikhail@yandex.ru> - 2016-04-02 04:10 +0600
      Re: [beginner] What's wrong? sohcahtoa82@gmail.com - 2016-04-01 15:44 -0700
        Re: [beginner] What's wrong? Random832 <random832@fastmail.com> - 2016-04-02 00:27 -0400
        Re: [beginner] What's wrong? Michael Selik <michael.selik@gmail.com> - 2016-04-02 05:36 +0000
        Re: [beginner] What's wrong? William Ray Wing <wrw@mac.com> - 2016-04-02 00:54 -0400
        Re: [beginner] What's wrong? Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2016-04-02 19:15 +1100
        Re: [beginner] What's wrong? Michael Selik <michael.selik@gmail.com> - 2016-04-02 14:48 +0000
        Re: [beginner] What's wrong? Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2016-04-03 01:55 +1100
          Re: [beginner] What's wrong? Marko Rauhamaa <marko@pacujo.net> - 2016-04-02 18:07 +0300
            Re: [beginner] What's wrong? Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2016-04-03 02:36 +1100
            Re: [beginner] What's wrong? Steven D'Aprano <steve@pearwood.info> - 2016-04-03 02:06 +1000
              Re: [beginner] What's wrong? Marko Rauhamaa <marko@pacujo.net> - 2016-04-02 19:44 +0300
                Re: [beginner] What's wrong? Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-04-02 19:12 +0200
                  Re: [beginner] What's wrong? Rustom Mody <rustompmody@gmail.com> - 2016-04-02 10:28 -0700
                    Re: [beginner] What's wrong? Marko Rauhamaa <marko@pacujo.net> - 2016-04-02 21:43 +0300
                    Re: [beginner] What's wrong? Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-04-03 13:47 +0200
                      Re: [beginner] What's wrong? Rustom Mody <rustompmody@gmail.com> - 2016-04-03 07:30 -0700
                        Re: [beginner] What's wrong? Dan Sommers <dan@tombstonezero.net> - 2016-04-03 15:25 +0000
                          Re: [beginner] What's wrong? Rustom Mody <rustompmody@gmail.com> - 2016-04-03 08:39 -0700
                            Re: [beginner] What's wrong? Dan Sommers <dan@tombstonezero.net> - 2016-04-03 16:22 +0000
                              Re: [beginner] What's wrong? Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2016-04-04 02:44 +1000
                              Re: [beginner] What's wrong? Rustom Mody <rustompmody@gmail.com> - 2016-04-03 10:18 -0700
                                Re: [beginner] What's wrong? Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2016-04-04 03:35 +1000
                                Re: [beginner] What's wrong? Dan Sommers <dan@tombstonezero.net> - 2016-04-03 18:26 +0000
                          Re: [beginner] What's wrong? Rustom Mody <rustompmody@gmail.com> - 2016-04-03 08:46 -0700
                            Re: [beginner] What's wrong? Larry Martell <larry.martell@gmail.com> - 2016-04-03 11:55 -0400
                            Re: [beginner] What's wrong? Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2016-04-04 01:53 +1000
                              Re: [beginner] What's wrong? Rustom Mody <rustompmody@gmail.com> - 2016-04-03 09:49 -0700
                                Re: [beginner] What's wrong? Dan Sommers <dan@tombstonezero.net> - 2016-04-03 18:32 +0000
                            Re: [beginner] What's wrong? Dan Sommers <dan@tombstonezero.net> - 2016-04-03 16:07 +0000
                        Re: [beginner] What's wrong? Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-04-06 21:56 +0200
                          Unicode normalisation [was Re: [beginner] What's wrong?] Steven D'Aprano <steve@pearwood.info> - 2016-04-07 11:37 +1000
                            Re: Unicode normalisation [was Re: [beginner] What's wrong?] Marko Rauhamaa <marko@pacujo.net> - 2016-04-07 09:36 +0300
                            Re: Unicode normalisation [was Re: [beginner] What's wrong?] Peter Pearson <pkpearson@nowhere.invalid> - 2016-04-07 16:51 +0000
                              Re: Unicode normalisation [was Re: [beginner] What's wrong?] Rustom Mody <rustompmody@gmail.com> - 2016-04-07 21:43 -0700
                                Re: Unicode normalisation [was Re: [beginner] What's wrong?] Rustom Mody <rustompmody@gmail.com> - 2016-04-07 21:47 -0700
                                Re: Unicode normalisation [was Re: [beginner] What's wrong?] Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2016-04-08 14:54 +1000
                                  Re: Unicode normalisation [was Re: [beginner] What's wrong?] Rustom Mody <rustompmody@gmail.com> - 2016-04-08 10:51 -0700
                              Re: Unicode normalisation [was Re: [beginner] What's wrong?] Steven D'Aprano <steve@pearwood.info> - 2016-04-08 16:00 +1000
                                Re: Unicode normalisation [was Re: [beginner] What's wrong?] Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2016-04-08 16:13 +1000
                                Re: Unicode normalisation [was Re: [beginner] What's wrong?] Peter Pearson <pkpearson@nowhere.invalid> - 2016-04-08 17:21 +0000
                                  Re: Unicode normalisation [was Re: [beginner] What's wrong?] Marko Rauhamaa <marko@pacujo.net> - 2016-04-08 20:44 +0300
                                    Re: Unicode normalisation [was Re: [beginner] What's wrong?] Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2016-04-09 03:50 +1000
                                      Re: Unicode normalisation [was Re: [beginner] What's wrong?] Peter Pearson <pkpearson@nowhere.invalid> - 2016-04-08 18:03 +0000
                                        Re: Unicode normalisation [was Re: [beginner] What's wrong?] Rustom Mody <rustompmody@gmail.com> - 2016-04-08 11:17 -0700
                                          Re: Unicode normalisation [was Re: [beginner] What's wrong?] Rustom Mody <rustompmody@gmail.com> - 2016-04-08 11:20 -0700
                                    Re: Unicode normalisation [was Re: [beginner] What's wrong?] Rustom Mody <rustompmody@gmail.com> - 2016-04-08 11:04 -0700
                                      Re: Unicode normalisation [was Re: [beginner] What's wrong?] Dennis Lee Bieber <wlfraed@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-04-08 20:20 -0400
                                        Re: Unicode normalisation [was Re: [beginner] What's wrong?] alister <alister.ware@ntlworld.com> - 2016-04-09 08:30 +0000
                                          Re: Unicode normalisation [was Re: [beginner] What's wrong?] Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-04-09 14:43 +0100
                                            Re: Unicode normalisation [was Re: [beginner] What's wrong?] Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-04-09 15:34 +0100
                                              Re: Unicode normalisation [was Re: [beginner] What's wrong?] Dennis Lee Bieber <wlfraed@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-04-09 14:30 -0400
                                            Re: Unicode normalisation [was Re: [beginner] What's wrong?] Rustom Mody <rustompmody@gmail.com> - 2016-04-09 09:08 -0700
                                              Re: Unicode normalisation [was Re: [beginner] What's wrong?] Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-04-09 19:27 +0100
                                              Re: Unicode normalisation [was Re: [beginner] What's wrong?] Mark Lawrence <breamoreboy@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-04-09 20:25 +0100
                                              Re: Unicode normalisation [was Re: [beginner] What's wrong?] Stephen Hansen <me@ixokai.io> - 2016-04-09 12:45 -0700
                                            Re: Unicode normalisation [was Re: [beginner] What's wrong?] Gregory Ewing <greg.ewing@canterbury.ac.nz> - 2016-04-10 20:35 +1200
                                      QWERTY was not designed to intentionally slow typists down (was: Unicode normalisation [was Re: [beginner] What's wrong?]) Ben Finney <ben+python@benfinney.id.au> - 2016-04-09 10:43 +1000
                                        Re: QWERTY was not designed to intentionally slow typists down (was: Unicode normalisation [was Re: [beginner] What's wrong?]) Steven D'Aprano <steve@pearwood.info> - 2016-04-09 13:28 +1000
                                          Re: QWERTY was not designed to intentionally slow typists down (was: Unicode normalisation [was Re: [beginner] What's wrong?]) Random832 <random832@fastmail.com> - 2016-04-09 11:44 -0400
                                          Re: QWERTY was not designed to intentionally slow typists down (was: Unicode normalisation [was Re: [beginner] What's wrong?]) Random832 <random832@fastmail.com> - 2016-04-09 11:53 -0400
                                            Re: QWERTY was not designed to intentionally slow typists down (was: Unicode normalisation [was Re: [beginner] What's wrong?]) Steven D'Aprano <steve@pearwood.info> - 2016-04-18 11:39 +1000
                                              Re: QWERTY was not designed to intentionally slow typists down (was: Unicode normalisation [was Re: [beginner] What's wrong?]) Random832 <random832@fastmail.com> - 2016-04-17 22:01 -0400
                                                Re: QWERTY was not designed to intentionally slow typists down (was: Unicode normalisation [was Re: [beginner] What's wrong?]) Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2016-04-18 17:21 +1000
                                                  Re: QWERTY was not designed to intentionally slow typists down Gregory Ewing <greg.ewing@canterbury.ac.nz> - 2016-04-18 21:17 +1200
                                              Re: QWERTY was not designed to intentionally slow typists down (was: Unicode normalisation [was Re: [beginner] What's wrong?]) Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2016-04-18 12:09 +1000
                                              Re: QWERTY was not designed to intentionally slow typists down Michael Torrie <torriem@gmail.com> - 2016-04-17 21:50 -0600
                                              Re: QWERTY was not designed to intentionally slow typists down (was: Unicode normalisation [was Re: [beginner] What's wrong?]) Dennis Lee Bieber <wlfraed@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-04-18 00:06 -0400
                                          Re: QWERTY was not designed to intentionally slow typists down (was: Unicode normalisation [was Re: [beginner] What's wrong?]) Dennis Lee Bieber <wlfraed@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-04-09 14:52 -0400
                                            Re: QWERTY was not designed to intentionally slow typists down (was: Unicode normalisation [was Re: [beginner] What's wrong?]) pyotr filipivich <phamp@mindspring.com> - 2016-04-09 20:09 -0700
                                              Re: QWERTY was not designed to intentionally slow typists down (was: Unicode normalisation [was Re: [beginner] What's wrong?]) Ian Kelly <ian.g.kelly@gmail.com> - 2016-04-10 07:43 -0600
                                                Re: QWERTY was not designed to intentionally slow typists down (was: Unicode normalisation [was Re: [beginner] What's wrong?]) pyotr filipivich <phamp@mindspring.com> - 2016-04-10 19:14 -0700
                                      Re: QWERTY was not designed to intentionally slow typists down Mark Lawrence <breamoreboy@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-04-09 20:13 +0100
                                        Re: QWERTY was not designed to intentionally slow typists down alister <alister.ware@ntlworld.com> - 2016-04-09 20:22 +0000
                                          Re: QWERTY was not designed to intentionally slow typists down Mark Lawrence <breamoreboy@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-04-09 22:23 +0100
                                          Re: QWERTY was not designed to intentionally slow typists down Tim Golden <mail@timgolden.me.uk> - 2016-04-09 22:51 +0100
                                      Re: QWERTY was not designed to intentionally slow typists down Tim Golden <mail@timgolden.me.uk> - 2016-04-09 20:25 +0100
                                      Re: QWERTY was not designed to intentionally slow typists down Mark Lawrence <breamoreboy@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-04-09 20:36 +0100
                                      Re: QWERTY was not designed to intentionally slow typists down Ethan Furman <ethan@stoneleaf.us> - 2016-04-09 14:33 -0700
                                      RE: [E] QWERTY was not designed to intentionally slow typists down (was: Unicode normalisation [was Re: [beginner] What's wrong?]) "Coll-Barth, Michael" <Michael.Coll-Barth@VerizonWireless.com> - 2016-04-09 13:31 -0400
                                  Re: Unicode normalisation [was Re: [beginner] What's wrong?] Steven D'Aprano <steve@pearwood.info> - 2016-04-09 04:44 +1000
                                    Re: Unicode normalisation [was Re: [beginner] What's wrong?] Marko Rauhamaa <marko@pacujo.net> - 2016-04-08 21:55 +0300
                                      Re: Unicode normalisation [was Re: [beginner] What's wrong?] Gregory Ewing <greg.ewing@canterbury.ac.nz> - 2016-04-10 21:25 +1200
                  Re: [beginner] What's wrong? Steven D'Aprano <steve@pearwood.info> - 2016-04-03 09:49 +1000
                    Re: [beginner] What's wrong? Mark Lawrence <breamoreboy@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-04-03 01:26 +0100
                    Re: [beginner] What's wrong? Rustom Mody <rustompmody@gmail.com> - 2016-04-03 07:52 -0700
                      Re: [beginner] What's wrong? Michael Okuntsov <okuntsov.mikhail@yandex.ru> - 2016-04-03 22:24 +0600
                        Re: [beginner] What's wrong? Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2016-04-04 02:28 +1000
                  Re: [beginner] What's wrong? Gregory Ewing <greg.ewing@canterbury.ac.nz> - 2016-04-03 16:57 +1200
                    Re: [beginner] What's wrong? Steven D'Aprano <steve@pearwood.info> - 2016-04-03 15:34 +1000
                Re: [beginner] What's wrong? Terry Reedy <tjreedy@udel.edu> - 2016-04-02 15:07 -0400
                  Re: [beginner] What's wrong? Marko Rauhamaa <marko@pacujo.net> - 2016-04-02 22:36 +0300
                    Re: [beginner] What's wrong? Michael Selik <michael.selik@gmail.com> - 2016-04-02 21:42 +0000
                      Re: [beginner] What's wrong? Steven D'Aprano <steve@pearwood.info> - 2016-04-03 10:48 +1000
                        Re: [beginner] What's wrong? Mark Lawrence <breamoreboy@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-04-03 02:04 +0100
                          Re: [beginner] What's wrong? alister <alister.ware@ntlworld.com> - 2016-04-03 12:37 +0000
            Re: [beginner] What's wrong? Terry Reedy <tjreedy@udel.edu> - 2016-04-02 14:59 -0400
          Re: [beginner] What's wrong? Gregory Ewing <greg.ewing@canterbury.ac.nz> - 2016-04-03 16:43 +1200
        Re: [beginner] What's wrong? Dennis Lee Bieber <wlfraed@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-04-02 12:31 -0400
        Re: [beginner] What's wrong? Mark Lawrence <breamoreboy@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-04-03 00:58 +0100
        Re: [beginner] What's wrong? sohcahtoa82@gmail.com - 2016-04-08 15:59 -0700
          Re: [beginner] What's wrong? Mark Lawrence <breamoreboy@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-04-09 00:07 +0100
      Re: [beginner] What's wrong? Michael Torrie <torriem@gmail.com> - 2016-04-02 16:49 -0600
        Re: [beginner] What's wrong? Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-04-03 10:12 +0200
      Re: [beginner] What's wrong? Mark Lawrence <breamoreboy@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-04-04 15:04 +0100
        Re: [beginner] What's wrong? BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-04-04 15:51 +0100
      From email addresses sometimes strange on this list - was Re: [beginner] What's wrong? Michael Torrie <torriem@gmail.com> - 2016-04-04 16:55 -0600
      Re: From email addresses sometimes strange on this list - was Re: [beginner] What's wrong? Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2016-04-05 08:58 +1000
      Re: From email addresses sometimes strange on this list - was Re: [beginner] What's wrong? Michael Torrie <torriem@gmail.com> - 2016-04-04 17:19 -0600

Page 1 of 6  [1] 2 3 4 5 6  Next page →

#106266 — [beginner] What's wrong?

Hello,
I have a Pascal code for some hash function. I've tried to rewrite it on 
Python but it doesn't give the right value (which is 32202). Please tell 
me where is the error.

Thanks.

**********************
     Pascal program
**********************

Program K_S;
     Var
       ST: String;
     function KSUM(var S: String): String;
     var
       i, l: Integer;
       KS: Word;
       SS: String;
     begin
       KS:=65535;
       for i:=2 to Length(S) do
       begin
         KS := KS xor Ord(S[i]);
         writeln(S[i]);
         for l:=1 to 8 do
          if (KS div 2)*2<>KS then KS := (KS div 2) xor 40961
          else KS := (KS div 2);
       end;
       Str(KS, SS);
       KSUM := SS;
     end;


     Begin
      ST := ':1;1;2;';
      Writeln(KSUM(ST));
     End.


**********************
     Python program
**********************

def myhash(s):
         KS=65535
         for i in range(1,len(s)):
                 KS=KS ^ ord(s[i])
                 for j in range(1,8):
                         if (KS // 2)*2 != KS:
                                 KS=(KS // 2) ^ 40961
                         else:
                                 KS=KS // 2
         return(str(KS))
if __name__ ==  "__main__":
         st=myhash(":1;1;2;")
         print (st)

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#106267

Nevermind. for j in range(1,8) should be for j in range(8).

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

#106268

On Friday, April 1, 2016 at 3:10:51 PM UTC-7, Michael Okuntsov wrote:
> Nevermind. for j in range(1,8) should be for j in range(8).

I can't tell you how many times I've gotten bit in the ass with that off-by-one mistake whenever I use a range that doesn't start at zero.

I know that if I want to loop 10 times and I either want to start at zero or just don't care about the actual number, I use `for i in range(10)`.  But if I want to loop from 10 to 20, my first instinct is to write `for i in range(10, 20)`, and then I'm left figuring out why my loop isn't executing the last step.

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

#106272

On Fri, Apr 1, 2016, at 19:29, Michael Selik wrote:
> Humans have always had trouble with this, in many contexts. I remember
> being annoyed at folks saying the year 2000 was the first year of the new
> millennium, rather than 2001. They'd forgotten the Gregorian calendar
> starts from AD 1.

Naturally, this means the first millennium was only 999 years long, and
all subsequent millennia were 1000 years long. (Whereas "millennium" is
defined as the set of all years of a given era for a given integer k
where y // 1000 == k. How else would you define it?)

And if you want to get technical, the gregorian calendar starts from
some year no earlier than 1582, depending on the country. The year
numbering system has little to do with the calendar type - your
assertion in fact regards the BC/AD year numbering system, which was
invented by Bede.

The astronomical year-numbering system, which does contain a year zero
(and uses negative numbers rather than a reverse-numbered "BC" era), and
is incidentally used by ISO 8601, was invented by Jacques Cassini in the
17th century.



Rule #1 of being pedantic: There's always someone more pedantic than
you, whose pedantry supports the opposite conclusion.

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

#106273

On Sat, Apr 2, 2016, 12:28 AM Random832 <random832@fastmail.com> wrote:

> On Fri, Apr 1, 2016, at 19:29, Michael Selik wrote:
> > Humans have always had trouble with this, in many contexts. I remember
> > being annoyed at folks saying the year 2000 was the first year of the new
> > millennium, rather than 2001. They'd forgotten the Gregorian calendar
> > starts from AD 1.
>
> Naturally, this means the first millennium was only 999 years long, and
> all subsequent millennia were 1000 years long. (Whereas "millennium" is
> defined as the set of all years of a given era for a given integer k
> where y // 1000 == k. How else would you define it?)
>
> And if you want to get technical, the gregorian calendar starts from
> some year no earlier than 1582, depending on the country. The year
> numbering system has little to do with the calendar type - your
> assertion in fact regards the BC/AD year numbering system, which was
> invented by Bede.
>
> The astronomical year-numbering system, which does contain a year zero
> (and uses negative numbers rather than a reverse-numbered "BC" era), and
> is incidentally used by ISO 8601, was invented by Jacques Cassini in the
> 17th century.
>
>
>
> Rule #1 of being pedantic: There's always someone more pedantic than
> you, whose pedantry supports the opposite conclusion.
>

I'll have to remember that one. And thanks for the facts.

>

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

#106275

> On Apr 1, 2016, at 6:57 PM, Mark Lawrence via Python-list <python-list@python.org> wrote:
> 
>> On 01/04/2016 23:44, sohcahtoa82@gmail.com wrote:
>>> On Friday, April 1, 2016 at 3:10:51 PM UTC-7, Michael Okuntsov wrote:
>>> Nevermind. for j in range(1,8) should be for j in range(8).
>> 
>> I can't tell you how many times I've gotten bit in the ass with that off-by-one mistake whenever I use a range that doesn't start at zero.
>> 
>> I know that if I want to loop 10 times and I either want to start at zero or just don't care about the actual number, I use `for i in range(10)`.  But if I want to loop from 10 to 20, my first instinct is to write `for i in range(10, 20)`, and then I'm left figuring out why my loop isn't executing the last step.
> 
> "First instinct"?  "I expected"?  The Python docs might not be perfect, but they were certainly adequate enough to get me going 15 years ago, and since then they've improved.  So where is the problem, other than failure to RTFM?
> 
I've always found it vaguely amusing that the server(s) for just about all the technical info at MIT reside behind http://rtfm.mit.edu

Bill

> -- 
> My fellow Pythonistas, ask not what our language can do for you, ask
> what you can do for our language.
> 
> Mark Lawrence
> 
> -- 
> https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list

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

#106280

On Sat, Apr 2, 2016 at 3:27 PM, Random832 <random832@fastmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 1, 2016, at 19:29, Michael Selik wrote:
>> Humans have always had trouble with this, in many contexts. I remember
>> being annoyed at folks saying the year 2000 was the first year of the new
>> millennium, rather than 2001. They'd forgotten the Gregorian calendar
>> starts from AD 1.
>
> Naturally, this means the first millennium was only 999 years long, and
> all subsequent millennia were 1000 years long. (Whereas "millennium" is
> defined as the set of all years of a given era for a given integer k
> where y // 1000 == k. How else would you define it?)
>
> And if you want to get technical, the gregorian calendar starts from
> some year no earlier than 1582, depending on the country. The year
> numbering system has little to do with the calendar type - your
> assertion in fact regards the BC/AD year numbering system, which was
> invented by Bede.
>
> The astronomical year-numbering system, which does contain a year zero
> (and uses negative numbers rather than a reverse-numbered "BC" era), and
> is incidentally used by ISO 8601, was invented by Jacques Cassini in the
> 17th century.
>

Are you sure? Because I'm pretty sure these folks were already talking about BC.

http://xenohistorian.faithweb.com/holybook/quotes/YK.html

ChrisA

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

#106287

On Sat, Apr 2, 2016 at 4:16 AM Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Sat, Apr 2, 2016 at 3:27 PM, Random832 <random832@fastmail.com> wrote:
> > On Fri, Apr 1, 2016, at 19:29, Michael Selik wrote:
> >> Humans have always had trouble with this, in many contexts. I remember
> >> being annoyed at folks saying the year 2000 was the first year of the
> new
> >> millennium, rather than 2001. They'd forgotten the Gregorian calendar
> >> starts from AD 1.
> >
> > Naturally, this means the first millennium was only 999 years long, and
> > all subsequent millennia were 1000 years long. (Whereas "millennium" is
> > defined as the set of all years of a given era for a given integer k
> > where y // 1000 == k. How else would you define it?)
> >
> > And if you want to get technical, the gregorian calendar starts from
> > some year no earlier than 1582, depending on the country. The year
> > numbering system has little to do with the calendar type - your
> > assertion in fact regards the BC/AD year numbering system, which was
> > invented by Bede.
> >
> > The astronomical year-numbering system, which does contain a year zero
> > (and uses negative numbers rather than a reverse-numbered "BC" era), and
> > is incidentally used by ISO 8601, was invented by Jacques Cassini in the
> > 17th century.
> >
>
> Are you sure? Because I'm pretty sure these folks were already talking
> about BC.
>
> http://xenohistorian.faithweb.com/holybook/quotes/YK.html
>
>
If they'd only used Unicode, they could have said "þou" in prayer and "ðousand"
for the year.

BTW, I finally know why there are all those "Ye Olde ...".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thorn_(letter)

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

#106288

On Sun, Apr 3, 2016 at 1:48 AM, Michael Selik <michael.selik@gmail.com> wrote:
> If they'd only used Unicode, they could have said "þou" in prayer and
> "ðousand" for the year.
>
> BTW, I finally know why there are all those "Ye Olde ...".
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thorn_(letter)

Yep! And the letters (thorn and eth) survive in a very few languages
(Icelandic, notably). Fortunately, Python 3 lets you use it in
identifiers.

ChrisA

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

#106289

Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com>:

> Yep! And the letters (thorn and eth) survive in a very few languages
> (Icelandic, notably). Fortunately, Python 3 lets you use it in
> identifiers.

While it is fine for Python to support Unicode to its fullest, I don't
think it's a good idea for a programmer to use non-English identifiers.

The (few) keywords are in English anyway. Imagine reading code like
this:

    for oppilas in luokka:
        if oppilas.hylätty():
            oppilas.ilmoita(oppilas.koetulokset)

which looks nauseating whether you are an English-speaker or
Finnish-speaker.


Marko

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

#106291

On Sun, Apr 3, 2016 at 2:07 AM, Marko Rauhamaa <marko@pacujo.net> wrote:
> Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com>:
>
>> Yep! And the letters (thorn and eth) survive in a very few languages
>> (Icelandic, notably). Fortunately, Python 3 lets you use it in
>> identifiers.
>
> While it is fine for Python to support Unicode to its fullest, I don't
> think it's a good idea for a programmer to use non-English identifiers.
>
> The (few) keywords are in English anyway. Imagine reading code like
> this:
>
>     for oppilas in luokka:
>         if oppilas.hylätty():
>             oppilas.ilmoita(oppilas.koetulokset)
>
> which looks nauseating whether you are an English-speaker or
> Finnish-speaker.

I disagree. I've spoken with people who've used that kind of bilingual
hybrid in regular conversation. There's a channel I hang out on that
mainly speaks Turkish, but some sentences are a Turkish-English
hybrid; usually they use Turkish grammar (subject-object-verb), as
that's the native language of most of the people there.

A lot of Python's keywords are derived from English, yes, but once
they've been abbreviated some, and have slid in meaning from their
original words, they become jargon that can plausibly be imported into
other languages. Words like "lambda" aren't English, so other Roman
alphabet languages are at no disadvantage there; words like "def"
might easily acquire back-formation justifications/mnemonics in other
languages. It's only the words that truly are English terms ("while")
that are problematic, and there's only a handful of those to learn.

Of course, there's the whole standard library, which is written in
English. You could translate that without breaking everything, but
it'd be a big job.

The main reason for permitting non-English identifiers is to let
people synchronize on external naming conventions. Suppose you create
a form (web or GUI or something) and ask a human to key in half a
dozen pieces of information, and then do some arithmetic on them. In
English, we can do this kind of thing:

name = input("Object name: ")
length = int(input("Length: "))
width = int(input("Width: "))
height = int(input("Height: "))
volume = length * width * height
print("Volume of %s is: %d" % (name, volume))

Note how every piece of input or output is directly associated with a
keyword, which is used as the identifier in the code. This is
important; when you come to debug code like this (let's assume there's
a lot more of it than this), you can glance at the form, glance at the
code, and not have to maintain a mental translation table. This is why
we use identifiers in the first place - to identify things! Okay. So
far, so good. Let's translate all that into Russian. (I don't speak
Russian, so the actual translation has been done with Google
Translate. Apologies in advance if the Russian text here says
something horribly wrong.)

название = input("Название объекта: ")
длина = int(input("Длина: "))
ширина = int(input("Ширина: "))
высота = int(input("Высота: "))
объем = длина * ширина * высота
print("Объем %s равно %d" % (название, объем))

Its a hybrid of English function names and Russian text strings and
identifiers. But if you force everyone to write their identifiers in
English, all you get is a hybrid of English function names and
identifiers and Russian text strings - no improvement at all! Or, more
likely, you'll get this:

nazvanie = input("Название объекта: ")
dlina = int(input("Длина: "))
shirina = int(input("Ширина: "))
vysota = int(input("Высота: "))
obyem = dlina * shirina * vysota
print("Объем %s равно %d" % (nazvanie, obyem))

Is that an improvement? I don't think so. Far better to let people
write their names in any way that makes sense for their code.

ChrisA

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

#106292

On Sun, 3 Apr 2016 02:07 am, Marko Rauhamaa wrote:

> I don't think it's a good idea for a programmer to use non-English
> identifiers. 


So you're saying that learning to be a fluent speaker of English is a
pre-requisite of being a programmer?


I'd rather read:

    for oppilas in luokka:
        if oppilas.hylätty():
            oppilas.ilmoita(oppilas.koetulokset)


than either of these:

    for cornea in excellence:
        if cornea.marooned():
            cornea.amuse(cornea.eventualities)


    for pupel in clas:
        if pupel.abandened():
            pupel.plaese(pupel.resolts)



Google translate suggests Marko's code means:

    for pupil in class:
        if pupil.abandoned():
            pupil.please(pupil.results)



-- 
Steven

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

#106295

Steven D'Aprano <steve@pearwood.info>:

> I'd rather read:
>
>     for oppilas in luokka:
>         if oppilas.hylätty():
>             oppilas.ilmoita(oppilas.koetulokset)
>
> [...]
>
> Google translate suggests Marko's code means:
>
>     for pupil in class:
>         if pupil.abandoned():
>             pupil.please(pupil.results)

"Hylätty" in this context means "rejected."

"Ilmoita" means "inform, announce, let know."

> So you're saying that learning to be a fluent speaker of English is a
> pre-requisite of being a programmer?

No more than learning Latin is a prerequisite of being a doctor.

Nowadays software companies and communities are international. You never
know who needs to maintain your code. At work, I need to maintain code
that was created in Japan, with coworkers from all over the world. The
Japanese author had had a hard time with English, and made some
awkward naming choices, but had the common sense to use English-only
names in his code.

I also think log file timestamps should be expressed in UTC.


Marko

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

#106296

Marko Rauhamaa wrote:

> Steven D'Aprano <steve@pearwood.info>:
>> So you're saying that learning to be a fluent speaker of English is a
>> pre-requisite of being a programmer?
> 
> No more than learning Latin is a prerequisite of being a doctor.

Full ACK.  Probably starting with the Industrial Revolution enabled by the 
improvements of the steam machine in England, English has become the /lingua 
franca/ of technology (even though the French often still disagree, 
preferring words like « ordinateur » and « octet » over “computer” and 
“byte”, respectively¹).  (With the Internet at the latest, then, it has also 
become the /lingua franca/ of science, although Latin terms are common in 
medicine.)
 
> Nowadays software companies and communities are international. You never
> know who needs to maintain your code. At work, I need to maintain code
> that was created in Japan, with coworkers from all over the world. The
> Japanese author had had a hard time with English, and made some
> awkward naming choices, but had the common sense to use English-only
> names in his code.

One will have a hard time finding a company or community, international or 
not, that does not have at least a basic knowledge of English included in 
what they require of a software developer.

____________
¹  Years ago, I was helping a French colleague with her computer, and
   was surprised to read “Mo” instead of “MB” in the status bar of
   Windows Explorer.
-- 
PointedEars

Twitter: @PointedEars2
Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.

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

#106298

On Saturday, April 2, 2016 at 10:42:27 PM UTC+5:30, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> Marko Rauhamaa wrote:
> 
> > Steven D'Aprano :
> >> So you're saying that learning to be a fluent speaker of English is a
> >> pre-requisite of being a programmer?
> > 
> > No more than learning Latin is a prerequisite of being a doctor.
> 
> Full ACK.  Probably starting with the Industrial Revolution enabled by the 
> improvements of the steam machine in England, English has become the /lingua 
> franca/ of technology (even though the French often still disagree, 
> preferring words like « ordinateur » and « octet » over “computer” and 
> “byte”, respectively¹).  (With the Internet at the latest, then, it has also 
> become the /lingua franca/ of science, although Latin terms are common in 
> medicine.)

IMHO the cavalier usage of random alphabet-soup for identifiers
can lead to worse than just aesthetic unpleasantness:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IDN_homograph_attack

When python went to full unicode identifers it should have also added
pragmas for which blocks the programmer intended to use -- something like
a charset declaration of html.

This way if the programmer says "I want latin and greek"
and then A and Α get mixed up well he asked for it.
If he didn't ask then springing it on him seems unnecessary and uncalled for

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

#106300

Rustom Mody <rustompmody@gmail.com>:
> When python went to full unicode identifers it should have also added
> pragmas for which blocks the programmer intended to use -- something
> like a charset declaration of html.

You are being silly.


Marko

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

#106358

Rustom Mody wrote:

> On Saturday, April 2, 2016 at 10:42:27 PM UTC+5:30, Thomas 'PointedEars'
> Lahn wrote:
>> Marko Rauhamaa wrote:
>> > Steven D'Aprano :
>> >> So you're saying that learning to be a fluent speaker of English is a
>> >> pre-requisite of being a programmer?
>> > 
>> > No more than learning Latin is a prerequisite of being a doctor.
>> 
>> Full ACK.  Probably starting with the Industrial Revolution enabled by
>> the improvements of the steam machine in England, English has become the
>> /lingua franca/ of technology (even though the French often still
>> disagree, preferring words like « ordinateur » and « octet » over
>> “computer” and
>> “byte”, respectively¹).  (With the Internet at the latest, then, it has
>> also become the /lingua franca/ of science, although Latin terms are
>> common in medicine.)
> 
> IMHO the cavalier usage of random alphabet-soup for identifiers

Straw man.  Nobody has suggested that.  Suggested were words in natural 
languages other than English as (parts of) names in Python programs.

The suggestion was rejected by some (including me) on the grounds that 
source code is not written only for the person writing it, but also for 
other developers to read, and that English is the /lingua franca/ of 
software development at least.  So it is reasonable to expect a software 
developer to understand English, and more software developers are going to 
understand the source code if it is written in English.

Another argument that was made in favor of English-language names (albeit on 
the grounds of “nausea” instead of the logical reason of practicality) is 
that the (Python) programming language’s keywords (e.g., False, None, True, 
and, as, assert [1]) and built-in identifiers (e.g., NotImplemented, 
Ellipsis, abs, all, int, float, complex, iterator [2]) are (abbreviations or 
concatenations of) *English* words; therefore, mixing keywords with names
in a natural language other than English causes source code to be more 
difficult to read than an all-English source code (string values 
notwithstanding).  This is particularly true with Python because a lot of 
(well-written) Python code can easily be read as if it were pseudocode.  (I 
would not be surprised at all to learn that this was Guido van Rossum’s 
intention.)

As for the “Chinese” argument, I did some research recently, indicating that 
it is a statistical fallacy:

<http://yaleglobal.yale.edu/content/english-craze-hits-chinese-language-standards>
<http://yaleglobal.yale.edu/content/asians-offer-region-lesson-%E2%80%93-english>

From personal experience, I can say that I had no great difficulty 
communicating in English with my Chinese flatmates and classmates at a 
German technical university when all of us were studying computer science 
there 16 years ago.  It was natural.  At least the boys even preferred self-
chosen English first names for themselves (e.g., in instant messaging) 
since, as they explained to me, their original names were difficult to 
pronounce correctly for Europeans (or Europeans might mistakenly call them 
by their family name since it would come first), and to type on European 
keyboards (although I observed them to be proficient in using IMEs when 
chatting with their folks back home).

____________
[1] <https://docs.python.org/3/reference/lexical_analysis.html#identifiers>
[2] <https://docs.python.org/3/library/>

> can lead to worse than just aesthetic unpleasantness:
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IDN_homograph_attack

Relevance?

> When python went to full unicode identifers it should have also added
> pragmas for which blocks the programmer intended to use -- something like
> a charset declaration of html.
> 
> This way if the programmer says "I want latin and greek"
> and then A and Α get mixed up well he asked for it.
> If he didn't ask then springing it on him seems unnecessary and uncalled
> for

Nonsense.

-- 
PointedEars

Twitter: @PointedEars2
Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.

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

#106360

On Sunday, April 3, 2016 at 5:17:36 PM UTC+5:30, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> Rustom Mody wrote:
> 
> > On Saturday, April 2, 2016 at 10:42:27 PM UTC+5:30, Thomas 'PointedEars'
> > Lahn wrote:
> >> Marko Rauhamaa wrote:
> >> > Steven D'Aprano :
> >> >> So you're saying that learning to be a fluent speaker of English is a
> >> >> pre-requisite of being a programmer?
> >> > 
> >> > No more than learning Latin is a prerequisite of being a doctor.
> >> 
> >> Full ACK.  Probably starting with the Industrial Revolution enabled by
> >> the improvements of the steam machine in England, English has become the
> >> /lingua franca/ of technology (even though the French often still
> >> disagree, preferring words like « ordinateur » and « octet » over
> >> “computer” and
> >> “byte”, respectively¹).  (With the Internet at the latest, then, it has
> >> also become the /lingua franca/ of science, although Latin terms are
> >> common in medicine.)
> > 
> > IMHO the cavalier usage of random alphabet-soup for identifiers
> 
> Straw man.  Nobody has suggested that.  Suggested were words in natural 
> languages other than English as (parts of) names in Python programs.
> 
> The suggestion was rejected by some (including me) on the grounds that 
> source code is not written only for the person writing it, but also for 
> other developers to read, and that English is the /lingua franca/ of 
> software development at least.  So it is reasonable to expect a software 
> developer to understand English, and more software developers are going to 
> understand the source code if it is written in English.
> 
> Another argument that was made in favor of English-language names (albeit on 
> the grounds of “nausea” instead of the logical reason of practicality) is 
> that the (Python) programming language’s keywords (e.g., False, None, True, 
> and, as, assert [1]) and built-in identifiers (e.g., NotImplemented, 
> Ellipsis, abs, all, int, float, complex, iterator [2]) are (abbreviations or 
> concatenations of) *English* words; therefore, mixing keywords with names
> in a natural language other than English causes source code to be more 
> difficult to read than an all-English source code (string values 
> notwithstanding).  This is particularly true with Python because a lot of 
> (well-written) Python code can easily be read as if it were pseudocode.  (I 
> would not be surprised at all to learn that this was Guido van Rossum’s 
> intention.)
> 
> As for the “Chinese” argument, I did some research recently, indicating that 
> it is a statistical fallacy:
> 
> <http://yaleglobal.yale.edu/content/english-craze-hits-chinese-language-standards>
> <http://yaleglobal.yale.edu/content/asians-offer-region-lesson-%E2%80%93-english>
> 
> From personal experience, I can say that I had no great difficulty 
> communicating in English with my Chinese flatmates and classmates at a 
> German technical university when all of us were studying computer science 
> there 16 years ago.  It was natural.  At least the boys even preferred self-
> chosen English first names for themselves (e.g., in instant messaging) 
> since, as they explained to me, their original names were difficult to 
> pronounce correctly for Europeans (or Europeans might mistakenly call them 
> by their family name since it would come first), and to type on European 
> keyboards (although I observed them to be proficient in using IMEs when 
> chatting with their folks back home).
> 
> ____________
> [1] <https://docs.python.org/3/reference/lexical_analysis.html#identifiers>
> [2] <https://docs.python.org/3/library/>
> 
> > can lead to worse than just aesthetic unpleasantness:
> > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IDN_homograph_attack
> 
> Relevance?
> 
> > When python went to full unicode identifers it should have also added
> > pragmas for which blocks the programmer intended to use -- something like
> > a charset declaration of html.
> > 
> > This way if the programmer says "I want latin and greek"
> > and then A and Α get mixed up well he asked for it.
> > If he didn't ask then springing it on him seems unnecessary and uncalled
> > for
> 
> Nonsense.

Some misunderstanding of what I said it looks
[Guessing also from Marko's "...silly..."]

So here are some examples to illustrate what I am saying:

Example 1 -- Ligatures:

Python3 gets it right
>>> flag = 1
>>> flag
1

Whereas haskell gets it wrong:
Prelude> let flag = 1
Prelude> flag

<interactive>:3:1: Not in scope: ‘flag’
Prelude> flag
1
Prelude> 

Example 2 Case Sensitivity
Scheme¹ gets it right

> (define a 1)
> A
1
> a
1

Python gets it wrong
>>> a=1
>>> A
Traceback (most recent call last):
  File "<stdin>", line 1, in <module>
NameError: name 'A' is not defined
>>> a

[Likewise filenames windows gets right; Unix wrong]

Unicode Identifiers in the spirit of IDN homograph attack.
Every language that 'supports' unicode gets it wrong

Python3
>>> A=1
>>> Α
Traceback (most recent call last):
  File "<stdin>", line 1, in <module>
NameError: name 'Α' is not defined
>>> A
1

Can you make out why A both is and is not defined?

When the language does not support it eg python2 the behavior is better

>>> A=1
>>> Α
  File "<stdin>", line 1
    Α
    ^
SyntaxError: invalid syntax
>>> A
1
>>> 

So whats the point?
The notion of 'variable' in programming language is inherently based on that of
'identifier'.
With ASCII the problems are minor: Case-distinct identifiers are distinct --
they dont IDENTIFY. This contradicts standard English usage and practice
buts its not such a big deal
With Unicode there are zillions of look-alike that eg A and Α and А that are identical
until you ferret out the details.

A language that allows this without some red flag is storing future grief for
unsuspecting programmers.

¹ Ironically upto R5RS version of scheme this was true
Thereafter Unix nerds have won over good old standard English practice

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

#106366

On Sun, 03 Apr 2016 07:30:47 -0700, Rustom Mody wrote:

> So here are some examples to illustrate what I am saying:

[A vs a, A vs A, flag vs flag, etc.]

Are identifiers text or bytes? or something else entirely that takes
natural language rules and the appearance of the glyphs into account?

I, for one, am very happy that identifiers are more like bytes than like
they are like text.  The rules for equality for sequences of bytes are
well-defined and unambiguous.  The rules for equality for text are not.
Do I have to know the details of every human (and some non-human)
language, not to mention their typographical conventions (e.g.,
ligatures) just to determine whether two identifiers are the same?

Yes, it's marginally annoying, and a security hole waiting to happen,
than A and A often look very much alike.  It's also troubling that I, a
native English speaker with some knowledge of a random selection of
other languages, should know whether e and é are the same, or whether ij
and ij are the same, and that it might depend on the fonts that happen to
have been used to render them.

And where does it end?  If flag and flag are the same, then are Omega and
Ω the same?

In English (and many other languages), it is wrong to spell my first
name with an initial lower case letter.  Therefore, Dan and dan are not,
and should not be, the same identifier.

ObPython:  if my identifiers are case-insensitive, then what about the
language's keywords?  Can I spell class and for as Class and For?

I understand that in some use cases, flag and flag represent the same
English word, but please don't extend that to identifiers in my
software.

Dan

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

#106367

On Sunday, April 3, 2016 at 8:58:59 PM UTC+5:30, Dan Sommers wrote:
> On Sun, 03 Apr 2016 07:30:47 -0700, Rustom Mody wrote:
> 
> > So here are some examples to illustrate what I am saying:
> 
> [A vs a, A vs A, flag vs flag, etc.]
<snip>
> I understand that in some use cases, flag and flag represent the same
> English word, but please don't extend that to identifiers in my
> software.

I wonder once again if you are getting my point opposite to the one I am making.
With ASCII there were problems like O vs 0 -- niggling but small.

With Unicode its a gigantic pandora box.
Python by allowing unicode identifiers without restraint has made grief for
unsuspecting programmers.

That is why my original suggestion that there should have been alongside this
'brave new world', a pragma wherein a programmer can EXPLICITLY declare
#language Greek
Then he is knowingly opting into possible clashes between A and Α
But not between A and А.

[And if you think the above is a philosophical disquisition on Aristotle's
law of identity: "A is A" you just proved my point that unconstrained Unicode
identifiers is a mess]

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

Page 1 of 6  [1] 2 3 4 5 6  Next page →

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

csiph-web