Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.python > #104645 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2016-03-12 08:36 +1100 |
| Last post | 2016-03-12 15:29 +0000 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 314 — 29 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.python
The Cost of Dynamism (was Re: Pyhon 2.x or 3.x, which is faster?) Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2016-03-12 08:36 +1100
Re: The Cost of Dynamism (was Re: Pyhon 2.x or 3.x, which is faster?) BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-03-12 01:16 +0000
Re: The Cost of Dynamism (was Re: Pyhon 2.x or 3.x, which is faster?) Rustom Mody <rustompmody@gmail.com> - 2016-03-11 21:02 -0800
Re: The Cost of Dynamism (was Re: Pyhon 2.x or 3.x, which is faster?) BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-03-12 11:50 +0000
Re: The Cost of Dynamism (was Re: Pyhon 2.x or 3.x, which is faster?) Marko Rauhamaa <marko@pacujo.net> - 2016-03-12 14:13 +0200
Re: The Cost of Dynamism (was Re: Pyhon 2.x or 3.x, which is faster?) BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-03-12 13:18 +0000
Re: The Cost of Dynamism (was Re: Pyhon 2.x or 3.x, which is faster?) Marko Rauhamaa <marko@pacujo.net> - 2016-03-12 15:40 +0200
Re: The Cost of Dynamism Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-03-12 20:24 +0100
Re: The Cost of Dynamism Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2016-03-13 08:18 +1100
Re: The Cost of Dynamism Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-03-13 21:05 +0100
Re: The Cost of Dynamism (was Re: Pyhon 2.x or 3.x, which is faster?) Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2016-03-13 00:40 +1100
Re: The Cost of Dynamism (was Re: Pyhon 2.x or 3.x, which is faster?) Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-03-12 20:26 +0100
Re: The Cost of Dynamism (was Re: Pyhon 2.x or 3.x, which is faster?) BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-03-12 22:14 +0000
Re: The Cost of Dynamism Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-03-13 21:08 +0100
Re: The Cost of Dynamism Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-03-12 20:20 +0100
Re: The Cost of Dynamism (was Re: Pyhon 2.x or 3.x, which is faster?) Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2016-03-12 23:52 +1100
Re: The Cost of Dynamism (was Re: Pyhon 2.x or 3.x, which is faster?) Steven D'Aprano <steve@pearwood.info> - 2016-03-13 03:22 +1100
Re: The Cost of Dynamism (was Re: Pyhon 2.x or 3.x, which is faster?) Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2016-03-13 08:45 +1100
Re: The Cost of Dynamism (was Re: Pyhon 2.x or 3.x, which is faster?) Marko Rauhamaa <marko@pacujo.net> - 2016-03-13 00:10 +0200
Re: The Cost of Dynamism (was Re: Pyhon 2.x or 3.x, which is faster?) Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2016-03-13 09:19 +1100
Re: The Cost of Dynamism (was Re: Pyhon 2.x or 3.x, which is faster?) Marko Rauhamaa <marko@pacujo.net> - 2016-03-13 00:57 +0200
Re: The Cost of Dynamism (was Re: Pyhon 2.x or 3.x, which is faster?) BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-03-12 23:57 +0000
Re: The Cost of Dynamism (was Re: Pyhon 2.x or 3.x, which is faster?) Mark Lawrence <breamoreboy@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-03-13 01:10 +0000
Re: The Cost of Dynamism (was Re: Pyhon 2.x or 3.x, which is faster?) BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-03-13 19:39 +0000
Re: The Cost of Dynamism (was Re: Pyhon 2.x or 3.x, which is faster?) Marko Rauhamaa <marko@pacujo.net> - 2016-03-13 22:12 +0200
Re: The Cost of Dynamism (was Re: Pyhon 2.x or 3.x, which is faster?) Mark Lawrence <breamoreboy@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-03-14 17:17 +0000
Re: The Cost of Dynamism (was Re: Pyhon 2.x or 3.x, which is faster?) BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-03-14 17:53 +0000
Re: The Cost of Dynamism (was Re: Pyhon 2.x or 3.x, which is faster?) Marko Rauhamaa <marko@pacujo.net> - 2016-03-14 20:25 +0200
Re: The Cost of Dynamism (was Re: Pyhon 2.x or 3.x, which is faster?) BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-03-14 18:39 +0000
Re: The Cost of Dynamism (was Re: Pyhon 2.x or 3.x, which is faster?) Mark Lawrence <breamoreboy@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-03-14 20:57 +0000
Re: The Cost of Dynamism (was Re: Pyhon 2.x or 3.x, which is faster?) Steven D'Aprano <steve@pearwood.info> - 2016-03-15 12:55 +1100
Re: The Cost of Dynamism (was Re: Pyhon 2.x or 3.x, which is faster?) Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2016-03-15 13:10 +1100
Re: The Cost of Dynamism (was Re: Pyhon 2.x or 3.x, which is faster?) BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-03-15 11:52 +0000
Re: The Cost of Dynamism (was Re: Pyhon 2.x or 3.x, which is faster?) BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-03-15 14:58 +0000
Re: The Cost of Dynamism (was Re: Pyhon 2.x or 3.x, which is faster?) BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-03-15 18:28 +0000
Re: The Cost of Dynamism (was Re: Pyhon 2.x or 3.x, which is faster?) Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2016-03-14 07:57 +1100
Re: The Cost of Dynamism (was Re: Pyhon 2.x or 3.x, which is faster?) BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-03-13 22:03 +0000
Re: The Cost of Dynamism (was Re: Pyhon 2.x or 3.x, which is faster?) Christian Gollwitzer <auriocus@gmx.de> - 2016-03-13 22:26 +0100
Re: The Cost of Dynamism (was Re: Pyhon 2.x or 3.x, which is faster?) Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2016-03-14 08:44 +1100
Re: The Cost of Dynamism (was Re: Pyhon 2.x or 3.x, which is faster?) Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2016-03-13 16:25 -0700
Re: The Cost of Dynamism (was Re: Pyhon 2.x or 3.x, which is faster?) Steven D'Aprano <steve@pearwood.info> - 2016-03-15 10:24 +1100
Re: The Cost of Dynamism (was Re: Pyhon 2.x or 3.x, which is faster?) BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-03-15 00:25 +0000
Re: The Cost of Dynamism (was Re: Pyhon 2.x or 3.x, which is faster?) Mark Lawrence <breamoreboy@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-03-15 00:50 +0000
Re: The Cost of Dynamism (was Re: Pyhon 2.x or 3.x, which is faster?) BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-03-21 01:15 +0000
Re: The Cost of Dynamism (was Re: Pyhon 2.x or 3.x, which is faster?) Mark Lawrence <breamoreboy@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-03-21 01:28 +0000
Re: The Cost of Dynamism (was Re: Pyhon 2.x or 3.x, which is faster?) Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2016-03-21 12:35 +1100
Re: The Cost of Dynamism (was Re: Pyhon 2.x or 3.x, which is faster?) BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-03-21 02:04 +0000
Re: The Cost of Dynamism (was Re: Pyhon 2.x or 3.x, which is faster?) Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2016-03-21 13:07 +1100
Re: The Cost of Dynamism (was Re: Pyhon 2.x or 3.x, which is faster?) Ben Finney <ben+python@benfinney.id.au> - 2016-03-21 13:11 +1100
Re: The Cost of Dynamism (was Re: Pyhon 2.x or 3.x, which is faster?) Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2016-03-21 17:41 +1100
Re: The Cost of Dynamism (was Re: Pyhon 2.x or 3.x, which is faster?) Rustom Mody <rustompmody@gmail.com> - 2016-03-21 00:07 -0700
Re: The Cost of Dynamism (was Re: Pyhon 2.x or 3.x, which is faster?) Ben Finney <ben+python@benfinney.id.au> - 2016-03-21 18:47 +1100
Re: The Cost of Dynamism (was Re: Pyhon 2.x or 3.x, which is faster?) Steven D'Aprano <steve@pearwood.info> - 2016-03-22 03:30 +1100
Re: The Cost of Dynamism (was Re: Pyhon 2.x or 3.x, which is faster?) BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-03-21 16:51 +0000
Re: The Cost of Dynamism (was Re: Pyhon 2.x or 3.x, which is faster?) Ben Finney <ben+python@benfinney.id.au> - 2016-03-23 17:09 +1100
Re: The Cost of Dynamism (was Re: Pyhon 2.x or 3.x, which is faster?) BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-03-23 10:34 +0000
Re: The Cost of Dynamism (was Re: Pyhon 2.x or 3.x, which is faster?) Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2016-03-23 21:48 +1100
Re: The Cost of Dynamism (was Re: Pyhon 2.x or 3.x, which is faster?) BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-03-23 13:41 +0000
Re: The Cost of Dynamism (was Re: Pyhon 2.x or 3.x, which is faster?) Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2016-03-24 14:24 +1100
Re: The Cost of Dynamism (was Re: Pyhon 2.x or 3.x, which is faster?) Rustom Mody <rustompmody@gmail.com> - 2016-03-23 20:38 -0700
Re: The Cost of Dynamism (was Re: Pyhon 2.x or 3.x, which is faster?) BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-03-24 13:01 +0000
Re: The Cost of Dynamism (was Re: Pyhon 2.x or 3.x, which is faster?) Dennis Lee Bieber <wlfraed@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-03-24 09:33 -0400
Re: The Cost of Dynamism (was Re: Pyhon 2.x or 3.x, which is faster?) Marko Rauhamaa <marko@pacujo.net> - 2016-03-24 16:16 +0200
Re: The Cost of Dynamism (was Re: Pyhon 2.x or 3.x, which is faster?) Rustom Mody <rustompmody@gmail.com> - 2016-03-24 07:37 -0700
Re: The Cost of Dynamism (was Re: Pyhon 2.x or 3.x, which is faster?) Mark Lawrence <breamoreboy@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-03-24 22:43 +0000
Re: The Cost of Dynamism (was Re: Pyhon 2.x or 3.x, which is faster?) Steven D'Aprano <steve@pearwood.info> - 2016-03-25 05:10 +1100
Re: The Cost of Dynamism (was Re: Pyhon 2.x or 3.x, which is faster?) BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-03-24 19:54 +0000
Re: The Cost of Dynamism (was Re: Pyhon 2.x or 3.x, which is faster?) Mark Lawrence <breamoreboy@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-03-24 22:18 +0000
Re: The Cost of Dynamism (was Re: Pyhon 2.x or 3.x, which is faster?) Dennis Lee Bieber <wlfraed@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-03-24 21:02 -0400
Re: The Cost of Dynamism (was Re: Pyhon 2.x or 3.x, which is faster?) BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-03-25 11:06 +0000
Re: The Cost of Dynamism (was Re: Pyhon 2.x or 3.x, which is faster?) Steven D'Aprano <steve@pearwood.info> - 2016-03-26 03:22 +1100
Re: The Cost of Dynamism (was Re: Pyhon 2.x or 3.x, which is faster?) BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-03-25 22:08 +0000
Re: The Cost of Dynamism (was Re: Pyhon 2.x or 3.x, which is faster?) Steven D'Aprano <steve@pearwood.info> - 2016-03-26 13:19 +1100
Re: The Cost of Dynamism (was Re: Pyhon 2.x or 3.x, which is faster?) Dennis Lee Bieber <wlfraed@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-03-26 13:45 -0400
Re: The Cost of Dynamism (was Re: Pyhon 2.x or 3.x, which is faster?) Michael Torrie <torriem@gmail.com> - 2016-03-24 20:49 -0600
Undefined behaviour in C [was Re: The Cost of Dynamism] Steven D'Aprano <steve@pearwood.info> - 2016-03-26 02:50 +1100
Re: Undefined behaviour in C [was Re: The Cost of Dynamism] Marko Rauhamaa <marko@pacujo.net> - 2016-03-25 18:57 +0200
Re: Undefined behaviour in C [was Re: The Cost of Dynamism] Steven D'Aprano <steve@pearwood.info> - 2016-03-26 13:46 +1100
Re: Undefined behaviour in C [was Re: The Cost of Dynamism] Random832 <random832@fastmail.com> - 2016-03-25 22:56 -0400
Re: Undefined behaviour in C [was Re: The Cost of Dynamism] Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2016-03-25 19:59 -0700
Re: Undefined behaviour in C [was Re: The Cost of Dynamism] Steven D'Aprano <steve@pearwood.info> - 2016-03-26 23:21 +1100
Re: Undefined behaviour in C [was Re: The Cost of Dynamism] Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2016-03-27 00:22 +1100
Re: Undefined behaviour in C [was Re: The Cost of Dynamism] BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-03-26 14:09 +0000
Re: Undefined behaviour in C [was Re: The Cost of Dynamism] Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2016-03-27 01:30 +1100
Re: Undefined behaviour in C [was Re: The Cost of Dynamism] BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-03-26 15:24 +0000
Re: Undefined behaviour in C [was Re: The Cost of Dynamism] Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2016-03-26 23:34 -0700
Re: Undefined behaviour in C [was Re: The Cost of Dynamism] BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-03-27 12:31 +0100
Re: Undefined behaviour in C [was Re: The Cost of Dynamism] Dennis Lee Bieber <wlfraed@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-03-27 09:47 -0400
Re: Undefined behaviour in C [was Re: The Cost of Dynamism] BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-03-27 15:43 +0100
Re: Undefined behaviour in C [was Re: The Cost of Dynamism] Ned Batchelder <ned@nedbatchelder.com> - 2016-03-27 08:48 -0700
Re: Undefined behaviour in C [was Re: The Cost of Dynamism] Terry Reedy <tjreedy@udel.edu> - 2016-03-27 12:39 -0400
Useless expressions [was Re: Undefined behaviour in C] Steven D'Aprano <steve@pearwood.info> - 2016-03-28 12:26 +1100
Re: Useless expressions [was Re: Undefined behaviour in C] Terry Reedy <tjreedy@udel.edu> - 2016-03-28 15:34 -0400
Re: Undefined behaviour in C [was Re: The Cost of Dynamism] BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-03-27 17:58 +0100
Re: Undefined behaviour in C [was Re: The Cost of Dynamism] Ned Batchelder <ned@nedbatchelder.com> - 2016-03-27 10:19 -0700
Re: Undefined behaviour in C [was Re: The Cost of Dynamism] BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-03-27 21:18 +0100
Re: Undefined behaviour in C [was Re: The Cost of Dynamism] Ned Batchelder <ned@nedbatchelder.com> - 2016-03-27 14:55 -0700
Re: Undefined behaviour in C [was Re: The Cost of Dynamism] BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-03-27 23:11 +0100
Statements as expressions [was Re: Undefined behaviour in C] Steven D'Aprano <steve@pearwood.info> - 2016-03-28 11:54 +1100
Re: Statements as expressions [was Re: Undefined behaviour in C] Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2016-03-27 18:40 -0700
Re: Statements as expressions [was Re: Undefined behaviour in C] Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2016-03-29 19:26 +1100
Re: Statements as expressions [was Re: Undefined behaviour in C] Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2016-03-29 01:54 -0700
Re: Statements as expressions [was Re: Undefined behaviour in C] Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2016-03-29 20:09 +1100
Re: Statements as expressions [was Re: Undefined behaviour in C] Marko Rauhamaa <marko@pacujo.net> - 2016-03-29 12:23 +0300
Re: Statements as expressions [was Re: Undefined behaviour in C] BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-03-29 12:31 +0100
Re: Statements as expressions [was Re: Undefined behaviour in C] Steven D'Aprano <steve@pearwood.info> - 2016-03-30 11:05 +1100
Re: Statements as expressions [was Re: Undefined behaviour in C] Dennis Lee Bieber <wlfraed@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-03-29 08:15 -0400
Re: Statements as expressions [was Re: Undefined behaviour in C] BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-03-28 12:11 +0100
Re: Statements as expressions [was Re: Undefined behaviour in C] Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-03-28 13:55 +0100
Re: Statements as expressions [was Re: Undefined behaviour in C] Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2016-03-28 11:27 -0700
Re: Statements as expressions [was Re: Undefined behaviour in C] Rustom Mody <rustompmody@gmail.com> - 2016-03-29 20:14 -0700
Re: Statements as expressions [was Re: Undefined behaviour in C] Dennis Lee Bieber <wlfraed@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-03-29 23:49 -0400
Re: Statements as expressions [was Re: Undefined behaviour in C] Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-03-30 15:26 +0100
Re: Statements as expressions [was Re: Undefined behaviour in C] Rustom Mody <rustompmody@gmail.com> - 2016-03-30 09:59 -0700
Re: Statements as expressions [was Re: Undefined behaviour in C] Random832 <random832@fastmail.com> - 2016-03-30 13:07 -0400
Re: Statements as expressions [was Re: Undefined behaviour in C] Rustom Mody <rustompmody@gmail.com> - 2016-03-30 10:28 -0700
Re: Statements as expressions [was Re: Undefined behaviour in C] Dennis Lee Bieber <wlfraed@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-03-30 19:01 -0400
Re: Statements as expressions [was Re: Undefined behaviour in C] Random832 <random832@fastmail.com> - 2016-03-30 20:15 -0400
Re: Undefined behaviour in C [was Re: The Cost of Dynamism] Dennis Lee Bieber <wlfraed@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-03-27 18:31 -0400
Useless expressions [was Re: Undefined behaviour in C] Steven D'Aprano <steve@pearwood.info> - 2016-03-28 12:45 +1100
Useless expressions [was Re: Undefined behaviour in C] Steven D'Aprano <steve@pearwood.info> - 2016-03-28 12:24 +1100
Re: Useless expressions [was Re: Undefined behaviour in C] Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2016-03-28 12:38 +1100
Re: Useless expressions [was Re: Undefined behaviour in C] Tim Chase <python.list@tim.thechases.com> - 2016-03-27 21:59 -0500
Re: Useless expressions [was Re: Undefined behaviour in C] Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2016-03-28 14:29 +1100
Re: Useless expressions [was Re: Undefined behaviour in C] BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-03-28 13:18 +0100
Re: Useless expressions [was Re: Undefined behaviour in C] Marko Rauhamaa <marko@pacujo.net> - 2016-03-28 16:29 +0300
Re: Useless expressions [was Re: Undefined behaviour in C] Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2016-03-29 18:12 +1100
Re: Useless expressions Ben Finney <ben+python@benfinney.id.au> - 2016-03-29 18:35 +1100
Re: Undefined behaviour in C [was Re: The Cost of Dynamism] Steven D'Aprano <steve@pearwood.info> - 2016-03-27 18:50 +1100
Re: Undefined behaviour in C [was Re: The Cost of Dynamism] Oscar Benjamin <oscar.j.benjamin@gmail.com> - 2016-03-27 10:51 +0100
Re: Undefined behaviour in C [was Re: The Cost of Dynamism] Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2016-03-26 23:13 -0700
Re: Undefined behaviour in C [was Re: The Cost of Dynamism] Steven D'Aprano <steve@pearwood.info> - 2016-03-27 18:40 +1100
Re: Undefined behaviour in C [was Re: The Cost of Dynamism] Rustom Mody <rustompmody@gmail.com> - 2016-03-27 00:52 -0700
Re: Undefined behaviour in C [was Re: The Cost of Dynamism] Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-03-27 21:06 +0100
Re: Undefined behaviour in C [was Re: The Cost of Dynamism] Oscar Benjamin <oscar.j.benjamin@gmail.com> - 2016-03-27 22:16 +0100
Re: Undefined behaviour in C [was Re: The Cost of Dynamism] Marko Rauhamaa <marko@pacujo.net> - 2016-03-26 10:37 +0200
Re: Undefined behaviour in C [was Re: The Cost of Dynamism] Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2016-03-26 08:23 +1100
Re: Undefined behaviour in C [was Re: The Cost of Dynamism] Steven D'Aprano <steve@pearwood.info> - 2016-03-27 18:13 +1100
Re: Undefined behaviour in C [was Re: The Cost of Dynamism] Rustom Mody <rustompmody@gmail.com> - 2016-03-25 22:30 -0700
Re: Undefined behaviour in C [was Re: The Cost of Dynamism] Steven D'Aprano <steve@pearwood.info> - 2016-03-26 21:39 +1100
Re: Undefined behaviour in C [was Re: The Cost of Dynamism] Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2016-03-26 23:03 +1100
Re: Undefined behaviour in C [was Re: The Cost of Dynamism] Rustom Mody <rustompmody@gmail.com> - 2016-03-26 10:43 -0700
Re: Undefined behaviour in C [was Re: The Cost of Dynamism] Terry Reedy <tjreedy@udel.edu> - 2016-03-26 16:44 -0400
Re: Undefined behaviour in C [was Re: The Cost of Dynamism] Rustom Mody <rustompmody@gmail.com> - 2016-03-26 22:02 -0700
Re: Undefined behaviour in C [was Re: The Cost of Dynamism] Rustom Mody <rustompmody@gmail.com> - 2016-03-26 22:54 -0700
Re: Undefined behaviour in C [was Re: The Cost of Dynamism] Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2016-03-27 08:58 +1100
Re: Undefined behaviour in C [was Re: The Cost of Dynamism] Steven D'Aprano <steve@pearwood.info> - 2016-03-27 13:44 +1100
Re: Undefined behaviour in C [was Re: The Cost of Dynamism] Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2016-03-27 13:52 +1100
Re: Undefined behaviour in C [was Re: The Cost of Dynamism] Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2016-03-26 23:34 -0700
Re: Undefined behaviour in C [was Re: The Cost of Dynamism] Rustom Mody <rustompmody@gmail.com> - 2016-03-27 00:13 -0700
Re: The Cost of Dynamism (was Re: Pyhon 2.x or 3.x, which is faster?) Mark Lawrence <breamoreboy@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-03-25 21:07 +0000
Re: The Cost of Dynamism (was Re: Pyhon 2.x or 3.x, which is faster?) Steven D'Aprano <steve@pearwood.info> - 2016-03-25 00:50 +1100
Re: The Cost of Dynamism (was Re: Pyhon 2.x or 3.x, which is faster?) Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2016-03-25 01:01 +1100
Re: The Cost of Dynamism (was Re: Pyhon 2.x or 3.x, which is faster?) BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-03-24 14:28 +0000
Re: The Cost of Dynamism (was Re: Pyhon 2.x or 3.x, which is faster?) alister <alister.ware@ntlworld.com> - 2016-03-24 18:30 +0000
Re: The Cost of Dynamism (was Re: Pyhon 2.x or 3.x, which is faster?) BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-03-24 14:04 +0000
Re: The Cost of Dynamism (was Re: Pyhon 2.x or 3.x, which is faster?) Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.co.uk> - 2016-03-24 14:08 +0000
Re: The Cost of Dynamism (was Re: Pyhon 2.x or 3.x, which is faster?) BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-03-24 14:16 +0000
Re: The Cost of Dynamism (was Re: Pyhon 2.x or 3.x, which is faster?) Jussi Piitulainen <jussi.piitulainen@helsinki.fi> - 2016-03-24 16:34 +0200
Re: The Cost of Dynamism (was Re: Pyhon 2.x or 3.x, which is faster?) BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-03-24 14:49 +0000
Re: The Cost of Dynamism (was Re: Pyhon 2.x or 3.x, which is faster?) Random832 <random832@fastmail.com> - 2016-03-24 10:53 -0400
Re: The Cost of Dynamism (was Re: Pyhon 2.x or 3.x, which is faster?) Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.co.uk> - 2016-03-24 15:03 +0000
Re: The Cost of Dynamism (was Re: Pyhon 2.x or 3.x, which is faster?) BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-03-24 15:18 +0000
Re: The Cost of Dynamism (was Re: Pyhon 2.x or 3.x, which is faster?) Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.co.uk> - 2016-03-24 15:25 +0000
Re: The Cost of Dynamism (was Re: Pyhon 2.x or 3.x, which is faster?) Random832 <random832@fastmail.com> - 2016-03-24 11:30 -0400
Re: The Cost of Dynamism (was Re: Pyhon 2.x or 3.x, which is faster?) Steven D'Aprano <steve@pearwood.info> - 2016-03-25 04:56 +1100
Re: The Cost of Dynamism (was Re: Pyhon 2.x or 3.x, which is faster?) Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.co.uk> - 2016-03-24 19:07 +0000
Re: The Cost of Dynamism (was Re: Pyhon 2.x or 3.x, which is faster?) Steven D'Aprano <steve@pearwood.info> - 2016-03-25 04:44 +1100
Re: The Cost of Dynamism (was Re: Pyhon 2.x or 3.x, which is faster?) Matt Wheeler <m@funkyhat.org> - 2016-03-24 14:22 +0000
Re: The Cost of Dynamism (was Re: Pyhon 2.x or 3.x, which is faster?) Mark Lawrence <breamoreboy@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-03-24 14:51 +0000
Re: The Cost of Dynamism (was Re: Pyhon 2.x or 3.x, which is faster?) Steven D'Aprano <steve@pearwood.info> - 2016-03-25 04:27 +1100
Re: The Cost of Dynamism (was Re: Pyhon 2.x or 3.x, which is faster?) Dennis Lee Bieber <wlfraed@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-03-24 21:24 -0400
Re: The Cost of Dynamism (was Re: Pyhon 2.x or 3.x, which is faster?) alister <alister.ware@ntlworld.com> - 2016-03-24 18:14 +0000
Re: The Cost of Dynamism (was Re: Pyhon 2.x or 3.x, which is faster?) Ned Batchelder <ned@nedbatchelder.com> - 2016-03-24 08:30 -0700
Re: The Cost of Dynamism (was Re: Pyhon 2.x or 3.x, which is faster?) BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-03-24 16:12 +0000
Re: The Cost of Dynamism (was Re: Pyhon 2.x or 3.x, which is faster?) Ned Batchelder <ned@nedbatchelder.com> - 2016-03-24 10:13 -0700
Re: The Cost of Dynamism (was Re: Pyhon 2.x or 3.x, which is faster?) BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-03-24 18:03 +0000
Re: The Cost of Dynamism (was Re: Pyhon 2.x or 3.x, which is faster?) Ned Batchelder <ned@nedbatchelder.com> - 2016-03-24 17:30 -0700
Re: The Cost of Dynamism (was Re: Pyhon 2.x or 3.x, which is faster?) Tim Golden <mail@timgolden.me.uk> - 2016-03-23 10:57 +0000
Re: The Cost of Dynamism (was Re: Pyhon 2.x or 3.x, which is faster?) Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2016-03-23 22:28 +1100
Re: The Cost of Dynamism (was Re: Pyhon 2.x or 3.x, which is faster?) Ned Batchelder <ned@nedbatchelder.com> - 2016-03-23 08:40 -0700
Re: The Cost of Dynamism (was Re: Pyhon 2.x or 3.x, which is faster?) Mark Lawrence <breamoreboy@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-03-23 16:08 +0000
Re: The Cost of Dynamism (was Re: Pyhon 2.x or 3.x, which is faster?) Random832 <random832@fastmail.com> - 2016-03-23 12:24 -0400
Re: The Cost of Dynamism (was Re: Pyhon 2.x or 3.x, which is faster?) Steven D'Aprano <steve@pearwood.info> - 2016-03-24 10:55 +1100
Re: The Cost of Dynamism (was Re: Pyhon 2.x or 3.x, which is faster?) Random832 <random832@fastmail.com> - 2016-03-23 20:12 -0400
Re: The Cost of Dynamism (was Re: Pyhon 2.x or 3.x, which is faster?) Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2016-03-24 11:15 +1100
Re: The Cost of Dynamism (was Re: Pyhon 2.x or 3.x, which is faster?) Mark Lawrence <breamoreboy@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-03-24 01:12 +0000
Re: The Cost of Dynamism (was Re: Pyhon 2.x or 3.x, which is faster?) Mark Lawrence <breamoreboy@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-03-23 23:21 +0000
Re: The Cost of Dynamism (was Re: Pyhon 2.x or 3.x, which is faster?) Dennis Lee Bieber <wlfraed@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-03-23 20:26 -0400
Re: The Cost of Dynamism (was Re: Pyhon 2.x or 3.x, which is faster?) Mark Lawrence <breamoreboy@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-03-23 16:09 +0000
Re: The Cost of Dynamism (was Re: Pyhon 2.x or 3.x, which is faster?) Mark Lawrence <breamoreboy@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-03-21 03:59 +0000
Re: The Cost of Dynamism (was Re: Pyhon 2.x or 3.x, which is faster?) Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2016-03-21 17:38 +1100
Re: The Cost of Dynamism (was Re: Pyhon 2.x or 3.x, which is faster?) Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2016-03-21 18:15 +1100
Re: The Cost of Dynamism (was Re: Pyhon 2.x or 3.x, which is faster?) Marko Rauhamaa <marko@pacujo.net> - 2016-03-21 09:20 +0200
Re: The Cost of Dynamism (was Re: Pyhon 2.x or 3.x, which is faster?) Mark Lawrence <breamoreboy@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-03-21 02:02 +0000
Re: The Cost of Dynamism (was Re: Pyhon 2.x or 3.x, which is faster?) BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-03-21 19:43 +0000
Re: The Cost of Dynamism (was Re: Pyhon 2.x or 3.x, which is faster?) Mark Lawrence <breamoreboy@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-03-21 19:57 +0000
Re: The Cost of Dynamism (was Re: Pyhon 2.x or 3.x, which is faster?) Ned Batchelder <ned@nedbatchelder.com> - 2016-03-21 13:18 -0700
Re: The Cost of Dynamism (was Re: Pyhon 2.x or 3.x, which is faster?) Dennis Lee Bieber <wlfraed@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-03-21 18:59 -0400
Re: The Cost of Dynamism (was Re: Pyhon 2.x or 3.x, which is faster?) Steven D'Aprano <steve@pearwood.info> - 2016-03-22 12:01 +1100
Re: The Cost of Dynamism (was Re: Pyhon 2.x or 3.x, which is faster?) BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-03-22 11:05 +0000
Re: The Cost of Dynamism (was Re: Pyhon 2.x or 3.x, which is faster?) Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2016-03-22 22:15 +1100
Re: The Cost of Dynamism (was Re: Pyhon 2.x or 3.x, which is faster?) BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-03-22 12:59 +0000
Re: The Cost of Dynamism (was Re: Pyhon 2.x or 3.x, which is faster?) Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2016-03-23 00:13 +1100
Re: The Cost of Dynamism (was Re: Pyhon 2.x or 3.x, which is faster?) Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.co.uk> - 2016-03-22 13:46 +0000
Re: The Cost of Dynamism (was Re: Pyhon 2.x or 3.x, which is faster?) Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2016-03-23 01:02 +1100
Re: The Cost of Dynamism (was Re: Pyhon 2.x or 3.x, which is faster?) Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.co.uk> - 2016-03-22 15:07 +0000
Re: The Cost of Dynamism (was Re: Pyhon 2.x or 3.x, which is faster?) Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2016-03-23 02:18 +1100
Re: The Cost of Dynamism (was Re: Pyhon 2.x or 3.x, which is faster?) BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-03-22 14:02 +0000
Re: The Cost of Dynamism (was Re: Pyhon 2.x or 3.x, which is faster?) Ned Batchelder <ned@nedbatchelder.com> - 2016-03-22 07:15 -0700
Re: The Cost of Dynamism (was Re: Pyhon 2.x or 3.x, which is faster?) Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2016-03-23 01:31 +1100
Re: The Cost of Dynamism (was Re: Pyhon 2.x or 3.x, which is faster?) Steven D'Aprano <steve@pearwood.info> - 2016-03-23 12:14 +1100
Re: The Cost of Dynamism (was Re: Pyhon 2.x or 3.x, which is faster?) Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2016-03-23 12:21 +1100
Re: The Cost of Dynamism (was Re: Pyhon 2.x or 3.x, which is faster?) Michael Torrie <torriem@gmail.com> - 2016-03-22 13:43 -0600
Re: The Cost of Dynamism (was Re: Pyhon 2.x or 3.x, which is faster?) Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2016-03-23 09:23 +1100
Re: The Cost of Dynamism (was Re: Pyhon 2.x or 3.x, which is faster?) Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2016-03-23 17:07 +1100
Re: The Cost of Dynamism (was Re: Pyhon 2.x or 3.x, which is faster?) Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2016-03-23 17:28 +1100
Re: The Cost of Dynamism (was Re: Pyhon 2.x or 3.x, which is faster?) Ned Batchelder <ned@nedbatchelder.com> - 2016-03-22 04:23 -0700
Re: The Cost of Dynamism (was Re: Pyhon 2.x or 3.x, which is faster?) Ian Foote <ian@feete.org> - 2016-03-22 11:27 +0000
Re: The Cost of Dynamism (was Re: Pyhon 2.x or 3.x, which is faster?) Dennis Lee Bieber <wlfraed@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-03-22 07:45 -0400
Re: The Cost of Dynamism (was Re: Pyhon 2.x or 3.x, which is faster?) Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2016-03-22 22:55 +1100
Re: The Cost of Dynamism (was Re: Pyhon 2.x or 3.x, which is faster?) Steven D'Aprano <steve@pearwood.info> - 2016-03-22 23:15 +1100
Re: The Cost of Dynamism (was Re: Pyhon 2.x or 3.x, which is faster?) Steven D'Aprano <steve@pearwood.info> - 2016-03-22 23:03 +1100
Re: The Cost of Dynamism (was Re: Pyhon 2.x or 3.x, which is faster?) Jussi Piitulainen <jussi.piitulainen@helsinki.fi> - 2016-03-22 14:52 +0200
Re: The Cost of Dynamism (was Re: Pyhon 2.x or 3.x, which is faster?) Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2016-03-23 00:00 +1100
Re: The Cost of Dynamism (was Re: Pyhon 2.x or 3.x, which is faster?) Jussi Piitulainen <jussi.piitulainen@helsinki.fi> - 2016-03-22 15:15 +0200
Re: The Cost of Dynamism (was Re: Pyhon 2.x or 3.x, which is faster?) Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2016-03-23 00:24 +1100
Re: The Cost of Dynamism (was Re: Pyhon 2.x or 3.x, which is faster?) Jussi Piitulainen <jussi.piitulainen@helsinki.fi> - 2016-03-22 15:32 +0200
Re: The Cost of Dynamism (was Re: Pyhon 2.x or 3.x, which is faster?) Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2016-03-23 00:38 +1100
Re: The Cost of Dynamism (was Re: Pyhon 2.x or 3.x, which is faster?) Jussi Piitulainen <jussi.piitulainen@helsinki.fi> - 2016-03-22 15:49 +0200
Re: The Cost of Dynamism (was Re: Pyhon 2.x or 3.x, which is faster?) Larry Hudson <orgnut@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-22 22:17 -0700
Re: The Cost of Dynamism (was Re: Pyhon 2.x or 3.x, which is faster?) Terry Reedy <tjreedy@udel.edu> - 2016-03-20 22:21 -0400
Re: The Cost of Dynamism (was Re: Pyhon 2.x or 3.x, which is faster?) BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-03-21 12:34 +0000
Re: The Cost of Dynamism (was Re: Pyhon 2.x or 3.x, which is faster?) Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2016-03-21 23:59 +1100
Re: The Cost of Dynamism (was Re: Pyhon 2.x or 3.x, which is faster?) Steven D'Aprano <steve@pearwood.info> - 2016-03-22 00:48 +1100
Re: The Cost of Dynamism (was Re: Pyhon 2.x or 3.x, which is faster?) Random832 <random832@fastmail.com> - 2016-03-21 10:04 -0400
Re: The Cost of Dynamism (was Re: Pyhon 2.x or 3.x, which is faster?) Steven D'Aprano <steve@pearwood.info> - 2016-03-22 02:09 +1100
Re: The Cost of Dynamism (was Re: Pyhon 2.x or 3.x, which is faster?) Rustom Mody <rustompmody@gmail.com> - 2016-03-21 08:39 -0700
Re: The Cost of Dynamism (was Re: Pyhon 2.x or 3.x, which is faster?) Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2016-03-22 02:45 +1100
Re: The Cost of Dynamism (was Re: Pyhon 2.x or 3.x, which is faster?) BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-03-21 17:12 +0000
Re: The Cost of Dynamism (was Re: Pyhon 2.x or 3.x, which is faster?) Terry Reedy <tjreedy@udel.edu> - 2016-03-21 20:20 -0400
Re: The Cost of Dynamism (was Re: Pyhon 2.x or 3.x, which is faster?) Rustom Mody <rustompmody@gmail.com> - 2016-03-21 06:02 -0700
Re: The Cost of Dynamism (was Re: Pyhon 2.x or 3.x, which is faster?) Mark Lawrence <breamoreboy@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-03-21 13:08 +0000
Re: The Cost of Dynamism (was Re: Pyhon 2.x or 3.x, which is faster?) MRAB <python@mrabarnett.plus.com> - 2016-03-21 13:17 +0000
Re: The Cost of Dynamism (was Re: Pyhon 2.x or 3.x, which is faster?) Steven D'Aprano <steve@pearwood.info> - 2016-03-22 02:11 +1100
Re: The Cost of Dynamism (was Re: Pyhon 2.x or 3.x, which is faster?) BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-03-21 17:31 +0000
Re: The Cost of Dynamism (was Re: Pyhon 2.x or 3.x, which is faster?) Mark Lawrence <breamoreboy@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-03-21 18:18 +0000
Re: The Cost of Dynamism (was Re: Pyhon 2.x or 3.x, which is faster?) Dennis Lee Bieber <wlfraed@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-03-21 19:20 -0400
Re: The Cost of Dynamism (was Re: Pyhon 2.x or 3.x, which is faster?) BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-03-22 00:49 +0000
Re: The Cost of Dynamism (was Re: Pyhon 2.x or 3.x, which is faster?) Mark Lawrence <breamoreboy@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-03-22 02:01 +0000
Re: The Cost of Dynamism (was Re: Pyhon 2.x or 3.x, which is faster?) Rustom Mody <rustompmody@gmail.com> - 2016-03-22 04:15 -0700
Re: The Cost of Dynamism (was Re: Pyhon 2.x or 3.x, which is faster?) Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2016-03-22 17:53 +1100
Re: The Cost of Dynamism (was Re: Pyhon 2.x or 3.x, which is faster?) Marko Rauhamaa <marko@pacujo.net> - 2016-03-22 09:24 +0200
Re: The Cost of Dynamism (was Re: Pyhon 2.x or 3.x, which is faster?) Mark Lawrence <breamoreboy@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-03-22 07:44 +0000
Re: The Cost of Dynamism (was Re: Pyhon 2.x or 3.x, which is faster?) Terry Reedy <tjreedy@udel.edu> - 2016-03-21 20:13 -0400
Re: The Cost of Dynamism (was Re: Pyhon 2.x or 3.x, which is faster?) Ned Batchelder <ned@nedbatchelder.com> - 2016-03-21 05:08 -0700
Re: The Cost of Dynamism (was Re: Pyhon 2.x or 3.x, which is faster?) BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-03-21 12:43 +0000
Re: The Cost of Dynamism (was Re: Pyhon 2.x or 3.x, which is faster?) Ned Batchelder <ned@nedbatchelder.com> - 2016-03-21 06:12 -0700
Re: The Cost of Dynamism (was Re: Pyhon 2.x or 3.x, which is faster?) Terry Reedy <tjreedy@udel.edu> - 2016-03-21 19:50 -0400
Re: The Cost of Dynamism (was Re: Pyhon 2.x or 3.x, which is faster?) BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-03-22 00:18 +0000
Re: The Cost of Dynamism (was Re: Pyhon 2.x or 3.x, which is faster?) Mark Lawrence <breamoreboy@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-03-22 00:42 +0000
Re: The Cost of Dynamism (was Re: Pyhon 2.x or 3.x, which is faster?) BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-03-22 01:00 +0000
Re: The Cost of Dynamism (was Re: Pyhon 2.x or 3.x, which is faster?) Michael Torrie <torriem@gmail.com> - 2016-03-24 13:49 -0600
Re: The Cost of Dynamism (was Re: Pyhon 2.x or 3.x, which is faster?) Steven D'Aprano <steve@pearwood.info> - 2016-03-13 13:01 +1100
Re: The Cost of Dynamism (was Re: Pyhon 2.x or 3.x, which is faster?) BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-03-13 02:30 +0000
Re: The Cost of Dynamism (was Re: Pyhon 2.x or 3.x, which is faster?) Mark Lawrence <breamoreboy@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-03-24 22:43 +0000
Re: The Cost of Dynamism (was Re: Pyhon 2.x or 3.x, which is faster?) Marko Rauhamaa <marko@pacujo.net> - 2016-03-12 08:48 +0200
Re: The Cost of Dynamism (was Re: Pyhon 2.x or 3.x, which is faster?) BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-03-12 11:08 +0000
Re: The Cost of Dynamism (was Re: Pyhon 2.x or 3.x, which is faster?) Mark Lawrence <breamoreboy@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-03-12 11:27 +0000
Re: The Cost of Dynamism (was Re: Pyhon 2.x or 3.x, which is faster?) Marko Rauhamaa <marko@pacujo.net> - 2016-03-12 13:51 +0200
Re: The Cost of Dynamism (was Re: Pyhon 2.x or 3.x, which is faster?) BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-03-12 13:42 +0000
Re: The Cost of Dynamism (was Re: Pyhon 2.x or 3.x, which is faster?) Marko Rauhamaa <marko@pacujo.net> - 2016-03-12 16:38 +0200
Re: The Cost of Dynamism (was Re: Pyhon 2.x or 3.x, which is faster?) Steven D'Aprano <steve@pearwood.info> - 2016-03-13 03:56 +1100
Re: The Cost of Dynamism (was Re: Pyhon 2.x or 3.x, which is faster?) BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-03-12 17:54 +0000
Re: The Cost of Dynamism (was Re: Pyhon 2.x or 3.x, which is faster?) Marko Rauhamaa <marko@pacujo.net> - 2016-03-12 20:07 +0200
Re: The Cost of Dynamism (was Re: Pyhon 2.x or 3.x, which is faster?) BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-03-12 18:30 +0000
Re: The Cost of Dynamism (was Re: Pyhon 2.x or 3.x, which is faster?) Steven D'Aprano <steve@pearwood.info> - 2016-03-13 20:39 +1100
Re: The Cost of Dynamism (was Re: Pyhon 2.x or 3.x, which is faster?) BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-03-13 13:16 +0000
Re: The Cost of Dynamism (was Re: Pyhon 2.x or 3.x, which is faster?) Steven D'Aprano <steve@pearwood.info> - 2016-03-14 14:01 +1100
Re: The Cost of Dynamism (was Re: Pyhon 2.x or 3.x, which is faster?) BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-03-14 13:00 +0000
Re: The Cost of Dynamism (was Re: Pyhon 2.x or 3.x, which is faster?) BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-03-14 14:43 +0000
Re: The Cost of Dynamism (was Re: Pyhon 2.x or 3.x, which is faster?) Mark Lawrence <breamoreboy@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-03-14 16:21 +0000
Re: The Cost of Dynamism (was Re: Pyhon 2.x or 3.x, which is faster?) Michael Torrie <torriem@gmail.com> - 2016-03-14 11:55 -0600
Re: The Cost of Dynamism (was Re: Pyhon 2.x or 3.x, which is faster?) alister <alister.ware@ntlworld.com> - 2016-03-14 19:45 +0000
Re: The Cost of Dynamism (was Re: Pyhon 2.x or 3.x, which is faster?) BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-03-14 20:31 +0000
Re: The Cost of Dynamism (was Re: Pyhon 2.x or 3.x, which is faster?) Christian Gollwitzer <auriocus@gmx.de> - 2016-03-14 22:00 +0100
Re: The Cost of Dynamism (was Re: Pyhon 2.x or 3.x, which is faster?) BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-03-14 21:17 +0000
Re: The Cost of Dynamism (was Re: Pyhon 2.x or 3.x, which is faster?) Mark Lawrence <breamoreboy@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-03-14 21:00 +0000
Re: The Cost of Dynamism (was Re: Pyhon 2.x or 3.x, which is faster?) Steven D'Aprano <steve@pearwood.info> - 2016-03-15 12:27 +1100
Re: The Cost of Dynamism (was Re: Pyhon 2.x or 3.x, which is faster?) BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-03-15 01:35 +0000
Re: The Cost of Dynamism (was Re: Pyhon 2.x or 3.x, which is faster?) Steven D'Aprano <steve@pearwood.info> - 2016-03-15 13:12 +1100
Re: The Cost of Dynamism (was Re: Pyhon 2.x or 3.x, which is faster?) Marko Rauhamaa <marko@pacujo.net> - 2016-03-15 08:25 +0200
Re: The Cost of Dynamism (was Re: Pyhon 2.x or 3.x, which is faster?) alister <alister.ware@ntlworld.com> - 2016-03-15 09:20 +0000
Re: The Cost of Dynamism (was Re: Pyhon 2.x or 3.x, which is faster?) BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-03-15 12:02 +0000
Re: The Cost of Dynamism (was Re: Pyhon 2.x or 3.x, which is faster?) Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2016-03-15 23:20 +1100
Re: The Cost of Dynamism (was Re: Pyhon 2.x or 3.x, which is faster?) Rick Johnson <rantingrickjohnson@gmail.com> - 2016-03-15 11:17 -0700
Re: The Cost of Dynamism (was Re: Pyhon 2.x or 3.x, which is faster?) Marko Rauhamaa <marko@pacujo.net> - 2016-03-15 12:14 +0200
Re: The Cost of Dynamism (was Re: Pyhon 2.x or 3.x, which is faster?) Steven D'Aprano <steve@pearwood.info> - 2016-03-15 12:19 +1100
Re: The Cost of Dynamism (was Re: Pyhon 2.x or 3.x, which is faster?) Steven D'Aprano <steve@pearwood.info> - 2016-03-15 12:11 +1100
Re: The Cost of Dynamism (was Re: Pyhon 2.x or 3.x, which is faster?) Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2016-03-12 23:10 +1100
Re: The Cost of Dynamism (was Re: Pyhon 2.x or 3.x, which is faster?) Steven D'Aprano <steve@pearwood.info> - 2016-03-12 23:28 +1100
Re: The Cost of Dynamism (was Re: Pyhon 2.x or 3.x, which is faster?) Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2016-03-13 00:06 +1100
Re: The Cost of Dynamism (was Re: Pyhon 2.x or 3.x, which is faster?) BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-03-12 15:12 +0000
Re: The Cost of Dynamism (was Re: Pyhon 2.x or 3.x, which is faster?) Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2016-03-13 02:30 +1100
Re: The Cost of Dynamism (was Re: Pyhon 2.x or 3.x, which is faster?) BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-03-12 16:42 +0000
Re: The Cost of Dynamism (was Re: Pyhon 2.x or 3.x, which is faster?) Mark Lawrence <breamoreboy@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-03-12 17:02 +0000
Re: The Cost of Dynamism (was Re: Pyhon 2.x or 3.x, which is faster?) Steven D'Aprano <steve@pearwood.info> - 2016-03-13 12:20 +1100
Re: The Cost of Dynamism (was Re: Pyhon 2.x or 3.x, which is faster?) Mark Lawrence <breamoreboy@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-03-13 01:32 +0000
Re: The Cost of Dynamism (was Re: Pyhon 2.x or 3.x, which is faster?) Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2016-03-13 13:03 +1100
Re: The Cost of Dynamism (was Re: Pyhon 2.x or 3.x, which is faster?) Ben Finney <ben+python@benfinney.id.au> - 2016-03-13 13:33 +1100
Re: The Cost of Dynamism (was Re: Pyhon 2.x or 3.x, which is faster?) Terry Reedy <tjreedy@udel.edu> - 2016-03-13 01:43 -0500
Re: The Cost of Dynamism (was Re: Pyhon 2.x or 3.x, which is faster?) Gene Heskett <gheskett@wdtv.com> - 2016-03-13 09:14 -0400
Re: The Cost of Dynamism (was Re: Pyhon 2.x or 3.x, which is faster?) alister <alister.ware@ntlworld.com> - 2016-03-12 19:03 +0000
Re: The Cost of Dynamism (was Re: Pyhon 2.x or 3.x, which is faster?) alister <alister.ware@ntlworld.com> - 2016-03-12 15:29 +0000
Page 6 of 16 — ← Prev page 1 … 4 5 [6] 7 8 … 16 Next page →
| From | Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-29 19:26 +1100 |
| Subject | Re: Statements as expressions [was Re: Undefined behaviour in C] |
| Message-ID | <56fa3c2a$0$1591$c3e8da3$5496439d@news.astraweb.com> |
| In reply to | #105889 |
On Monday 28 March 2016 12:40, Paul Rubin wrote:
> Steven D'Aprano <steve@pearwood.info> writes:
>> if condition:
>> print(1)
>> print(2)
>> else:
>> print(3)
>> print(4)
>> what value should it return? Justify your choice.
>
> It could whatever value that the last call to print() returns. Lisp
> has worked like that since the 1950's.
"Lisp did it" isn't much of a justification.
The point is that sticking a return value onto a conditional branch with two
blocks is rather arbitrary. Why return the last value rather than the first?
Why not return a list of all the values generated in the block? Or
True/False depending on which branch was taken?
Or for that matter, a random number?
The point is that there's nothing intrinsically obvious or right about
"return the value of the last statement in the block".
>> What should be the return value of this statement?
>>
>> while True:
>> x += 1
>> if condition: break
>
> It could return None, or break(val) could return val.
Another arbitrary choice. It *could* return anything. But what *should* it
return?
An expression naturally and intrinsically should return the value the
expression calculates. This is such a no-brainer that I feel stupid even
writing it: "x+1" should return "x+1". It would be crazy to pick something
else.
But a statement is a statement because it doesn't have a return value. To
give it one, we have to more-or-less arbitrarily force it to have one, but
that doesn't make it terribly natural.
del x
Should it return None? The string 'x'? How about the value that x had just
before it was deleted? True if that allowed the value to be garbage
collected, False if it wasn't? Or the other way around? None of these
suggests feel either useful or obviously right.
>> I don't think that "every statement is an expression" is conceptually
>> simpler at all. I think it is more difficult to understand.
>
> It hasn't been a problem in Lisp or its descendants, Erlang, Haskell,
> etc. I don't know about Ruby or Javascript.
Maybe, maybe not. But certain statements, at least, are definitely a problem
in C/C++ :
int war = false; if(war = true) { launchnuke(); }
The way I see it, all expressions are meaningful as statements (although
possibly not terribly useful if they don't have side-effects) but not all
statements are meaningful as expressions.
If other languages choose differently, well, that's their right to do so,
but I don't agree with their choice. On the other hand, I am tempted by the
thought of a language where all statements return 42.
>> But it is even harder to understand what it might mean for a while
>> loop to be a value, and the benefit of doing so seems significantly
>> less than compelling.
>
> It means that you get to use an incredibly simple and beautiful
> evaluation model. Have you ever used Lisp or Scheme? Give it a try
> sometime. Excellent free book:
> https://mitpress.mit.edu/sicp/full-text/book/book.html
I've tried to get into Lisp a couple of times, and it doesn't speak to me.
If you want my opinion, Forth has a more natural evaluation model.
--
Steve
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-29 01:54 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Statements as expressions [was Re: Undefined behaviour in C] |
| Message-ID | <87r3et4qbj.fsf@nightsong.com> |
| In reply to | #105960 |
Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> writes: > The point is that there's nothing intrinsically obvious or right about > "return the value of the last statement in the block". Strictly speaking it returns the value of the block itself. The block is usually evaluated by PROG which returns the last value of the block, but you could also use PROG1 which uses the first value, or PROG2 which uses the second value. > I've tried to get into Lisp a couple of times, and it doesn't speak to me. > If you want my opinion, Forth has a more natural evaluation model. You might like Factor then, www.factorcode.org .
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-29 20:09 +1100 |
| Subject | Re: Statements as expressions [was Re: Undefined behaviour in C] |
| Message-ID | <mailman.135.1459243012.28225.python-list@python.org> |
| In reply to | #105960 |
On Tue, Mar 29, 2016 at 7:26 PM, Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> wrote: > del x > > Should it return None? The string 'x'? How about the value that x had just > before it was deleted? True if that allowed the value to be garbage > collected, False if it wasn't? Or the other way around? None of these > suggests feel either useful or obviously right. Returning the value x had just before being deleted is certainly useful - consider the case where x is not a simple name but a subscripting, which makes this into a destructive lookup. Saying whether the object was garbage collected or not could also be useful, but feels very low level. But if Python were to make 'del' into an expression, the only semantics needed would be for simple names. For everything else, the value of 'del x[y]' or 'del x.y' would simply be 'whatever __delitem__/__delattr__ returns'. And even for simple names, the semantics could be defined by the enclosing scope's dictionary. It'd be like Python's operators; yes, you normally expect "x < y" to return a truthy or falsy value, and for most built-in types it'll return either True or False, but you can return anything at all - including a lazy evaluation object for a DSL. Someone could, for instance, make "del User[42]" return a Query object which, when executed, deletes the user with primary key 42. (Note: I am not advocating this. Just saying what would, IMO, be consistent with the rest of Python.) ChrisA
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Marko Rauhamaa <marko@pacujo.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-29 12:23 +0300 |
| Subject | Re: Statements as expressions [was Re: Undefined behaviour in C] |
| Message-ID | <87egatmyd2.fsf@elektro.pacujo.net> |
| In reply to | #105960 |
Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info>:
> On Monday 28 March 2016 12:40, Paul Rubin wrote:
>
>> Steven D'Aprano <steve@pearwood.info> writes:
>>> if condition:
>>> print(1)
>>> print(2)
>>> else:
>>> print(3)
>>> print(4)
>>> what value should it return? Justify your choice.
>>
>> It could whatever value that the last call to print() returns. Lisp
>> has worked like that since the 1950's.
>
> "Lisp did it" isn't much of a justification.
Actually, it would be in my books.
However, Scheme (a Lisp dialect) also has statements that don't return
any particular value. The (if) happens to be an example. Thus,
(set! x (if #f 3))
Assigns *some* value to x, but the language leaves it open what that
value might be.
Guile (a Scheme implementation) actually provides a distinct
"unspecified" value, which it uses in cases where the language standard
leaves the value unspecified.
> The point is that there's nothing intrinsically obvious or right about
> "return the value of the last statement in the block".
No, but the semantics of a functional language become simpler when you
can assume that every continuation operates on a value.
Consequently, every function in Python returns a value as does every
function in Perl and every command in bash.
> I've tried to get into Lisp a couple of times, and it doesn't speak to
> me. If you want my opinion, Forth has a more natural evaluation model.
Forth, too, has nice, simple semantics. Forth has nothing but statements
that operate on the stack and occasionally cause some side effects.
Here's an example of how Python benefits from the functional model:
decorators. You can use the same decorators both for proper functions
and for procedures that ostensibly don't return a value. Python has
defined "None" to be the default return value for procedures so it is
legal to say,
a = f()
even if f doesn't return a value.
Unfortunately, Python made a bit of a bad choice in the default return
value. Now Python cannot perform effective tail recursion elimination.
If Python had left the default unspecified, tail recursion elimination
would be simple.
Python's choice benefits the interactive console, which doesn't print
out None values.
Marko
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | BartC <bc@freeuk.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-29 12:31 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: Statements as expressions [was Re: Undefined behaviour in C] |
| Message-ID | <nddot9$8en$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #105960 |
On 29/03/2016 09:26, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
> On Monday 28 March 2016 12:40, Paul Rubin wrote:
> The point is that there's nothing intrinsically obvious or right about
> "return the value of the last statement in the block".
But that's exactly what happens inside a typical function: you have
linear sequence of statements, then you a have return statement: at the
end. It's a common pattern.
>>> while True:
>>> x += 1
>>> if condition: break
>>
>> It could return None, or break(val) could return val.
>
> Another arbitrary choice. It *could* return anything. But what *should* it
> return?
It's up to you. Write it like this (not valid Python):
while True: x+=1; if c: break; y
Now this is two statement, the loop, and 'y'. We now have a block, and
because of the block rule, the value is y.
> An expression naturally and intrinsically should return the value the
> expression calculates. This is such a no-brainer that I feel stupid even
> writing it: "x+1" should return "x+1". It would be crazy to pick something
> else.
(This is in contradiction to what you say elsewhere, where:
graph + node
may be procedural.)
> But a statement is a statement because it doesn't have a return value.
Isn't an expression technically a statement in Python? Therefore a
statement could have a value. But take this example:
if cond1: x=a1
elif cond2: x=a2
elif cond3: x=a3
else: x=a4
Clearly this would be better expressed as (not valid Python):
x = if cond1: a1
elif cond2: a2
elif cond3: a3
else: a4
So some kinds of statements could conceivably yield a useful value. (And
each a1, a2 here could be a block or other statement yielding a value.)
> To
> give it one, we have to more-or-less arbitrarily force it to have one, but
> that doesn't make it terribly natural.
>
> del x
>
> Should it return None? The string 'x'? How about the value that x had just
> before it was deleted?
(Actually 'del is a rather odd language feature. And I can't figure out
how it's implemented; how does it manage 'del x[i]'? Anyway that's
another matter.)
> True if that allowed the value to be garbage
> collected, False if it wasn't? Or the other way around? None of these
> suggests feel either useful or obviously right.
It doesn't need to give a useful value. Its 'value' lies in being able
to have it in a sequence or block:
z = del x; y
> The way I see it, all expressions are meaningful as statements (although
> possibly not terribly useful if they don't have side-effects) but not all
> statements are meaningful as expressions.
Yes. But some are. To list a few statements that could return values
(some are not part of Python):
- If-elif-else
- Switch and case select statements
- Block
- Increment
- Subroutine call
- Assignment
The rest can still usefully appear in a block. Python has a version of
if-else that appears in an expression, but it has function-call. But why
stop there?
Anyway this is all hypothetical, in case anyone thinks I'm pushing for a
change in the language. I thought such a language was cool in the 1980s,
but now will settle for a more conservative one even if it's not so elegant.
--
bartc
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Steven D'Aprano <steve@pearwood.info> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-30 11:05 +1100 |
| Subject | Re: Statements as expressions [was Re: Undefined behaviour in C] |
| Message-ID | <56fb1861$0$1622$c3e8da3$5496439d@news.astraweb.com> |
| In reply to | #105979 |
On Tue, 29 Mar 2016 10:31 pm, BartC wrote:
> On 29/03/2016 09:26, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
>> On Monday 28 March 2016 12:40, Paul Rubin wrote:
>
>
>> The point is that there's nothing intrinsically obvious or right about
>> "return the value of the last statement in the block".
>
> But that's exactly what happens inside a typical function: you have
> linear sequence of statements, then you a have return statement: at the
> end. It's a common pattern.
But return is an *explicit* exit. And not all languages work that way.
{My Pascal syntax may be a bit rusty...}
function demo(int x): int;
begin
demo := x + 1; {sets the return value}
writeln('x has the value', x);
writeln('returning now...');
end;
[...]
>> An expression naturally and intrinsically should return the value the
>> expression calculates. This is such a no-brainer that I feel stupid even
>> writing it: "x+1" should return "x+1". It would be crazy to pick
>> something else.
>
> (This is in contradiction to what you say elsewhere, where:
>
> graph + node
>
> may be procedural.)
Not at all. With operator overloading, the plus operator + ends up as a
method call __add__ or __radd__. This method call can have side-effects,
and it can return anything it likes, including None. That return value can
be ignored, but it is still the return value of the expression:
graph + node # returns None, use this expression for the side-effects only
Just like print(a, b, c) returns None, and we use if for the side-effects.
It's still an expression ("call the print function with these arguments"),
it does something (prints) and then returns None.
>> But a statement is a statement because it doesn't have a return value.
>
> Isn't an expression technically a statement in Python?
I mean statements which are not legal expressions, like:
del x
import module
from module import name
for x in seq: block
while condition: block
try ... except ... else ... finally
etc. I'm sorry that I wasn't pedantic enough to specify "statements (apart
from expressions)" each time I contrasted statements and expressions. Can
you possibly forgive me for my informal use of language?
> Therefore a
> statement could have a value. But take this example:
>
> if cond1: x=a1
> elif cond2: x=a2
> elif cond3: x=a3
> else: x=a4
>
> Clearly this would be better expressed as (not valid Python):
>
> x = if cond1: a1
> elif cond2: a2
> elif cond3: a3
> else: a4
x = a1 if cond1 else a2 if cond2 else a3 if cond3 else a4
We can split it over multiple lines too:
x = (
a1 if cond1 else
a2 if cond2 else
a3 if cond3 else
a4
)
> (Actually 'del is a rather odd language feature. And I can't figure out
> how it's implemented; how does it manage 'del x[i]'? Anyway that's
> another matter.)
del x[i] calls x.__delitem__(i)
>> True if that allowed the value to be garbage
>> collected, False if it wasn't? Or the other way around? None of these
>> suggests feel either useful or obviously right.
>
> It doesn't need to give a useful value.
Hence my suggestion that all statements (apart from expressions) return 42.
> Its 'value' lies in being able to have it in a sequence or block:
>
> z = del x; y
In a hypothetical Python where `del x` returns None, that would set z to
None and then evaluate y, doing nothing with the result.
--
Steven
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Dennis Lee Bieber <wlfraed@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-29 08:15 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: Statements as expressions [was Re: Undefined behaviour in C] |
| Message-ID | <mailman.147.1459253727.28225.python-list@python.org> |
| In reply to | #105960 |
On Tue, 29 Mar 2016 19:26:14 +1100, Steven D'Aprano
<steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> declaimed the following:
>
>If other languages choose differently, well, that's their right to do so,
>but I don't agree with their choice. On the other hand, I am tempted by the
>thought of a language where all statements return 42.
Too simple -- the EXIT (whatever the language uses for that) should
return the digits of PI (all of them <G>)
--
Wulfraed Dennis Lee Bieber AF6VN
wlfraed@ix.netcom.com HTTP://wlfraed.home.netcom.com/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | BartC <bc@freeuk.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-28 12:11 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: Statements as expressions [was Re: Undefined behaviour in C] |
| Message-ID | <ndb3av$dn1$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #105884 |
On 28/03/2016 01:54, Steven D'Aprano wrote: > On Mon, 28 Mar 2016 03:58 am, BartC wrote: > >>> One of Guido's principles in designing Python was to keep it simple, >>> even where that might mean people could make errors with it. This part >>> of the language is no different: any expression can be a statement. >> >> Yeah, but even simpler would be that any statement can also be an >> expression! He didn't go that far though. > > People say that, but I don't believe it. Well, some languages work like that. I think Lisp does. And so does the more 'normal'-looking Algol-68. What does it mean to say that any > statement could also be an expression? If this statement is an expression: > > > if condition: > print(1) > print(2) > else: > print(3) > print(4) > > > what value should it return? Justify your choice. Each branch of the 'if-else' returns the value of the last statement/expression in each block. The if-statement as a whole returns one or the other. Here, it might be the return value of print(); probably None. > What should be the return value of this statement? > > while True: > x += 1 > if condition: break Many statements such as loops just returned 'void' in A68. The interesting statements were if, case-switch and block (where the value is that of the last statement/expression). To make the best use of this, you really need a more free-format syntax than Python, and blocks need closure. A68 used the funny-looking 'fi' to close an if-statement, and 'od' for a loop: while c:=psource[n]; n+:=1; c!=etx do ... od if c then a else b fi := 0 # also written (c|a|b):=0 return case n in: 10,20,30 out: 90 esac > I don't think that "every statement is an expression" is conceptually > simpler at all. I think it is more difficult to understand. Nearly all > human languages make a distinction between things and actions: > > * expressions return a value, which makes them a thing (noun); > > * statements do something, which makes them an action (verb). Yet Python does allow any expression as a statement. Not even the potentially useful block statement, where you do x, y and z and then have a normal expression as its value. And Python allows a for-loop inside a lisp-comprehension. Python also has an if-else statement in the form of a conditional expression (which I won't show as I can never remember the syntax). > It's easy to understand the concept of an expression where the result is > dropped. "Hand me that hammer" and then you just drop the hammer on the > floor. > > It's harder to understand the concept of functions (doing words, verbs) as > values. Huh? Functions do things then return results. Yet Python also allows procedure calls with no explicit return statement, to act as though they return a value: def p(): pass print (p()) It returns None, just like A68 uses 'void'. So Python picks and chooses what it wants from the more general and conceptually simpler model of a language where expressions and statements are interchangeable. Python then is a little more complex because you have to consider what is allowed, and what isn't. >It's being a bit, what's the word "First class functions" take a bit of mental effort to understand, > but the payoff it worth it. > > But it is even harder to understand what it might mean for a while loop to > be a value, and the benefit of doing so seems significantly less than > compelling. Maybe it is easier for non-English speakers with quite > different linguistic models, but the benefit of adding statements as > expressions seems to me to be well less than the extra difficulty it would > produce. (I've created several languages based on the Algol-68 model. With more recent ones I've dropped that model, so that statements and expressions are different, and that is strictly enforced. This makes implementation simpler, and detects lots more errors. The few statements that /were/ also useful as expressions, have separate, simplified, value-returning versions.) -- Bartc
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-28 13:55 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: Statements as expressions [was Re: Undefined behaviour in C] |
| Message-ID | <87twjqzrqh.fsf@bsb.me.uk> |
| In reply to | #105909 |
BartC <bc@freeuk.com> writes: > On 28/03/2016 01:54, Steven D'Aprano wrote: <snip> >> What should be the return value of this statement? >> >> while True: >> x += 1 >> if condition: break > > Many statements such as loops just returned 'void' in A68. The > interesting statements were if, case-switch and block (where the value > is that of the last statement/expression). An alternative would be for a loop to return the last value of its controlling expression. This is usually false for a whole loop but would be true is the loop was exited using break. In a for loop, the value would be the last value of its control variable. This would again permit you to tell a break from a normal for loop finishing. This way you can make the loop variable local and still use its final value outside the loop. Both would render some flag variables and some auxiliary variables redundant though I've not seen a language that does it. Maybe in practice it does not work out so well, but it looked useful when I sketch it out a while back. <snip> -- Ben.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-28 11:27 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Statements as expressions [was Re: Undefined behaviour in C] |
| Message-ID | <878u125ugc.fsf@nightsong.com> |
| In reply to | #105909 |
BartC <bc@freeuk.com> writes: > With more recent ones I've dropped that model, so that statements and > expressions are different, and that is strictly enforced. This makes > implementation simpler, and detects lots more errors. You should try Haskell, where there are only expressions, but the ones that perform actions can be separated from the other ones through the type system, so using one in the wrong place raises a compile time type error.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Rustom Mody <rustompmody@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-29 20:14 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Statements as expressions [was Re: Undefined behaviour in C] |
| Message-ID | <720bdbcc-862d-425d-abc0-2dacaaf8f7d9@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #105916 |
On Tuesday, March 29, 2016 at 12:18:38 AM UTC+5:30, Paul Rubin wrote: > BartC writes: > > With more recent ones I've dropped that model, so that statements and > > expressions are different, and that is strictly enforced. This makes > > implementation simpler, and detects lots more errors. > > You should try Haskell, where there are only expressions, but the ones > that perform actions can be separated from the other ones through the > type system, so using one in the wrong place raises a compile time type > error. When I studied Pascal was mainstream and Lisp (and to smaller extent Prolog, APL) were hi-faluting. In retrospect, Pascal got something right that most everyone, both before and after got wrong, viz that we need values AND effects. Philosophically: Is programming about knowing or doing? Clearly any onesided answer is wrong. Both columns in the table here need equal weightage http://blog.languager.org/2016/01/primacy.html#expstat Pascal → C → Python is a slide down because Pascal had the clear distinction of procedure and function C conflated procedure into function with its 'void function' [Actually the first C had no void] Python only has None-return But a None returned to signify a real semantics eg dict.get not finding key And a None returned because asking for something is meaningless eg print in python3 are unfortunately undistinguishable although conceptually totally different Yeah Haskell's type system carries Pascal's procedure←→function distinction in great and excruciating detail -- pure and monadic types. But IMHO monads for distinguishing values and effects is sledgehammer-for-cracking-an-egg
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Dennis Lee Bieber <wlfraed@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-29 23:49 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: Statements as expressions [was Re: Undefined behaviour in C] |
| Message-ID | <mailman.177.1459309767.28225.python-list@python.org> |
| In reply to | #106024 |
On Tue, 29 Mar 2016 20:14:02 -0700 (PDT), Rustom Mody
<rustompmody@gmail.com> declaimed the following:
>Pascal ? C ? Python is a slide down because
>Pascal had the clear distinction of procedure and function
That goes back to FORTRAN (in which one has SUBROUTINE subprocedures,
and FUNCTION subprocedures -- yes, that is how the standard document used
to define them), which quite predates Pascal. Strangely, the precursor to
Pascal -- ALGOL -- apparently used PROC for both procedures and functions.
--
Wulfraed Dennis Lee Bieber AF6VN
wlfraed@ix.netcom.com HTTP://wlfraed.home.netcom.com/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-30 15:26 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: Statements as expressions [was Re: Undefined behaviour in C] |
| Message-ID | <87zitgujmp.fsf@bsb.me.uk> |
| In reply to | #106027 |
Dennis Lee Bieber <wlfraed@ix.netcom.com> writes: > On Tue, 29 Mar 2016 20:14:02 -0700 (PDT), Rustom Mody > <rustompmody@gmail.com> declaimed the following: > > >>Pascal ? C ? Python is a slide down because >>Pascal had the clear distinction of procedure and function > > That goes back to FORTRAN (in which one has SUBROUTINE subprocedures, > and FUNCTION subprocedures -- yes, that is how the standard document used > to define them), which quite predates Pascal. Strangely, the precursor to > Pascal -- ALGOL -- apparently used PROC for both procedures and > functions. Algol 60 used "procedure" but it maintained the distinction in that functions had (have?) a type and subroutines didn't (don't). Algol 68 uses PROC for both and the type VOID for procedures with no value. -- Ben.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Rustom Mody <rustompmody@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-30 09:59 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Statements as expressions [was Re: Undefined behaviour in C] |
| Message-ID | <ead5d60d-fc4a-439b-a622-d20072c6cb0b@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #106076 |
On Wednesday, March 30, 2016 at 7:56:50 PM UTC+5:30, Ben Bacarisse wrote: > Dennis Lee Bieber writes: <something that I unfortunately missed> Sorry Dennis Dont see you at all Neither on googlegroups -- which of course everyone loves to hate Nor the archive: https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-list/2016-March/date.html Only see your posts when someone quotes them Yes Fortran (and Basic) had procedures and functions At least the BBC-micros that I grew up on had that distinction
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Random832 <random832@fastmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-30 13:07 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: Statements as expressions [was Re: Undefined behaviour in C] |
| Message-ID | <mailman.219.1459357660.28225.python-list@python.org> |
| In reply to | #106096 |
On Wed, Mar 30, 2016, at 12:59, Rustom Mody wrote: > On Wednesday, March 30, 2016 at 7:56:50 PM UTC+5:30, Ben Bacarisse wrote: > > Dennis Lee Bieber writes: > <something that I unfortunately missed> > Sorry Dennis > Dont see you at all > Neither on googlegroups -- which of course everyone loves to hate > Nor the archive: > https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-list/2016-March/date.html Looking at the headers of his emails, I see "X-No-Archive: YES"
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Rustom Mody <rustompmody@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-30 10:28 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Statements as expressions [was Re: Undefined behaviour in C] |
| Message-ID | <9fdb4edf-7a57-46ea-91f1-3f7b1fe5c3f1@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #106097 |
On Wednesday, March 30, 2016 at 10:37:58 PM UTC+5:30, Random832 wrote: > On Wed, Mar 30, 2016, at 12:59, Rustom Mody wrote: > > On Wednesday, March 30, 2016 at 7:56:50 PM UTC+5:30, Ben Bacarisse wrote: > > > Dennis Lee Bieber writes: > > <something that I unfortunately missed> > > Sorry Dennis > > Dont see you at all > > Neither on googlegroups -- which of course everyone loves to hate > > Nor the archive: > > https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-list/2016-March/date.html > > Looking at the headers of his emails, I see "X-No-Archive: YES" Yes Earlier I used to see (in GG) Dennis' posts with some message such as "Will be removed in 6 days" or some such Now not at all.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Dennis Lee Bieber <wlfraed@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-30 19:01 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: Statements as expressions [was Re: Undefined behaviour in C] |
| Message-ID | <mailman.228.1459378897.28225.python-list@python.org> |
| In reply to | #106096 |
On Wed, 30 Mar 2016 13:07:37 -0400, Random832 <random832@fastmail.com>
declaimed the following:
>On Wed, Mar 30, 2016, at 12:59, Rustom Mody wrote:
>> On Wednesday, March 30, 2016 at 7:56:50 PM UTC+5:30, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>> > Dennis Lee Bieber writes:
>> <something that I unfortunately missed>
>> Sorry Dennis
>> Dont see you at all
>> Neither on googlegroups -- which of course everyone loves to hate
>> Nor the archive:
>> https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-list/2016-March/date.html
>
>Looking at the headers of his emails, I see "X-No-Archive: YES"
Though I'm surprised GoogleGroups would expire that fast.
Google is the reason I inserted that header -- I started back in the
days when news-servers routinely expired stuff (text groups about monthly
lifespan, the binary groups were expiring at 24 hours). Then along came
Google with the "lifetime availability" threat.
--
Wulfraed Dennis Lee Bieber AF6VN
wlfraed@ix.netcom.com HTTP://wlfraed.home.netcom.com/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Random832 <random832@fastmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-30 20:15 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: Statements as expressions [was Re: Undefined behaviour in C] |
| Message-ID | <mailman.230.1459383339.28225.python-list@python.org> |
| In reply to | #106096 |
On Wed, Mar 30, 2016, at 19:01, Dennis Lee Bieber wrote: > Though I'm surprised GoogleGroups would expire that fast. > > Google is the reason I inserted that header -- I started back in the > days when news-servers routinely expired stuff (text groups about monthly > lifespan, the binary groups were expiring at 24 hours). Then along came > Google with the "lifetime availability" threat. I guess I'm not sure I understand the motive for considering such a thing a "threat". Why do you _care_ if technical discussions about Python are available forever? I mean, it's useful for there to be a record of the discussion that led to making a decision about a PEP, or prior arguments against an idea. Sure, one person's posts being missing doesn't do much to that overall, but I do have to wonder why you care. AIUI, most people's contemporary reasoning for objecting to DejaNews (if "Google" was truly the reason you inserted it, you're a latecomer to the idea) was the supposed exploitation inherent in the fact that it was ad-funded, and most never claimed to care about it being around forever.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Dennis Lee Bieber <wlfraed@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-27 18:31 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: Undefined behaviour in C [was Re: The Cost of Dynamism] |
| Message-ID | <mailman.97.1459117929.28225.python-list@python.org> |
| In reply to | #105847 |
On Sun, 27 Mar 2016 15:43:33 +0100, BartC <bc@freeuk.com> declaimed the
following:
>
> fn # and other kinds of expression
>
>unless some keyword is used. (I've no idea what that might be; all the
>best ones are taken. But I've already said a keyword can be emulated via
>a dummy function call.)
And the cost would be that we'd lose the interactive mode output
>>> def junk():
... pass
...
>>> t = junk
>>> t
<function junk at 0x00000000044C0198>
>>>
That IS the return value of the uncalled function, which is thrown out
in script mode.
It is no different from invoking a function that returns a value, and
not having a LHS to receive the value...
>>> def junk2():
... return "Who cares"
...
>>> junk2()
'Who cares'
>>>
In a script file, both result in no output, and the return value is
discarded silently.
--
Wulfraed Dennis Lee Bieber AF6VN
wlfraed@ix.netcom.com HTTP://wlfraed.home.netcom.com/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Steven D'Aprano <steve@pearwood.info> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-28 12:45 +1100 |
| Subject | Useless expressions [was Re: Undefined behaviour in C] |
| Message-ID | <56f88c9f$0$1605$c3e8da3$5496439d@news.astraweb.com> |
| In reply to | #105847 |
On Mon, 28 Mar 2016 01:43 am, BartC wrote:
[... talk about function and procedures ...]
> Well, that could be done in Python (not so usefully because you can't
> take account of such info until a call is attempted), but that's not
> what I'm talking about, which is simply allowing:
>
> fn(...)
>
> whether fn has an explicit return or not, and not allowing:
>
> fn # and other kinds of expression
>
> unless some keyword is used. (I've no idea what that might be; all the
> best ones are taken. But I've already said a keyword can be emulated via
> a dummy function call.)
I think that the only suggestion that might, *just barely*, work in Python
is forbidding the evaluation of a single name as a syntax error. Any other
expression would have to still be allowed.
Advantage:
- catches various errors, such as forgetting to call
procedure-like functions:
main # oops, meant main()
or mistyping a keyword:
for x in sequence:
if condition: next # oops, meant continue
Disadvantages:
- makes it less convenient to use the `try: name except NameError` idiom.
- won't do anything about errors like this:
x = y # oops, meant to call y()
a = b # this one is okay though
- it treats a single name as a special case of arbitrary
expressions. What's so special about the single name case
that we should guard against this:
name
but not this?
name.validate
The Zen of Python has something to say about special cases.
import this
Now, I happen to think that using "name.validate" for the side-effects of
the attribute look-up is a terrible idea. But it's legal code, and the
compiler shouldn't make value judgements about good or bad code. You want
value judgements, use a linter.
--
Steven
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 6 of 16 — ← Prev page 1 … 4 5 [6] 7 8 … 16 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.python
csiph-web