Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.python > #106266 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Michael Okuntsov <okuntsov.mikhail@yandex.ru> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2016-04-02 03:48 +0600 |
| Last post | 2016-04-04 17:19 -0600 |
| Articles | 10 on this page of 110 — 29 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.python
[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 6 of 6 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 5 [6]
| From | Mark Lawrence <breamoreboy@yahoo.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-03 00:58 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <mailman.381.1459641552.28225.python-list@python.org> |
| In reply to | #106268 |
On 02/04/2016 17:31, Dennis Lee Bieber wrote: > On Sat, 2 Apr 2016 19:15:36 +1100, Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> > declaimed the following: > >> 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. > > Bede's BC/AD goes back to circa 700AD. It is the use of negative years > for astronomical counting that is circa 1650AD >> >> http://xenohistorian.faithweb.com/holybook/quotes/YK.html > > And that I'll take as something suited for the first of April... It's > almost on par with an old story (in Asimov's I think) on why the pyramids > were behind schedule -- among other things, the pile of government mandated > documentation, on clay tablets of course, was becoming larger than the > pyramid being built; the older records (on the bottom of the stack) were > decomposing from the pressure, etc. If I recall, they discover cuneiform as > more condense than hieroglyphics, and then learn of papyrus/ink (but then > have to support an entire industry of workers to transcribe the old clay > tablets...) > > Here we go again, yet another completely useless thread that is irrelevant to the Python programming language. Hardly surprising that the bots don't bother any more. Are any of the bots still alive? -- My fellow Pythonistas, ask not what our language can do for you, ask what you can do for our language. Mark Lawrence
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | sohcahtoa82@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-08 15:59 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <1f3a6628-863c-4e92-aa47-e5b3a80baf04@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #106268 |
On Friday, April 1, 2016 at 3:57:40 PM UTC-7, Mark Lawrence 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? > > -- > My fellow Pythonistas, ask not what our language can do for you, ask > what you can do for our language. > > Mark Lawrence Holy hell, why such an aggressive tone? I understand how range(x, y) works. It's just a simple mistake that I frequently do it wrong and have to correct it after the first time I run it. It's not like I'm saying that the implementation needs to change. I'm just saying that if I want to loop from 10 to 20, my first thought is to use range(10, 20). It is slightly unintuitive. *YES*, I know it is wrong. *YES*, I understand why the correct usage would be range(10, 21) to get that list from 10 to 20. Get off your high horse. Not everybody is like you and has been using Python for 15 years and apparently never makes mistakes.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Mark Lawrence <breamoreboy@yahoo.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-09 00:07 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <mailman.99.1460156844.2253.python-list@python.org> |
| In reply to | #106710 |
On 08/04/2016 23:59, sohcahtoa82@gmail.com wrote: > On Friday, April 1, 2016 at 3:57:40 PM UTC-7, Mark Lawrence 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? >> >> -- >> My fellow Pythonistas, ask not what our language can do for you, ask >> what you can do for our language. >> >> Mark Lawrence > > Holy hell, why such an aggressive tone? > > I understand how range(x, y) works. It's just a simple mistake that I frequently do it wrong and have to correct it after the first time I run it. It's not like I'm saying that the implementation needs to change. I'm just saying that if I want to loop from 10 to 20, my first thought is to use range(10, 20). It is slightly unintuitive. > > *YES*, I know it is wrong. *YES*, I understand why the correct usage would be range(10, 21) to get that list from 10 to 20. > > Get off your high horse. Not everybody is like you and has been using Python for 15 years and apparently never makes mistakes. > *plonk* -- My fellow Pythonistas, ask not what our language can do for you, ask what you can do for our language. Mark Lawrence
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Michael Torrie <torriem@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-02 16:49 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <mailman.390.1459662895.28225.python-list@python.org> |
| In reply to | #106267 |
Mark, your messages are showing up to the list as being from "python," at least on my email. Any reason for this?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-03 10:12 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <5902127.ulEZ6DodmD@PointedEars.de> |
| In reply to | #106350 |
Michael Torrie wrote: > Mark, your messages are showing up to the list as being from "python," > at least on my email. Any reason for this? Depends on which Mark you are addressing and how you are reading e-mail. The messages of Mark Lawrence, for example, appear to me as technically correct as can be expected from a botched Mail-to-News interface; in particular, their “From” header fields are correct. -- PointedEars Twitter: @PointedEars2 Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Mark Lawrence <breamoreboy@yahoo.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-04 15:04 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <mailman.18.1459779296.32530.python-list@python.org> |
| In reply to | #106267 |
On 02/04/2016 23:49, Michael Torrie wrote: > Mark, your messages are showing up to the list as being from "python," > at least on my email. Any reason for this? > Assuming that you're referring to me, frankly I haven't a clue. I read this list with Thunderbird on Windows, I hit "reply" to something, I type, I hit "send", job done. Thereafter, as far as I'm concerned, a miracle occurs and hundreds if not thousands of subscribers get to see my reply. -- My fellow Pythonistas, ask not what our language can do for you, ask what you can do for our language. Mark Lawrence
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | BartC <bc@freeuk.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-04 15:51 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <ndturi$ipq$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #106440 |
On 04/04/2016 15:04, Mark Lawrence wrote: > On 02/04/2016 23:49, Michael Torrie wrote: >> Mark, your messages are showing up to the list as being from "python," >> at least on my email. Any reason for this? >> > > Assuming that you're referring to me, frankly I haven't a clue. I read > this list with Thunderbird on Windows, I hit "reply" to something, I > type, I hit "send", job done. Thereafter, as far as I'm concerned, a > miracle occurs and hundreds if not thousands of subscribers get to see > my reply. On the same setup, I click 'Followup' to reply to a post, which sends to the group. Other options on the dropdown box below the Followup button are Reply and Reply All. Clicking Reply (on your post) starts an email to you, while Reply All starts an email to you and to the group. -- Bartc
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Michael Torrie <torriem@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-04 16:55 -0600 |
| Subject | From email addresses sometimes strange on this list - was Re: [beginner] What's wrong? |
| Message-ID | <mailman.43.1459810515.32530.python-list@python.org> |
| In reply to | #106267 |
On 04/04/2016 08:04 AM, Mark Lawrence via Python-list wrote: > On 02/04/2016 23:49, Michael Torrie wrote: >> Mark, your messages are showing up to the list as being from "python," >> at least on my email. Any reason for this? >> > > Assuming that you're referring to me, frankly I haven't a clue. I read > this list with Thunderbird on Windows, I hit "reply" to something, I > type, I hit "send", job done. Thereafter, as far as I'm concerned, a > miracle occurs and hundreds if not thousands of subscribers get to see > my reply. Interesting. The problem is definitely not on your end at all, though I first noticed this with your recent posts. Other posts are showing up a bit weirdly too. The problem appears to be partly in my Thunderbird client, and partly the mailing list gateway. And maybe Gmail is screwing things up too. Usenet-orginating posts look fine. For example: From: Marko Rauhamaa <marko@pacujo.net> Newsgroups: comp.lang.python Whereas email ones are sometimes looking like this: From: Mark Lawrence via Python-list <python-list@python.org> Reply-To: Mark Lawrence <breamoreboy@yahoo.co.uk> Thunderbird on my machine is only seeing the From email address (python-list@python.org) and I must have that in my address list somewhere as "python." What's odder is that my own messages show up as "From: torriem@gmail.com" and not "via Python-list <python-list@python.org>".
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-05 08:58 +1000 |
| Subject | Re: From email addresses sometimes strange on this list - was Re: [beginner] What's wrong? |
| Message-ID | <mailman.44.1459810729.32530.python-list@python.org> |
| In reply to | #106267 |
On Tue, Apr 5, 2016 at 8:55 AM, Michael Torrie <torriem@gmail.com> wrote: > Usenet-orginating posts look fine. For example: > > From: Marko Rauhamaa <marko@pacujo.net> > Newsgroups: comp.lang.python > > Whereas email ones are sometimes looking like this: > > From: Mark Lawrence via Python-list <python-list@python.org> > Reply-To: Mark Lawrence <breamoreboy@yahoo.co.uk> Ohhhh.... That probably explains it. It's because of Yahoo and mailing lists. Yahoo did stuff that breaks stuff, so Mailman breaks stuff differently to make sure that only Yahoo people get messed up a bit. It means their names and addresses get slightly obscured, but delivery works. ChrisA
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Michael Torrie <torriem@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-04 17:19 -0600 |
| Subject | Re: From email addresses sometimes strange on this list - was Re: [beginner] What's wrong? |
| Message-ID | <mailman.45.1459811948.32530.python-list@python.org> |
| In reply to | #106267 |
On 04/04/2016 04:58 PM, Chris Angelico wrote: > Ohhhh.... That probably explains it. It's because of Yahoo and mailing > lists. Yahoo did stuff that breaks stuff, so Mailman breaks stuff > differently to make sure that only Yahoo people get messed up a bit. > It means their names and addresses get slightly obscured, but delivery > works. That explains it! The other folks with messages like that are coming from Yahoo as well. I can live with it. Thank you!
[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]
Page 6 of 6 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 5 [6]
Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.python
csiph-web