Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.python > #21634 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Kiuhnm <kiuhnm03.4t.yahoo.it> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2012-03-15 00:34 +0100 |
| Last post | 2012-03-18 18:19 +0000 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 201 — 36 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.python
Python is readable Kiuhnm <kiuhnm03.4t.yahoo.it> - 2012-03-15 00:34 +0100
Re: Python is readable Arnaud Delobelle <arnodel@gmail.com> - 2012-03-14 23:54 +0000
Re: Python is readable Tony the Tiger <tony@tiger.invalid> - 2012-03-14 19:18 -0500
Re: Python is readable Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2012-03-15 11:27 +1100
Re: Python is readable Rick Johnson <rantingrickjohnson@gmail.com> - 2012-03-14 20:02 -0700
Re: Python is readable alex23 <wuwei23@gmail.com> - 2012-03-14 23:23 -0700
Re: Python is readable Kiuhnm <kiuhnm03.4t.yahoo.it> - 2012-03-15 11:44 +0100
Re: Python is readable Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2012-03-15 21:50 +1100
Re: Python is readable Kiuhnm <kiuhnm03.4t.yahoo.it> - 2012-03-15 12:27 +0100
Re: Python is readable Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2012-03-15 22:47 +1100
Re: Python is readable Kiuhnm <kiuhnm03.4t.yahoo.it> - 2012-03-15 12:59 +0100
Re: Python is readable Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2012-03-15 23:21 +1100
Re: Python is readable Ben Finney <ben+python@benfinney.id.au> - 2012-03-15 23:31 +1100
Re: Python is readable Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2012-03-15 23:38 +1100
Re: Python is readable Ben Finney <ben+python@benfinney.id.au> - 2012-03-16 00:16 +1100
Re: Python is readable Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2012-03-16 00:33 +1100
Re: Python is readable Ben Finney <ben+python@benfinney.id.au> - 2012-03-16 00:50 +1100
RE: Python is readable "Prasad, Ramit" <ramit.prasad@jpmorgan.com> - 2012-03-15 17:43 +0000
Re: Python is readable Kiuhnm <kiuhnm03.4t.yahoo.it> - 2012-03-15 15:16 +0100
Re: Python is readable Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2012-03-16 01:29 +1100
Re: Python is readable Kiuhnm <kiuhnm03.4t.yahoo.it> - 2012-03-15 15:37 +0100
Re: Python is readable Roy Smith <roy@panix.com> - 2012-03-15 11:14 -0400
Re: Python is readable Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2012-03-16 02:27 +1100
Re: Python is readable Roy Smith <roy@panix.com> - 2012-03-15 11:44 -0400
Re: Python is readable Alec Taylor <alec.taylor6@gmail.com> - 2012-03-16 03:01 +1100
Re: Python is readable Mark Lawrence <breamoreboy@yahoo.co.uk> - 2012-03-15 17:41 +0000
Re: Python is readable Thomas Rachel <nutznetz-0c1b6768-bfa9-48d5-a470-7603bd3aa915@spamschutz.glglgl.de> - 2012-03-15 12:14 +0100
Re: Python is readable Kiuhnm <kiuhnm03.4t.yahoo.it> - 2012-03-15 12:48 +0100
Re: Python is readable Mark Lawrence <breamoreboy@yahoo.co.uk> - 2012-03-15 14:06 +0000
Re: Python is readable Kiuhnm <kiuhnm03.4t.yahoo.it> - 2012-03-15 15:19 +0100
Re: Python is readable Tim Golden <mail@timgolden.me.uk> - 2012-03-15 14:28 +0000
Re: Python is readable Kiuhnm <kiuhnm03.4t.yahoo.it> - 2012-03-15 15:55 +0100
Re: Python is readable Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2012-03-16 02:08 +1100
Re: Python is readable Kiuhnm <kiuhnm03.4t.yahoo.it> - 2012-03-15 20:40 +0100
Re: Python is readable Michael Torrie <torriem@gmail.com> - 2012-03-15 16:12 -0600
Re: Python is readable Ben Finney <ben+python@benfinney.id.au> - 2012-03-16 09:35 +1100
Re: Python is readable Arnaud Delobelle <arnodel@gmail.com> - 2012-03-15 23:00 +0000
Re: Python is readable Kiuhnm <kiuhnm03.4t.yahoo.it> - 2012-03-16 00:46 +0100
Re: Python is readable Mark Lawrence <breamoreboy@yahoo.co.uk> - 2012-03-15 23:58 +0000
Re: Python is readable Kiuhnm <kiuhnm03.4t.yahoo.it> - 2012-03-16 12:41 +0100
Re: Python is readable Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2012-03-16 00:15 +0000
Re: Python is readable Ben Finney <ben+python@benfinney.id.au> - 2012-03-16 10:57 +1100
Re: Python is readable Robert Kern <robert.kern@gmail.com> - 2012-03-15 15:13 +0000
Re: Python is readable Serhiy Storchaka <storchaka@gmail.com> - 2012-03-15 21:43 +0200
Re: Python is readable Alec Taylor <alec.taylor6@gmail.com> - 2012-03-16 01:17 +1100
Re: Python is readable Duncan Booth <duncan.booth@invalid.invalid> - 2012-03-15 14:23 +0000
Re: Python is readable Kiuhnm <kiuhnm03.4t.yahoo.it> - 2012-03-15 15:30 +0100
Re: Python is readable Robert Kern <robert.kern@gmail.com> - 2012-03-15 14:43 +0000
Re: Python is readable Kiuhnm <kiuhnm03.4t.yahoo.it> - 2012-03-15 16:18 +0100
Re: Python is readable Michael Torrie <torriem@gmail.com> - 2012-03-15 16:17 -0600
Re: Python is readable Kiuhnm <kiuhnm03.4t.yahoo.it> - 2012-03-16 00:32 +0100
Re: Python is readable Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2012-03-16 03:55 +0000
Re: Python is readable Kiuhnm <kiuhnm03.4t.yahoo.it> - 2012-03-16 13:10 +0100
Re: Python is readable Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2012-03-16 16:48 +0000
Re: Python is readable Michael Torrie <torriem@gmail.com> - 2012-03-16 17:39 -0600
Re: Python is readable Kiuhnm <kiuhnm03.4t.yahoo.it> - 2012-03-17 22:22 +0100
Re: Python is readable Kiuhnm <kiuhnm03.4t.yahoo.it> - 2012-03-17 20:59 +0100
Re: Python is readable Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2012-03-18 08:20 +1100
Re: Python is readable Kiuhnm <kiuhnm03.4t.yahoo.it> - 2012-03-17 22:28 +0100
Re: Python is readable Michael Torrie <torriem@gmail.com> - 2012-03-17 17:04 -0600
Re: Python is readable Kiuhnm <kiuhnm03.4t.yahoo.it> - 2012-03-19 12:15 +0100
Re: Python is readable Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2012-03-19 11:57 +0000
Re: Python is readable Ben Finney <ben+python@benfinney.id.au> - 2012-03-18 11:42 +1100
Re: Python is readable Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2012-03-18 01:36 +0000
Re: Python is readable Kiuhnm <kiuhnm03.4t.yahoo.it> - 2012-03-19 12:34 +0100
Re: Python is readable Lie Ryan <lie.1296@gmail.com> - 2012-03-31 16:56 +1100
Re: Python is readable MRAB <python@mrabarnett.plus.com> - 2012-03-31 18:27 +0100
Re: Python is readable Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2012-03-16 01:48 +1100
Re: Python is readable Kiuhnm <kiuhnm03.4t.yahoo.it> - 2012-03-15 16:05 +0100
Re: Python is readable Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2012-03-16 02:14 +1100
Re: Python is readable Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2012-03-15 23:52 +0000
Re: Python is readable Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2012-03-16 14:12 +1100
Re: Python is readable Kiuhnm <kiuhnm03.4t.yahoo.it> - 2012-03-16 13:36 +0100
Re: Python is readable Neil Cerutti <neilc@norwich.edu> - 2012-03-16 12:50 +0000
Re: Python is readable Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2012-03-16 13:03 +0000
Re: Python is readable Neil Cerutti <neilc@norwich.edu> - 2012-03-16 13:08 +0000
Re: Python is readable Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2012-03-16 16:28 +0000
Re: Python is readable Neil Cerutti <neilc@norwich.edu> - 2012-03-16 17:53 +0000
Re: Python is readable Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2012-03-16 18:50 +0000
Re: Python is readable Neil Cerutti <neilc@norwich.edu> - 2012-03-16 19:35 +0000
RE: Python is readable "Prasad, Ramit" <ramit.prasad@jpmorgan.com> - 2012-03-16 20:04 +0000
Re: Python is readable Kiuhnm <kiuhnm03.4t.yahoo.it> - 2012-03-17 21:54 +0100
Re: Python is readable Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2012-03-18 00:57 +0000
Re: Python is readable Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2012-03-18 12:07 +1100
Re: Python is readable Steven D'Aprano <steve+usenet@pearwood.info> - 2012-03-18 02:05 +0000
Re: Python is readable Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2012-03-18 13:15 +1100
Re: Python is readable Kiuhnm <kiuhnm03.4t.yahoo.it> - 2012-03-21 00:57 +0100
Re: Python is readable Mel Wilson <mwilson@the-wire.com> - 2012-03-16 16:01 -0400
Re: Python is readable Ethan Furman <ethan@stoneleaf.us> - 2012-03-16 13:30 -0700
Re: Python is readable Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2012-03-17 07:59 +1100
Re: Python is readable Terry Reedy <tjreedy@udel.edu> - 2012-03-17 01:09 -0400
Re: Python is readable Neil Cerutti <neilc@norwich.edu> - 2012-03-19 11:26 +0000
Re: Python is readable Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2012-03-19 11:51 +0000
Re: Python is readable Neil Cerutti <neilc@norwich.edu> - 2012-03-19 12:53 +0000
Re: Python is readable Robert Kern <robert.kern@gmail.com> - 2012-03-19 14:38 +0000
Re: Python is readable Kiuhnm <kiuhnm03.4t.yahoo.it> - 2012-03-17 21:23 +0100
Re: Python is readable Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2012-03-18 01:46 +0000
Re: Python is readable Kiuhnm <kiuhnm03.4t.yahoo.it> - 2012-03-19 12:44 +0100
Re: Python is readable Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2012-03-19 15:27 +0000
Re: Python is readable Kiuhnm <kiuhnm03.4t.yahoo.it> - 2012-03-21 00:27 +0100
Re: Python is readable Thomas Rachel <nutznetz-0c1b6768-bfa9-48d5-a470-7603bd3aa915@spamschutz.glglgl.de> - 2012-03-15 16:41 +0100
Re: Python is readable Duncan Booth <duncan.booth@invalid.invalid> - 2012-03-16 09:30 +0000
Re: Python is readable John Ladasky <ladasky@my-deja.com> - 2012-03-18 14:30 -0700
Re: Python is readable Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2012-03-19 09:02 +1100
Re: Python is readable Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2012-03-19 01:23 +0000
Re: Python is readable Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2012-03-19 15:33 +1100
Re: Python is readable Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2012-03-19 13:37 +0000
Re: Python is readable Albert van der Horst <albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl> - 2012-03-20 12:20 +0000
Re: Python is readable alex23 <wuwei23@gmail.com> - 2012-03-18 20:15 -0700
Re: Python is readable Chris Rebert <clp2@rebertia.com> - 2012-03-18 21:14 -0700
Re: Python is readable Nathan Rice <nathan.alexander.rice@gmail.com> - 2012-03-20 12:55 -0400
Re: Python is readable Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2012-03-20 17:48 +0000
Re: Python is readable Terry Reedy <tjreedy@udel.edu> - 2012-03-20 14:09 -0400
Re: Python is readable Nathan Rice <nathan.alexander.rice@gmail.com> - 2012-03-20 15:28 -0400
Re: Python is readable Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2012-03-21 00:22 +0000
Re: Python is readable Steve Howell <showell30@yahoo.com> - 2012-03-20 18:28 -0700
Re: Python is readable Ben Finney <ben+python@benfinney.id.au> - 2012-03-21 13:28 +1100
Re: Python is readable Steve Howell <showell30@yahoo.com> - 2012-03-20 19:44 -0700
Re: Python is readable Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2012-03-21 15:16 +1100
Re: Python is readable Steve Howell <showell30@yahoo.com> - 2012-03-20 21:58 -0700
Re: Python is readable Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2012-03-21 16:40 +1100
Re: Python is readable Steve Howell <showell30@yahoo.com> - 2012-03-20 23:52 -0700
Re: Python is readable Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2012-03-21 17:59 +1100
Re: Python is readable Chris Rebert <clp2@rebertia.com> - 2012-03-21 00:16 -0700
Re: Python is readable Steve Howell <showell30@yahoo.com> - 2012-03-21 00:57 -0700
Re: Python is readable Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2012-03-21 19:15 +1100
Re: Re: Python is readable Evan Driscoll <driscoll@cs.wisc.edu> - 2012-03-21 11:22 -0500
Re: Python is readable Steve Howell <showell30@yahoo.com> - 2012-03-21 09:30 -0700
Re: Python is readable Nathan Rice <nathan.alexander.rice@gmail.com> - 2012-03-21 14:06 -0400
Re: Python is readable Steve Howell <showell30@yahoo.com> - 2012-03-21 18:35 -0700
Re: Python is readable Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2012-03-22 08:56 +0000
Re: Python is readable (OT) Jon Clements <joncle@googlemail.com> - 2012-03-22 04:18 -0700
Re: Python is readable Nathan Rice <nathan.alexander.rice@gmail.com> - 2012-03-22 08:47 -0400
Re: Python is readable Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2012-03-22 17:18 +0000
Re: Python is readable Nathan Rice <nathan.alexander.rice@gmail.com> - 2012-03-22 14:26 -0400
Re: Python is readable Albert van der Horst <albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl> - 2012-03-29 13:44 +0000
Re: Python is readable Nathan Rice <nathan.alexander.rice@gmail.com> - 2012-03-29 14:37 -0400
Re: Python is readable Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2012-03-30 01:42 +0000
Re: Python is readable Nathan Rice <nathan.alexander.rice@gmail.com> - 2012-03-29 22:26 -0400
Re: Python is readable Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2012-03-30 03:36 +0000
Re: Python is readable Nathan Rice <nathan.alexander.rice@gmail.com> - 2012-03-30 00:38 -0400
Re: Python is readable Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2012-03-30 10:47 +0000
Re: Python is readable Nathan Rice <nathan.alexander.rice@gmail.com> - 2012-03-30 09:46 -0400
Re: Python is readable Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2012-03-31 03:20 +1100
Re: Python is readable Nathan Rice <nathan.alexander.rice@gmail.com> - 2012-03-30 14:15 -0400
Re: Python is readable Neil Cerutti <neilc@norwich.edu> - 2012-03-30 20:30 +0000
Re: Python is readable alex23 <wuwei23@gmail.com> - 2012-04-01 20:38 -0700
Re: Python is readable Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2012-03-31 05:29 +1100
Re: Python is readable Nathan Rice <nathan.alexander.rice@gmail.com> - 2012-03-30 15:55 -0400
Re: Python is readable Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2012-03-31 07:20 +1100
Re: Python is readable Steve Howell <showell30@yahoo.com> - 2012-03-30 22:07 -0700
Re: Python is readable Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2012-04-03 08:06 +1000
Re: Python is readable Dan Sommers <dan@tombstonezero.net> - 2012-03-30 16:51 -0400
Re: Python is readable Nathan Rice <nathan.alexander.rice@gmail.com> - 2012-03-30 16:58 -0400
Re: Python is readable Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2012-03-31 08:45 +1100
Re: Python is readable Nathan Rice <nathan.alexander.rice@gmail.com> - 2012-03-30 19:01 -0400
Re: Python is readable Terry Reedy <tjreedy@udel.edu> - 2012-03-31 00:03 -0400
Re: Python is readable Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2012-03-31 19:05 +1100
Re: Python is readable Nathan Rice <nathan.alexander.rice@gmail.com> - 2012-03-31 10:43 -0400
Re: Python is readable rusi <rustompmody@gmail.com> - 2012-03-30 11:17 -0700
Re: Python is readable Steve Howell <showell30@yahoo.com> - 2012-03-30 09:02 -0700
Re: Python is readable alex23 <wuwei23@gmail.com> - 2012-04-01 20:30 -0700
Re: Python is readable Steve Howell <showell30@yahoo.com> - 2012-04-01 21:01 -0700
Re: Python is readable Steve Howell <showell30@yahoo.com> - 2012-03-29 23:44 -0700
RE: Python is readable "Prasad, Ramit" <ramit.prasad@jpmorgan.com> - 2012-03-30 16:40 +0000
Re: Python is readable Steve Howell <showell30@yahoo.com> - 2012-03-30 00:27 -0700
Re: Python is readable Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2012-03-23 06:08 +1100
Re: Python is readable Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2012-03-23 00:17 +1100
Re: Python is readable Nathan Rice <nathan.alexander.rice@gmail.com> - 2012-03-22 10:29 -0400
Re: Python is readable Steve Howell <showell30@yahoo.com> - 2012-03-22 09:12 -0700
Re: Python is readable Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2012-03-22 17:44 +0000
Re: Python is readable Steve Howell <showell30@yahoo.com> - 2012-03-22 19:42 -0700
Re: Python is readable rusi <rustompmody@gmail.com> - 2012-03-22 20:20 -0700
Re: Python is readable Steve Howell <showell30@yahoo.com> - 2012-03-22 21:16 -0700
Re: Python is readable MRAB <python@mrabarnett.plus.com> - 2012-03-23 04:43 +0000
Re: Python is readable Steve Howell <showell30@yahoo.com> - 2012-03-22 23:58 -0700
Re: Python is readable Nathan Rice <nathan.alexander.rice@gmail.com> - 2012-03-23 00:20 -0400
Re: Python is readable Steve Howell <showell30@yahoo.com> - 2012-03-22 08:33 -0700
Re: Python is readable Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2012-03-23 06:21 +1100
Re: Python is readable Nathan Rice <nathan.alexander.rice@gmail.com> - 2012-03-22 15:33 -0400
Re: Python is readable Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2012-03-23 06:48 +1100
Re: Python is readable Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2012-03-23 06:49 +1100
Re: Python is readable Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2012-03-21 23:34 +0000
Re: Python is readable Steve Howell <showell30@yahoo.com> - 2012-03-21 17:54 -0700
Re: Python is readable Lie Ryan <lie.1296@gmail.com> - 2012-03-31 17:25 +1100
Re: Python is readable Steve Howell <showell30@yahoo.com> - 2012-03-31 09:59 -0700
Re: Python is readable Nathan Rice <nathan.alexander.rice@gmail.com> - 2012-03-21 00:55 -0400
Re: Python is readable Terry Reedy <tjreedy@udel.edu> - 2012-03-20 16:01 -0400
Re: Python is readable Nathan Rice <nathan.alexander.rice@gmail.com> - 2012-03-20 16:34 -0400
Re: Python is readable Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2012-03-21 00:01 +0000
Re: Python is readable Lie Ryan <lie.1296@gmail.com> - 2012-03-31 17:15 +1100
Re: Python is readable Devin Jeanpierre <jeanpierreda@gmail.com> - 2012-03-15 13:51 -0400
Re: Python is readable Arnaud Delobelle <arnodel@gmail.com> - 2012-03-15 20:54 +0000
Re: Python is readable Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2012-03-16 02:03 +0000
Re: Python is readable Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2012-03-16 01:53 +0000
Re: Python is readable Mark Lawrence <breamoreboy@yahoo.co.uk> - 2012-03-16 02:16 +0000
Re: Python is readable Kiuhnm <kiuhnm03.4t.yahoo.it> - 2012-03-16 13:55 +0100
Re: Python is readable Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2012-03-16 16:25 +0000
Re: Python is readable Kiuhnm <kiuhnm03.4t.yahoo.it> - 2012-03-16 17:58 +0100
RE: Python is readable "Prasad, Ramit" <ramit.prasad@jpmorgan.com> - 2012-03-16 17:01 +0000
Re: Python is readable alister <alister.ware@ntlworld.com> - 2012-03-18 18:19 +0000
Page 3 of 11 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 5 … 11 Next page →
| From | Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-03-16 00:15 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <4f628611$0$29981$c3e8da3$5496439d@news.astraweb.com> |
| In reply to | #21722 |
On Fri, 16 Mar 2012 00:46:35 +0100, Kiuhnm wrote:
> On 3/16/2012 0:00, Arnaud Delobelle wrote:
>> On 15 March 2012 22:35, Ben Finney<ben+python@benfinney.id.au> wrote:
>>> Kiuhnm<kiuhnm03.4t.yahoo.it> writes:
>>>
>>>> Moreover, I think that
>>>> if (............
>>>> ............
>>>> ............):
>>>> ............
>>>> ............
>>>> ............
>>>> is not very readable anyway.
>>>
>>> I agree, and am glad PEP 8 has been updated to recommend an extra
>>> level of indentation for continuation, to distinguish from the new
>>> block that
>>> follows<URL:http://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0008/#indentation>.
>>
>> Personally I solve this by never writing if conditions that span more
>> than one line. If the worst comes to the worst, I would write:
>>
>> aptly_named_condition = (
>> very long condition
>> that goes over
>> plenty of lines
>> )
>> if aptly_named_condition:
>> do stuff
>
> Will I be able to use extra indentation in Python code? For instance,
>
> res = and(or(cond1,
> cond2),
> cond3,
> or(and(cond4,
> cond5,
> cond6),
> and(cond7,
> cond8)))
Not that exact example, because `and` and `or` are operators, not
functions and you will get a syntax error. Python uses infix notation,
not prefix or postfix:
x and y # yes
and(x, y) # no
x y and # no
But in general, yes, you can use whatever indentation you like inside a
line-continuation bracket:
py> x = [
... 1, 2, 3,
... 4, 5, 6,
... 7, 8, 9,
... 10, 11, 12,
... 13, 14, 15
... ]
py> x
[1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15]
Indentation is only syntactically significant in blocks and statements.
> I like it because it reads like a tree.
Funny. I dislike it because it is a tree on its side.
--
Steven
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ben Finney <ben+python@benfinney.id.au> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-03-16 10:57 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <87mx7ho1si.fsf@benfinney.id.au> |
| In reply to | #21720 |
Arnaud Delobelle <arnodel@gmail.com> writes: > On 15 March 2012 22:35, Ben Finney <ben+python@benfinney.id.au> wrote: > > I agree, and am glad PEP 8 has been updated to recommend an extra > > level of indentation for continuation, to distinguish from the new > > block that follows > > <URL:http://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0008/#indentation>. > > Personally I solve this by never writing if conditions that span more > than one line. The admonition applies not only to ‘if’ conditions, but also to ‘while’, ‘with’, ‘for’, etc.; and also to bracketing constructs like function calls, literal lists/dicts/sets, etc. In a single statement, the indentation for continuation lines should be indented two levels, so that they don't look so much like a new block of statements. -- \ “If you do not trust the source do not use this program.” | `\ —Microsoft Vista security dialogue | _o__) | Ben Finney
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Robert Kern <robert.kern@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-03-15 15:13 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <mailman.683.1331824442.3037.python-list@python.org> |
| In reply to | #21681 |
On 3/15/12 2:55 PM, Kiuhnm wrote: > On 3/15/2012 15:28, Tim Golden wrote: >> http://docs.python.org/faq/design.html#why-are-colons-required-for-the-if-while-def-class-statements > > The second one is slightly easier to read because it's syntax-highlighted. Was > that on purpose? No, it's an unintended side effect. The (automated) syntax highlighting was added to the FAQ much, much later than that entry was written. The syntax highlighting tool does not recognize the first example as Python, so it does not apply Python syntax highlighting to it. -- Robert Kern "I have come to believe that the whole world is an enigma, a harmless enigma that is made terrible by our own mad attempt to interpret it as though it had an underlying truth." -- Umberto Eco
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Serhiy Storchaka <storchaka@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-03-15 21:43 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <mailman.697.1331840654.3037.python-list@python.org> |
| In reply to | #21672 |
15.03.12 16:19, Kiuhnm написав(ла): > Ok, so they're mandatory, but I was mainly talking of design. Why are they needed? http://python-history.blogspot.com/2011/07/karin-dewar-indentation-and-colon.html
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Alec Taylor <alec.taylor6@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-03-16 01:17 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <mailman.676.1331821072.3037.python-list@python.org> |
| In reply to | #21656 |
On Fri, Mar 16, 2012 at 1:06 AM, Mark Lawrence <breamoreboy@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> Python 2.7.2 (default, Jun 12 2011, 15:08:59) [MSC v.1500 32 bit (Intel)] on
> win32
> Type "help", "copyright", "credits" or "license" for more information.
>
>>>> with open("filename", "w") as f
> File "<stdin>", line 1
>
> with open("filename", "w") as f
> ^
> SyntaxError: invalid syntax
>
> --
> Cheers.
>
> Mark Lawrence.
>
Erred for me also; but under f:
Python 2.7.3rc1 (default, Feb 24 2012, 21:28:59) [MSC v.1500 64 bit
(AMD64)] on win32
Type "help", "copyright", "credits" or "license" for more information.
>>> with open("filename", "w") as f
File "<stdin>", line 1
with open("filename", "w") as f
^
SyntaxError: invalid syntax
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Duncan Booth <duncan.booth@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-03-15 14:23 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <XnsA0179264FD1BBduncanbooth@127.0.0.1> |
| In reply to | #21656 |
Kiuhnm <kiuhnm03.4t.yahoo.it> wrote: > BTW, aren't those ':' redundant? > They are required by the grammar, but in a sense you are correct. You could modify Python's grammar to make the colons optional and still keep it unambiguous but that would make it harder for other tools (such as text editors or indeed humans) to understand. A little bit of redundancy in the grammar is seen as a good way to minimise errors. -- Duncan Booth http://kupuguy.blogspot.com
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Kiuhnm <kiuhnm03.4t.yahoo.it> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-03-15 15:30 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <4f61fd0a$0$1389$4fafbaef@reader2.news.tin.it> |
| In reply to | #21673 |
On 3/15/2012 15:23, Duncan Booth wrote: > Kiuhnm<kiuhnm03.4t.yahoo.it> wrote: > >> BTW, aren't those ':' redundant? >> > > They are required by the grammar, but in a sense you are correct. You could > modify Python's grammar to make the colons optional and still keep it > unambiguous but that would make it harder for other tools (such as text > editors or indeed humans) to understand. Sorry, but I can't see how it would make it harder for humans to understand. Are there particular situations you're referring to? Kiuhnm
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Robert Kern <robert.kern@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-03-15 14:43 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <mailman.680.1331822643.3037.python-list@python.org> |
| In reply to | #21676 |
On 3/15/12 2:30 PM, Kiuhnm wrote: > On 3/15/2012 15:23, Duncan Booth wrote: >> Kiuhnm<kiuhnm03.4t.yahoo.it> wrote: >> >>> BTW, aren't those ':' redundant? >>> >> >> They are required by the grammar, but in a sense you are correct. You could >> modify Python's grammar to make the colons optional and still keep it >> unambiguous but that would make it harder for other tools (such as text >> editors or indeed humans) to understand. > > Sorry, but I can't see how it would make it harder for humans to understand. Are > there particular situations you're referring to? There were usability studies done on one of Python's indentation-based ancestors, ABC. Those studies found, empirically, that having the colons helped people read and understand the code faster. -- Robert Kern "I have come to believe that the whole world is an enigma, a harmless enigma that is made terrible by our own mad attempt to interpret it as though it had an underlying truth." -- Umberto Eco
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Kiuhnm <kiuhnm03.4t.yahoo.it> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-03-15 16:18 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <4f620837$0$1382$4fafbaef@reader2.news.tin.it> |
| In reply to | #21679 |
On 3/15/2012 15:43, Robert Kern wrote: > On 3/15/12 2:30 PM, Kiuhnm wrote: >> On 3/15/2012 15:23, Duncan Booth wrote: >>> Kiuhnm<kiuhnm03.4t.yahoo.it> wrote: >>> >>>> BTW, aren't those ':' redundant? >>>> >>> >>> They are required by the grammar, but in a sense you are correct. You >>> could >>> modify Python's grammar to make the colons optional and still keep it >>> unambiguous but that would make it harder for other tools (such as text >>> editors or indeed humans) to understand. >> >> Sorry, but I can't see how it would make it harder for humans to >> understand. Are >> there particular situations you're referring to? > > There were usability studies done on one of Python's indentation-based > ancestors, ABC. Those studies found, empirically, that having the colons > helped people read and understand the code faster. Here's what Guido van Rossum writes about it: "Python’s use of indentation comes directly from ABC, but this idea didn’t originate with ABC--it had already been promoted by Donald Knuth and was a well-known concept of programming style. (The occam programming language also used it.) However, ABC’s authors did invent the use of the colon that separates the lead-in clause from the indented block. ----> After early user testing without the colon, it was discovered that the meaning of the indentation was unclear to beginners being taught the first steps of programming. <---- The addition of the colon clarified it significantly: the colon somehow draws attention to what follows and ties the phrases before and after it together in just the right way." If that passage is correct, those studies don't say that adding the colon increases the readability, but that it makes more sense to beginners who don't even know what indentation is. Kiuhnm
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Michael Torrie <torriem@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-03-15 16:17 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <mailman.708.1331849863.3037.python-list@python.org> |
| In reply to | #21687 |
On 03/15/2012 09:18 AM, Kiuhnm wrote: > ----> After early user testing without the colon, it was discovered that > the meaning of the indentation was unclear to beginners being taught the > first steps of programming. <---- > > The addition of the colon clarified it significantly: the colon somehow > draws attention to what follows and ties the phrases before and after it > together in just the right way." > > If that passage is correct, those studies don't say that adding the > colon increases the readability, but that it makes more sense to > beginners who don't even know what indentation is. Seems to me that helping code to make more sense to a beginner is, by definition, increasing readability.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Kiuhnm <kiuhnm03.4t.yahoo.it> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-03-16 00:32 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <4f627c25$0$1381$4fafbaef@reader2.news.tin.it> |
| In reply to | #21718 |
On 3/15/2012 23:17, Michael Torrie wrote: > On 03/15/2012 09:18 AM, Kiuhnm wrote: >> ----> After early user testing without the colon, it was discovered that >> the meaning of the indentation was unclear to beginners being taught the >> first steps of programming.<---- >> >> The addition of the colon clarified it significantly: the colon somehow >> draws attention to what follows and ties the phrases before and after it >> together in just the right way." >> >> If that passage is correct, those studies don't say that adding the >> colon increases the readability, but that it makes more sense to >> beginners who don't even know what indentation is. > > Seems to me that helping code to make more sense to a beginner is, by > definition, increasing readability. Pick up two math books about the same topic but on two different levels (e.g. under-graduated and graduated). If you compare the proofs you'll see that those in the higher-level book are almost always sketched. Why is that? Because they're more readable for a mature reader. But they're almost incomprehensible to a beginner. As another example, why do people use jargon? Because that makes communication more efficient. And yet that frustrate beginners. So, no, I can't agree with you. There are too many situations where a steep learning curve pays off in the long run. Making that curve too shallow may help beginners but damage experienced users. Is functional programming code more readable than imperative code? Ask a beginner and you'll receive a resounding "no". Ask an experienced coder and he will probably say "it depends". If he says "yes, always" he is a just a lisp fanatic :) Kiuhnm
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-03-16 03:55 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <4f62b9be$0$29981$c3e8da3$5496439d@news.astraweb.com> |
| In reply to | #21721 |
On Fri, 16 Mar 2012 00:32:52 +0100, Kiuhnm wrote:
> Pick up two math books about the same topic but on two different levels
> (e.g. under-graduated and graduated). If you compare the proofs you'll
> see that those in the higher-level book are almost always sketched. Why
> is that? Because they're more readable for a mature reader.
No. They're not more readable. They simply have less to read (per proof),
or another way of putting it, you can fit more of the good stuff that the
experienced reader wants ("yes yes, I know about the associative law, get
to the part where you prove the Goldbach conjecture...") in the same
amount of space. The text is compressed by leaving out the parts that an
experienced reader can infer from her knowledge of the domain.
Since an expert can infer meaning more quickly than they can read the
actual words, this is a big win for efficiency. But the text is not more
readable, there's just less to read for a given result. The same amount,
or even more, brain processing occurs. It just happens in a different
part of the brain.
In Python terms, it's analogous to moving something out of a pure-Python
O(log n) binary tree into a fast O(n) linear array written in C. Until
the concepts get complex enough, it is faster for the expert to infer
meaning than to read explicitly, even though technically more work is
probably being done.
Experts often find pedagogical texts harder to read because it seems
dumbed down. It's as if they are reading text like this:
The cat, which is a small animal with fur known for being
aloof and yet attractive to many people, sat on the mat,
which is like a rug or blanket except thicker, while Jack,
a small male child, and Jill, a young female child, ran,
that is to say travelled quickly by lifting their feet and
moving forward in such a fashion that sometimes both feet
are in the air simultaneously, up the hill, a moderately-
sized elevation of land smaller than a mountain.
It gets painful after a while because, as an expert, you can interpret
the subtext quicker than you can read the actual words. But when teaching
non-experts, you can't expect the reader to interpret the subtext quickly
or at all. Which is more readable, that is to say, more comprehensible?
The wix sat on the zaj, while Megf and Parz vev up the leff.
Lacking any domain knowledge, the above carries virtually no information
at all. We know that wixes can sit on things, and that's about it.
Contrast this:
The wix, which is a small animal with fur known for being
aloof and yet attractive to many people, sat on the zaj,
which is like a rug or blanket except thicker, while Megf,
a small male child, and Parz, a young female child, vev,
that is to say travelled quickly by lifting their feet and
moving forward in such a fashion that sometimes both feet
are in the air simultaneously, up the leff, a moderately-
sized elevation of land smaller than a mountain.
Despite having about 8 times as much content, and being one long run-on
sentence, this version is far more comprehensible. (In practice, I
wouldn't define terms in the sentence I was using them in this fashion.
Or at least not more than one per sentence. Very long sentences have
their own readability costs.)
When people talk about readability, they normally mean to ask how much
mental effort is needed to interpret the meaning of the text, not how
much time does it take to pass your eyes over the characters. In other
words they are actually talking about comprehensibility.
Well obviously that depends on who is doing the reading. To somebody in
the know, meaning can be incredibly compressed. You can crack up Monty
Python fans with just two words: "Norwegian Blue". To those not in the
know, that's incomprehensible.
When speaking about programming languages, the reader who is judging
readability is assumed to be:
- somebody with a good grasp of natural language, normally
English, and capable of understanding sentences containing
loops and conditionals such as
"soak and rinse the beans three times"
"scrub the potatoes until the dirt is gone"
"if the tap is dripping, replace the washer"
- possessing an intuitive understanding of such concepts as
"is-a" and "has-a" (Fido is a dog, Fido has a tail);
- possessing a simple knowledge of basic arithmetic and logic;
- able to intuit the meaning of programming concepts if they
match simple natural language concepts (e.g. print, delete,
but not necessarily import, delegate, and certainly not
currying, closures, monads);
- but not familiar with the programming language, its data
model, or the details of its functions and commands;
- and of average intelligence, neither a dummy nor a genius.
(Despite the proliferation of books with titles like "Programming For
Utter Morans", they aren't actually written for dummies.)
To judge the readability of a language, we have to put ourselves into the
position of such a beginner: ignorant but not stupid. To judge the
expressibility and power of a language, we have to put ourselves into the
position of an expert who knows all the idioms. The trick is to increase
power without hurting readability.
For example, in the late 80s or early 90s, Apple introduced the
forerunner to Applescript, Hypertalk. Hypertalk is *extremely* readable:
put the result into x
add 15 to x
go to the second card of background "Data"
put x after word 7 of field "Age"
get field "Name"
put it into field "Alias"
Aside: there's a non-GUI version of Hypertalk-on-steroids available from
here: http://code.google.com/p/openxion/
Very readable indeed. You can possibly even infer part of the data model
from the code (everything is text; text is stored in fields, which exist
on cards collected into groupings called backgrounds).
But, frankly, it's not too expressible. It's too verbose for experts. The
data model is too simple. (Modern versions like OpenXion have a richer
data model not as strongly tied to the original Hypercard GUI.)
I think Python is pretty close to the top of the readability versus
expressiveness curve.
That's not to say that Python is the optimal combination, or can't be
improved, or even that every language should compromise expressiveness
for comprehensibility (or vice versa).
--
Steven
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Kiuhnm <kiuhnm03.4t.yahoo.it> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-03-16 13:10 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <4f632da5$0$1375$4fafbaef@reader1.news.tin.it> |
| In reply to | #21737 |
On 3/16/2012 4:55, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
> On Fri, 16 Mar 2012 00:32:52 +0100, Kiuhnm wrote:
>
>> Pick up two math books about the same topic but on two different levels
>> (e.g. under-graduated and graduated). If you compare the proofs you'll
>> see that those in the higher-level book are almost always sketched. Why
>> is that? Because they're more readable for a mature reader.
>
> No. They're not more readable. They simply have less to read (per proof),
> or another way of putting it, you can fit more of the good stuff that the
> experienced reader wants ("yes yes, I know about the associative law, get
> to the part where you prove the Goldbach conjecture...") in the same
> amount of space. The text is compressed by leaving out the parts that an
> experienced reader can infer from her knowledge of the domain.
>
> Since an expert can infer meaning more quickly than they can read the
> actual words, this is a big win for efficiency. But the text is not more
> readable, there's just less to read for a given result. The same amount,
> or even more, brain processing occurs. It just happens in a different
> part of the brain.
Maybe we should define *exactly* what readability is (in less then 500
lines, if possible).
According to your view, ASM code is more readable than Python code. It's
just that there's more to read in ASM.
Kiuhnm
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-03-16 16:48 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <4f636ed5$0$29981$c3e8da3$5496439d@news.astraweb.com> |
| In reply to | #21743 |
On Fri, 16 Mar 2012 13:10:12 +0100, Kiuhnm wrote:
> Maybe we should define *exactly* what readability is (in less then 500
> lines, if possible).
If you can't be bothered to read my post before replying, save yourself
some more time and don't bother to reply at all.
I quote from the part of the my post you deleted:
When people talk about readability, they normally mean to
ask how much mental effort is needed to interpret the
meaning of the text, not how much time does it take to
pass your eyes over the characters. In other words they
are actually talking about comprehensibility.
Unless I've made a mistake counting, that's less than 500 lines.
> According to your view, ASM code is more readable than Python code. It's
> just that there's more to read in ASM.
What a ridiculous misrepresentation of my position. Readability is not
proportional to length.
--
Steven
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Michael Torrie <torriem@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-03-16 17:39 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <mailman.744.1331941180.3037.python-list@python.org> |
| In reply to | #21761 |
On 03/16/2012 10:48 AM, Steven D'Aprano wrote: > On Fri, 16 Mar 2012 13:10:12 +0100, Kiuhnm wrote: > >> Maybe we should define *exactly* what readability is (in less then 500 >> lines, if possible). > > If you can't be bothered to read my post before replying, save yourself > some more time and don't bother to reply at all. > > I quote from the part of the my post you deleted: > > When people talk about readability, they normally mean to > ask how much mental effort is needed to interpret the > meaning of the text, not how much time does it take to > pass your eyes over the characters. In other words they > are actually talking about comprehensibility. > > > Unless I've made a mistake counting, that's less than 500 lines. > > >> According to your view, ASM code is more readable than Python code. It's >> just that there's more to read in ASM. > > What a ridiculous misrepresentation of my position. Readability is not > proportional to length. For someone who claims he's merely examining the language and seeking to learn about it, Kiuhnm is jumping awfully quickly into the realm of trolling.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Kiuhnm <kiuhnm03.4t.yahoo.it> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-03-17 22:22 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <4f65008c$0$1375$4fafbaef@reader1.news.tin.it> |
| In reply to | #21787 |
On 3/17/2012 0:39, Michael Torrie wrote: > For someone who claims he's merely examining the language and seeking to > learn about it, Kiuhnm is jumping awfully quickly into the realm of > trolling. I'm speechless... thanks, man! Kiuhnm
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Kiuhnm <kiuhnm03.4t.yahoo.it> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-03-17 20:59 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <4f64ed2e$0$1389$4fafbaef@reader1.news.tin.it> |
| In reply to | #21761 |
On 3/16/2012 17:48, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
> On Fri, 16 Mar 2012 13:10:12 +0100, Kiuhnm wrote:
>
>> Maybe we should define *exactly* what readability is (in less then 500
>> lines, if possible).
>
> If you can't be bothered to read my post before replying, save yourself
> some more time and don't bother to reply at all.
>
> I quote from the part of the my post you deleted:
>
> When people talk about readability, they normally mean to
> ask how much mental effort is needed to interpret the
> meaning of the text, not how much time does it take to
> pass your eyes over the characters. In other words they
> are actually talking about comprehensibility.
>
>
> Unless I've made a mistake counting, that's less than 500 lines.
>
>
>> According to your view, ASM code is more readable than Python code. It's
>> just that there's more to read in ASM.
>
> What a ridiculous misrepresentation of my position. Readability is not
> proportional to length.
Ok, so length and readability are orthogonal properties.
Could you please explain to me in which way
mov eax, 3
should be less readable than
for i in x: print(i)
?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-03-18 08:20 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <mailman.765.1332019217.3037.python-list@python.org> |
| In reply to | #21830 |
On Sun, Mar 18, 2012 at 6:59 AM, Kiuhnm <kiuhnm03.4t.yahoo.it@mail.python.org> wrote: > Could you please explain to me in which way > mov eax, 3 > should be less readable than > for i in x: print(i) > ? They are equally readable. The first one sets EAX to 3; the second displays all elements of x on the console. Assembly is readable on a very low level, but it's by nature verbose at a high level, and thus less readable (you can't eyeball a function and know exactly what it does, especially if that function spans more than a screenful of code). ChrisA
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Kiuhnm <kiuhnm03.4t.yahoo.it> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-03-17 22:28 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <4f650213$0$1375$4fafbaef@reader1.news.tin.it> |
| In reply to | #21833 |
On 3/17/2012 22:20, Chris Angelico wrote: > On Sun, Mar 18, 2012 at 6:59 AM, Kiuhnm > <kiuhnm03.4t.yahoo.it@mail.python.org> wrote: >> Could you please explain to me in which way >> mov eax, 3 >> should be less readable than >> for i in x: print(i) >> ? > > They are equally readable. The first one sets EAX to 3; the second > displays all elements of x on the console. Assembly is readable on a > very low level, but it's by nature verbose at a high level, and thus > less readable (you can't eyeball a function and know exactly what it > does, especially if that function spans more than a screenful of > code). Welcome in the realm of trolling. Kiuhnm
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Michael Torrie <torriem@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-03-17 17:04 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <mailman.767.1332025465.3037.python-list@python.org> |
| In reply to | #21835 |
On 03/17/2012 03:28 PM, Kiuhnm wrote: >> They are equally readable. The first one sets EAX to 3; the second >> displays all elements of x on the console. Assembly is readable on a >> very low level, but it's by nature verbose at a high level, and thus >> less readable (you can't eyeball a function and know exactly what it >> does, especially if that function spans more than a screenful of >> code). > > Welcome in the realm of trolling. Seems like you're the one trolling.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 3 of 11 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 5 … 11 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.python
csiph-web