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 4 of 11 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 … 11 Next page →
| From | Kiuhnm <kiuhnm03.4t.yahoo.it> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-03-19 12:15 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <4f67153b$0$1383$4fafbaef@reader2.news.tin.it> |
| In reply to | #21837 |
On 3/18/2012 0:04, Michael Torrie wrote: > 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. At least I hope that ChrisA understood what I meant. I'll spell it out for you trollmonger (is that even a word?): 1) I read Steve's posts but I found his answers inconsistent. 2) He accused me of misrepresenting his view and you called me a troll. 3) I suspect that you didn't follow the entire discussion or you'd have noticed the inconsistencies yourself... but I understand that calling someone you don't agree with a troll is easier. 4) ChrisA gave the right answer which was the point I was trying to make all along. 5) I could have said "I second that" or "I agree with you", but I thought that "Welcome to the realm of trolling" was more amusing. I thought that people who agree with me were supposed to be troll as well. But I should've consulted with you about that. Sorry. Kiuhnm
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-03-19 11:57 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <4f671f15$0$29981$c3e8da3$5496439d@news.astraweb.com> |
| In reply to | #21886 |
On Mon, 19 Mar 2012 12:15:07 +0100, Kiuhnm wrote: > On 3/18/2012 0:04, Michael Torrie wrote: >> 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. > > At least I hope that ChrisA understood what I meant. I'll spell it out > for you trollmonger (is that even a word?): Sure, why not? A trollmonger would be someone who deals in the buying and selling of trolls. Presumably this would be meant figuratively, like an argument-monger (someone who starts and gets involved in arguments). > 1) I read Steve's posts but I found his answers inconsistent. I don't think they are, but I'm happy to either clarify or concede any points that are contradictory or inconsistent, if you tell me what they are. -- Steven
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ben Finney <ben+python@benfinney.id.au> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-03-18 11:42 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <877gyioi2e.fsf@benfinney.id.au> |
| In reply to | #21835 |
Kiuhnm <kiuhnm03.4t.yahoo.it> writes: > Welcome in the realm of trolling. Thank you for stating clearly what you're doing. Welcome to yet another kill-file. *plonk* -- \ “I am too firm in my consciousness of the marvelous to be ever | `\ fascinated by the mere supernatural …” —Joseph Conrad, _The | _o__) Shadow-Line_ | Ben Finney
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-03-18 01:36 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <4f653c1e$0$29981$c3e8da3$5496439d@news.astraweb.com> |
| In reply to | #21830 |
On Sat, 17 Mar 2012 20:59:34 +0100, Kiuhnm wrote: > 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) > ? "mov eax, 3" requires more domain-specific knowledge. It operates at a very low level, that of memory locations and bytes, rather than at a level which most people can reason about efficiently. English speakers would probably guess that "mov" was an abbreviation of "move", but what is being moved, and from where to where, for what purpose? They're also likely to flounder on the analogy of "moving" bytes. When you move a book from here to there, you leave a space in the row of books where there is no longer a book. (You might choose to move a second book into that gap, but first there is a gap.) But when you move bytes, you don't leave a gap. There are always bytes at every valid address. The average non-programmer is likely to have the wrong data model to understand what "mov eax, 3" does. In the second example, most English speakers would intuit that "print(i)" prints i, whatever i is. "for i in x" is more cryptic, but if it were written with less jargon-like names, such as "for item in list" or "for person in family" or similar, they would likely guess that it means to repeat the following instructions for each item in the set: "For each person at the table, place a plate, knife and fork." And even if the reader can't guess the meaning of the for-loop, it is a concept easy enough for most people to grasp given some explanations and examples. It's neither too low level (assembly language), nor too high level (monads, functors) but is at just the right level of abstraction versus concreteness for the average person to follow. -- Steven
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Kiuhnm <kiuhnm03.4t.yahoo.it> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-03-19 12:34 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <4f6719e2$0$1384$4fafbaef@reader2.news.tin.it> |
| In reply to | #21843 |
On 3/18/2012 2:36, Steven D'Aprano wrote: > On Sat, 17 Mar 2012 20:59:34 +0100, Kiuhnm wrote: > >> 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) >> ? > > "mov eax, 3" requires more domain-specific knowledge. It operates at a > very low level, that of memory locations and bytes, rather than at a > level which most people can reason about efficiently. > > English speakers would probably guess that "mov" was an abbreviation of > "move", but what is being moved, and from where to where, for what > purpose? > > They're also likely to flounder on the analogy of "moving" bytes. When > you move a book from here to there, you leave a space in the row of books > where there is no longer a book. (You might choose to move a second book > into that gap, but first there is a gap.) But when you move bytes, you > don't leave a gap. There are always bytes at every valid address. The > average non-programmer is likely to have the wrong data model to > understand what "mov eax, 3" does. > > In the second example, most English speakers would intuit that "print(i)" > prints i, whatever i is. "for i in x" is more cryptic, but if it were > written with less jargon-like names, such as "for item in list" or "for > person in family" or similar, they would likely guess that it means to > repeat the following instructions for each item in the set: > > "For each person at the table, place a plate, knife and fork." > > And even if the reader can't guess the meaning of the for-loop, it is a > concept easy enough for most people to grasp given some explanations and > examples. It's neither too low level (assembly language), nor too high > level (monads, functors) but is at just the right level of abstraction > versus concreteness for the average person to follow. Would you be so kind to give me your final definition of readability and /stick/ to it? You keep changing it every time I point out a flaw in it. Kiuhnm
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lie Ryan <lie.1296@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-03-31 16:56 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <mailman.1168.1333173434.3037.python-list@python.org> |
| In reply to | #21843 |
On 03/18/2012 12:36 PM, Steven D'Aprano wrote: > On Sat, 17 Mar 2012 20:59:34 +0100, Kiuhnm wrote: > In the second example, most English speakers would intuit that "print(i)" > prints i, whatever i is. There are two points where the code may be misunderstood, a beginner may think that "print i" prints to the inkjet printer (I remembered unplugging my printer when I wrote my first BASIC program for this reason); and the possible confusion of whether "print i" prints the letter "i" or the content of variable "i". (Fortunately, this confusion are easily resolved when I run the code and see the result on-screen instead of a job on the print spooler) (ironically, although print is nowadays a programming jargon for outputting to screen, but in the old dark ages, people used to use the "print" statement to print to paper in their old terminal)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | MRAB <python@mrabarnett.plus.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-03-31 18:27 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <mailman.1182.1333215017.3037.python-list@python.org> |
| In reply to | #21843 |
On 31/03/2012 06:56, Lie Ryan wrote: > On 03/18/2012 12:36 PM, Steven D'Aprano wrote: >> On Sat, 17 Mar 2012 20:59:34 +0100, Kiuhnm wrote: >> In the second example, most English speakers would intuit that "print(i)" >> prints i, whatever i is. > > There are two points where the code may be misunderstood, a beginner may > think that "print i" prints to the inkjet printer (I remembered > unplugging my printer when I wrote my first BASIC program for this > reason); and the possible confusion of whether "print i" prints the > letter "i" or the content of variable "i". (Fortunately, this confusion > are easily resolved when I run the code and see the result on-screen > instead of a job on the print spooler) > > (ironically, although print is nowadays a programming jargon for > outputting to screen, but in the old dark ages, people used to use the > "print" statement to print to paper in their old terminal) > I remember a review of a machine back in the early 1980s or late 1970s. The machine used BASIC, but the reviewer was surprised when the printer sprang into life. "PRINT" meant "send to printer"; in order to 'print' to the screen you used "DISPLAY". (The more common method was to use "LPRINT" for sending to the printer.)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-03-16 01:48 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <mailman.681.1331822892.3037.python-list@python.org> |
| In reply to | #21676 |
On Fri, Mar 16, 2012 at 1:30 AM, Kiuhnm
<kiuhnm03.4t.yahoo.it@mail.python.org> wrote:
> Sorry, but I can't see how it would make it harder for humans to understand.
> Are there particular situations you're referring to?
In a trivial example, it's mostly just noise:
if a == b # who needs the colon?
print(c)
But when your condition is more complicated, it's cleaner to
explicitly mark the end of the condition. Also, Python allows you to
put a simple body on the same line as the if, which is very handy:
if a == b: print(c)
Without the colon, this would be awkward to parse. And the bash style
of using actual statement separators feels really weird, although it
does mean that the newline is truly optional.
ChrisA
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Kiuhnm <kiuhnm03.4t.yahoo.it> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-03-15 16:05 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <4f620557$0$1388$4fafbaef@reader2.news.tin.it> |
| In reply to | #21680 |
On 3/15/2012 15:48, Chris Angelico wrote: > On Fri, Mar 16, 2012 at 1:30 AM, Kiuhnm > <kiuhnm03.4t.yahoo.it@mail.python.org> wrote: >> Sorry, but I can't see how it would make it harder for humans to understand. >> Are there particular situations you're referring to? > > In a trivial example, it's mostly just noise: > > if a == b # who needs the colon? > print(c) > > But when your condition is more complicated, it's cleaner to > explicitly mark the end of the condition. Also, Python allows you to > put a simple body on the same line as the if, which is very handy: > > if a == b: print(c) > > Without the colon, this would be awkward to parse. And the bash style > of using actual statement separators feels really weird, although it > does mean that the newline is truly optional. I had thought about the single-line case. What I hadn't thought about is that Python strives to be as regular as possible, so having different cases just for saving one keystroke isn't worth it. Kiuhnm
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-03-16 02:14 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <mailman.684.1331824498.3037.python-list@python.org> |
| In reply to | #21682 |
On Fri, Mar 16, 2012 at 2:05 AM, Kiuhnm <kiuhnm03.4t.yahoo.it@mail.python.org> wrote: > I had thought about the single-line case. What I hadn't thought about is > that Python strives to be as regular as possible, so having different cases > just for saving one keystroke isn't worth it. Yep. Have you read the Zen of Python? >>> import this (trimmed for brevity) Explicit is better than implicit. Readability counts. Special cases aren't special enough to break the rules. Although practicality beats purity. In the face of ambiguity, refuse the temptation to guess. Omitting the colon is definitely a not-special-enough case. ChrisA
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-03-15 23:52 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <4f6280a0$0$29981$c3e8da3$5496439d@news.astraweb.com> |
| In reply to | #21680 |
On Fri, 16 Mar 2012 01:48:09 +1100, Chris Angelico wrote: > On Fri, Mar 16, 2012 at 1:30 AM, Kiuhnm > <kiuhnm03.4t.yahoo.it@mail.python.org> wrote: >> Sorry, but I can't see how it would make it harder for humans to >> understand. Are there particular situations you're referring to? > > In a trivial example, it's mostly just noise: > > if a == b # who needs the colon? > print(c) The reader, for the same reason that above you wrote: "In a trivial example, it's mostly just noise COLON" and indeed I too used a colon for the same reason. It ties the lead sentence to the following block without ending the sentence, but still introducing a new grouping or clause. It is *remarkable* how people take the colon for granted. It is so simple and so obvious that they use it in their own writing often without thinking about it, but because it is not strictly necessary to avoid ambiguity in the grammar, they fool themselves into thinking that it is "just noise" or "pointless". It is not noise, it is a hint to the reader. Again, applying to both computer languages and natural languages, leaving out punctuation (either in the grammar, or just out of laziness) is doing a great disservice to the reader. The time the writer saves by not inserting punctuation is lost a million times for the reader (we read text and code thousands of times more than we write it, and there are thousands more readers than writers). Leaving out punctuation is a real pessimation: an example of being "penny wise and pound foolish". -- Steven
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-03-16 14:12 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <mailman.715.1331867565.3037.python-list@python.org> |
| In reply to | #21723 |
On Fri, Mar 16, 2012 at 10:52 AM, Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> wrote: > On Fri, 16 Mar 2012 01:48:09 +1100, Chris Angelico wrote: > >> In a trivial example, it's mostly just noise: >> >> if a == b # who needs the colon? >> print(c) > > The reader, for the same reason that above you wrote: > > "In a trivial example, it's mostly just noise COLON" > > and indeed I too used a colon for the same reason. It ties the lead > sentence to the following block without ending the sentence, but still > introducing a new grouping or clause. Yep. As everyone who communicates on the internet knows, punctuation can often be omitted without introducing ambiguity. That doesn't mean it *should* be omitted. NOT TELEGRAMS TODAY STOP ChrisA
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Kiuhnm <kiuhnm03.4t.yahoo.it> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-03-16 13:36 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <4f6333ca$0$1392$4fafbaef@reader1.news.tin.it> |
| In reply to | #21723 |
On 3/16/2012 0:52, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
>> On Fri, Mar 16, 2012 at 1:30 AM, Kiuhnm
>> <kiuhnm03.4t.yahoo.it@mail.python.org> wrote:
>>> Sorry, but I can't see how it would make it harder for humans to
>>> understand. Are there particular situations you're referring to?
>>
>> In a trivial example, it's mostly just noise:
>>
>> if a == b # who needs the colon?
>> print(c)
>
> The reader, for the same reason that above you wrote:
>
> "In a trivial example, it's mostly just noise COLON"
>
> and indeed I too used a colon for the same reason. It ties the lead
> sentence to the following block without ending the sentence, but still
> introducing a new grouping or clause.
>
> It is *remarkable* how people take the colon for granted. It is so simple
> and so obvious that they use it in their own writing often without
> thinking about it, but because it is not strictly necessary to avoid
> ambiguity in the grammar, they fool themselves into thinking that it is
> "just noise" or "pointless". It is not noise, it is a hint to the reader.
IMHO, Python misuses colons.
No grammarian would ever write
"If you can: take the bus."
Natural languages are irregular while Python strives to be as regular as
possible.
BTW, I prefer
The matrix
[....]
can be ..... and it gives
[....]
which .....
to
The matrix:
[....]
can be ..... and it gives:
[....]
which ....
Colons should introduce more specific information, not all the
information. For instance, "I like many things in life: <list>" is way
better than "I like: <list>".
As you can see, I'm not an English native speaker, but I think I know a
few things about punctuation. We second language learners remember all
the wrong things :(
Kiuhnm
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Neil Cerutti <neilc@norwich.edu> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-03-16 12:50 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <9sgr8oF2opU9@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #21744 |
On 2012-03-16, Kiuhnm <kiuhnm03.4t.yahoo.it> wrote: > As you can see, I'm not an English native speaker, but I think > I know a few things about punctuation. We second language > learners remember all the wrong things :( English's punctuation rules have to be a lot easier to remember than the seemingly random way in which we apply articles to our nouns. -- Neil Cerutti
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-03-16 13:03 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <4f633a1a$0$29981$c3e8da3$5496439d@news.astraweb.com> |
| In reply to | #21744 |
On Fri, 16 Mar 2012 13:36:25 +0100, Kiuhnm wrote: > On 3/16/2012 0:52, Steven D'Aprano wrote: >> It is *remarkable* how people take the colon for granted. It is so >> simple and so obvious that they use it in their own writing often >> without thinking about it, but because it is not strictly necessary to >> avoid ambiguity in the grammar, they fool themselves into thinking that >> it is "just noise" or "pointless". It is not noise, it is a hint to the >> reader. > > IMHO, Python misuses colons. According to the rules of which language? Latin? Cantonese? Russian? Or perhaps Perl? Javascript? Forth? > No grammarian would ever write > "If you can: take the bus." A grammarian might very well write: Your assignment, if you choose to accept it, is to: 1. Take the bus to Swansea. 2. Go across the road to the little shop on the corner. 3. Ask for Dave. 4. Tell him George sent you. 5. He will give you a package. Take it to the park down the street. 6. You will see a man making balloon animals. Give him the package. 7. He will give you a balloon giraffe. Take it to the pub. 8. Put the giraffe on the piano in the public bar, and leave. In English, one typical use for colons is to introduce a list or sequence of items, including instructions. A sequence of instructions is an algorithm, program or routine. You may have heard of them :) A one line routine is still a routine. There is nothing ungrammatical about "If you can: take the bus.", although it is non-idiomatic English. > Natural languages are irregular while Python strives to be as regular as > possible. So what? -- Steven
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Neil Cerutti <neilc@norwich.edu> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-03-16 13:08 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <9sgsb1FsbpU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #21749 |
On 2012-03-16, Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> wrote: > A grammarian might very well write: > > Your assignment, if you choose to accept it, is to: > > 1. Take the bus to Swansea. > ... > > In English, one typical use for colons is to introduce a list > or sequence of items, including instructions. A sequence of > instructions is an algorithm, program or routine. You may have > heard of them :) A grammarian always uses complete sentence before a colon, even when introducing a list. -- Neil Cerutti
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-03-16 16:28 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <4f636a38$0$29981$c3e8da3$5496439d@news.astraweb.com> |
| In reply to | #21750 |
On Fri, 16 Mar 2012 13:08:49 +0000, Neil Cerutti wrote: > On 2012-03-16, Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> > wrote: >> A grammarian might very well write: >> >> Your assignment, if you choose to accept it, is to: >> >> 1. Take the bus to Swansea. >> ... >> >> In English, one typical use for colons is to introduce a list or >> sequence of items, including instructions. A sequence of instructions >> is an algorithm, program or routine. You may have heard of them :) > > A grammarian always uses complete sentence before a colon, even when > introducing a list. Ah, perhaps you're talking about *prescriptivist* grammarians, who insist on applying grammatical rules that exist only in their own fevered imagination. Sorry, I was talking about the other sort, the ones who apply the grammatical rules used by people in real life. You know the ones: linguists. My mistake. Colons don't end sentences, therefore there is no need to use a complete sentence before a colon. -- Steven
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Neil Cerutti <neilc@norwich.edu> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-03-16 17:53 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <9shd0kFvgbU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #21758 |
On 2012-03-16, Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> wrote: > Ah, perhaps you're talking about *prescriptivist* grammarians, > who insist on applying grammatical rules that exist only in > their own fevered imagination. Sorry, I was talking about the > other sort, the ones who apply the grammatical rules used by > people in real life. You know the ones: linguists. My mistake. I am not pedantic. You are wrong. -- Neil Cerutti
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-03-16 18:50 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <4f638b76$0$29981$c3e8da3$5496439d@news.astraweb.com> |
| In reply to | #21768 |
On Fri, 16 Mar 2012 17:53:24 +0000, Neil Cerutti wrote:
> On 2012-03-16, Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info>
> wrote:
>> Ah, perhaps you're talking about *prescriptivist* grammarians, who
>> insist on applying grammatical rules that exist only in their own
>> fevered imagination. Sorry, I was talking about the other sort, the
>> ones who apply the grammatical rules used by people in real life. You
>> know the ones: linguists. My mistake.
>
> I am not pedantic. You are wrong.
Whether you like it or not, it simply is a fact that in English (I won't
speak for other languages) people use colons without the first clause
*necessarily* being a complete sentence. They write things like this:
Star Wars Episode IV: A New Hope
Also like these:
Example: this is an example of a colon following a sentence fragment.
Last update: Oct 4, 2007.
Shopping list:
- eggs
- milk
- cheese
They even use the reverse construction:
Lists, quotations, explanations, examples: some of the things
which follow after a colon.
Check the use of colons here:
http://articles.baltimoresun.com/2012-03-15/features/bal-the-raven-reviews-20120313_1_edgar-allan-poe-john-cusack-mystery-writer
I count at least ten colons on the page (including the title) and *not
one of them* uses a complete sentence before the colon.
While it is common for the clause preceding the colon to be an
independent clause (i.e. it would stand alone as a complete sentence) it
is not required that it be so.
I think I'll end this with a quote from Gore Vidal:
"The four most beautiful words in our common language: I told you so."
http://grammar.about.com/od/c/g/colon.htm
--
Steven
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Neil Cerutti <neilc@norwich.edu> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-03-16 19:35 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <9shj05FabeU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #21770 |
On 2012-03-16, Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> wrote: > On Fri, 16 Mar 2012 17:53:24 +0000, Neil Cerutti wrote: > >> On 2012-03-16, Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> >> wrote: >>> Ah, perhaps you're talking about *prescriptivist* grammarians, who >>> insist on applying grammatical rules that exist only in their own >>> fevered imagination. Sorry, I was talking about the other sort, the >>> ones who apply the grammatical rules used by people in real life. You >>> know the ones: linguists. My mistake. >> >> I am not pedantic. You are wrong. > > Whether you like it or not, it simply is a fact that in English > (I won't speak for other languages) people use colons without > the first clause *necessarily* being a complete sentence. They > write things like this: People spell your name Stephen, sometimes too. Thinking of changing it? Gore Vidal's quote has panache, a valid compensation for breaking the usual rule. How many other uses on that page are similar? -- Neil Cerutti
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 4 of 11 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 … 11 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.python
csiph-web