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

Groups > comp.lang.python > #94083 > unrolled thread

Re: Should non-security 2.7 bugs be fixed?

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

This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.

Contents

  Re: Should non-security 2.7 bugs be fixed? Devin Jeanpierre <jeanpierreda@gmail.com> - 2015-07-18 19:33 -0700
    Re: Should non-security 2.7 bugs be fixed? Rick Johnson <rantingrickjohnson@gmail.com> - 2015-07-18 19:49 -0700
    Re: Should non-security 2.7 bugs be fixed? Rustom Mody <rustompmody@gmail.com> - 2015-07-18 20:52 -0700
      Re: Should non-security 2.7 bugs be fixed? Rick Johnson <rantingrickjohnson@gmail.com> - 2015-07-18 21:18 -0700
      Devanagari int literals [was Re: Should non-security 2.7 bugs be fixed?] Steven D'Aprano <steve@pearwood.info> - 2015-07-19 14:45 +1000
        Re: Devanagari int literals [was Re: Should non-security 2.7 bugs be fixed?] Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2015-07-19 15:06 +1000
          Re: Devanagari int literals [was Re: Should non-security 2.7 bugs be fixed?] Marko Rauhamaa <marko@pacujo.net> - 2015-07-19 10:16 +0300
            Re: Devanagari int literals [was Re: Should non-security 2.7 bugs be fixed?] Rustom Mody <rustompmody@gmail.com> - 2015-07-19 00:32 -0700
              Re: Devanagari int literals [was Re: Should non-security 2.7 bugs be fixed?] Marko Rauhamaa <marko@pacujo.net> - 2015-07-19 10:44 +0300
              Re: Devanagari int literals [was Re: Should non-security 2.7 bugs be fixed?] Terry Reedy <tjreedy@udel.edu> - 2015-07-19 19:13 -0400
                Re: Devanagari int literals [was Re: Should non-security 2.7 bugs be fixed?] Rustom Mody <rustompmody@gmail.com> - 2015-07-19 19:02 -0700
        Re: Devanagari int literals [was Re: Should non-security 2.7 bugs be fixed?] Anuradha Laxminarayan <lanuradha@gmail.com> - 2015-07-18 23:25 -0700
        Re: Devanagari int literals [was Re: Should non-security 2.7 bugs be fixed?] Terry Reedy <tjreedy@udel.edu> - 2015-07-19 04:26 -0400
        Re: Devanagari int literals [was Re: Should non-security 2.7 bugs be fixed?] Tim Chase <python.list@tim.thechases.com> - 2015-07-19 07:56 -0500
        Re: Devanagari int literals [was Re: Should non-security 2.7 bugs be fixed?] Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2015-07-20 04:07 +1000
        Re: Devanagari int literals [was Re: Should non-security 2.7 bugs be fixed?] Tim Chase <python.list@tim.thechases.com> - 2015-07-19 14:55 -0500
        Re: Devanagari int literals [was Re: Should non-security 2.7 bugs be fixed?] Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2015-07-20 07:16 +1000
          Re: Devanagari int literals [was Re: Should non-security 2.7 bugs be fixed?] wxjmfauth@gmail.com - 2015-07-20 00:43 -0700
        Re: Devanagari int literals [was Re: Should non-security 2.7 bugs be fixed?] MRAB <python@mrabarnett.plus.com> - 2015-07-19 23:13 +0100
        Re: Devanagari int literals [was Re: Should non-security 2.7 bugs be fixed?] Rustom Mody <rustompmody@gmail.com> - 2015-07-20 20:30 -0700
          Re: Devanagari int literals [was Re: Should non-security 2.7 bugs be fixed?] Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2015-07-21 13:43 +1000
            Re: Devanagari int literals [was Re: Should non-security 2.7 bugs be fixed?] Rustom Mody <rustompmody@gmail.com> - 2015-07-20 23:11 -0700
          Re: Devanagari int literals [was Re: Should non-security 2.7 bugs be fixed?] Laura Creighton <lac@openend.se> - 2015-07-21 10:10 +0200
            Re: Devanagari int literals [was Re: Should non-security 2.7 bugs be fixed?] Marko Rauhamaa <marko@pacujo.net> - 2015-07-21 12:10 +0300
              Re: Devanagari int literals [was Re: Should non-security 2.7 bugs be fixed?] Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2015-07-21 19:18 +1000
                Re: Devanagari int literals [was Re: Should non-security 2.7 bugs be fixed?] Marko Rauhamaa <marko@pacujo.net> - 2015-07-21 13:13 +0300
              Re: Devanagari int literals [was Re: Should non-security 2.7 bugs be fixed?] Mark Lawrence <breamoreboy@yahoo.co.uk> - 2015-07-21 11:34 +0100
              Re: Devanagari int literals [was Re: Should non-security 2.7 bugs be fixed?] Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2015-07-21 20:39 +1000
                Re: Devanagari int literals [was Re: Should non-security 2.7 bugs be fixed?] Marko Rauhamaa <marko@pacujo.net> - 2015-07-21 13:54 +0300
                  Re: Devanagari int literals [was Re: Should non-security 2.7 bugs be fixed?] Marko Rauhamaa <marko@pacujo.net> - 2015-08-09 00:27 +0300
                    Re: OT Re: Math-embarrassment results in CS [was: Should non-security 2.7 bugs be fixed?] Rustom Mody <rustompmody@gmail.com> - 2015-08-09 09:29 -0700
                Re:  Math-embarrassment results in CS [was: Should non-security 2.7 bugs be fixed?] Rustom Mody <rustompmody@gmail.com> - 2015-07-22 06:34 -0700
                  OT Re: Math-embarrassment results in CS [was: Should non-security 2.7 bugs be fixed?] Steven D'Aprano <steve@pearwood.info> - 2015-07-23 02:58 +1000
                    Re: OT Re: Math-embarrassment results in CS [was: Should non-security 2.7 bugs be fixed?] Laura Creighton <lac@openend.se> - 2015-07-22 19:17 +0200
                      Re: OT Re: Math-embarrassment results in CS [was: Should non-security 2.7 bugs be fixed?] Rustom Mody <rustompmody@gmail.com> - 2015-07-22 10:49 -0700
                        Re: OT Re: Math-embarrassment results in CS [was: Should non-security 2.7 bugs be fixed?] Laura Creighton <lac@openend.se> - 2015-07-22 20:14 +0200
                        Re: OT Re: Math-embarrassment results in CS [was: Should non-security 2.7 bugs be fixed?] Mark Lawrence <breamoreboy@yahoo.co.uk> - 2015-07-22 21:59 +0100
                    Re: OT Re: Math-embarrassment results in CS [was: Should non-security 2.7 bugs be fixed?] Steven D'Aprano <steve@pearwood.info> - 2015-07-23 03:21 +1000
                      Re: OT Re: Math-embarrassment results in CS [was: Should non-security 2.7 bugs be fixed?] Dennis Lee Bieber <wlfraed@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-07-22 21:44 -0400
                      Re: OT Re: Math-embarrassment results in CS [was: Should non-security 2.7 bugs be fixed?] Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2015-07-23 12:00 +1000
                    Re: OT Re: Math-embarrassment results in CS [was: Should non-security 2.7 bugs be fixed?] Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2015-07-22 10:48 -0700
                      Re: OT Re: Math-embarrassment results in CS [was: Should non-security 2.7 bugs be fixed?] Rustom Mody <rustompmody@gmail.com> - 2015-07-22 10:51 -0700
                      Re: OT Re: Math-embarrassment results in CS [was: Should non-security 2.7 bugs be fixed?] Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2015-07-23 15:14 +1000
                    Re: OT Re: Math-embarrassment results in CS [was: Should non-security 2.7 bugs be fixed?] Rustom Mody <rustompmody@gmail.com> - 2015-07-22 11:09 -0700
                      Re: OT Re: Math-embarrassment results in CS [was: Should non-security 2.7 bugs be fixed?] Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2015-07-23 15:41 +1000
                        Re: OT Re: Math-embarrassment results in CS [was: Should non-security 2.7 bugs be fixed?] Marko Rauhamaa <marko@pacujo.net> - 2015-07-23 23:59 +0300
                          Re: OT Re: Math-embarrassment results in CS [was: Should non-security 2.7 bugs be fixed?] Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2015-07-24 07:03 +1000
                            Re: OT Re: Math-embarrassment results in CS [was: Should non-security 2.7 bugs be fixed?] Marko Rauhamaa <marko@pacujo.net> - 2015-07-24 00:29 +0300
                              Re: OT Re: Math-embarrassment results in CS [was: Should non-security 2.7 bugs be fixed?] Mark Lawrence <breamoreboy@yahoo.co.uk> - 2015-07-23 22:50 +0100
                              Re: OT Re: Math-embarrassment results in CS [was: Should non-security 2.7 bugs be fixed?] Laura Creighton <lac@openend.se> - 2015-07-23 23:52 +0200
                                Re: OT Re: Math-embarrassment results in CS [was: Should non-security 2.7 bugs be fixed?] Marko Rauhamaa <marko@pacujo.net> - 2015-07-24 00:59 +0300
                                  Re: OT Re: Math-embarrassment results in CS [was: Should non-security 2.7 bugs be fixed?] Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2015-07-24 08:02 +1000
                              Re: OT Re: Math-embarrassment results in CS [was: Should non-security 2.7 bugs be fixed?] Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2015-07-24 08:00 +1000
                              Re: OT Re: Math-embarrassment results in CS [was: Should non-security 2.7 bugs be fixed?] MRAB <python@mrabarnett.plus.com> - 2015-07-23 23:01 +0100
                              Re: OT Re: Math-embarrassment results in CS [was: Should non-security 2.7 bugs be fixed?] Laura Creighton <lac@openend.se> - 2015-07-24 00:19 +0200
                              Re: OT Re: Math-embarrassment results in CS [was: Should non-security 2.7 bugs be fixed?] Mark Lawrence <breamoreboy@yahoo.co.uk> - 2015-07-23 23:56 +0100
                              Re: OT Re: Math-embarrassment results in CS [was: Should non-security 2.7 bugs be fixed?] Grant Edwards <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2015-07-24 00:07 +0000
                                Re: OT Re: Math-embarrassment results in CS [was: Should non-security 2.7 bugs be fixed?] Rick Johnson <rantingrickjohnson@gmail.com> - 2015-07-23 18:40 -0700
                                Re: OT Re: Math-embarrassment results in CS [was: Should non-security 2.7 bugs be fixed?] Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2015-07-23 19:03 -0700
                                  Re: OT Re: Math-embarrassment results in CS [was: Should non-security 2.7 bugs be fixed?] Rick Johnson <rantingrickjohnson@gmail.com> - 2015-07-23 20:16 -0700
                                  Re: OT Re: Math-embarrassment results in CS [was: Should non-security 2.7 bugs be fixed?] Grant Edwards <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2015-07-24 14:13 +0000
                                    Re: OT Re: Math-embarrassment results in CS [was: Should non-security 2.7 bugs be fixed?] Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2015-07-24 08:45 -0700
                                    Re: OT Re: Math-embarrassment results in CS [was: Should non-security 2.7 bugs be fixed?] Mark Lawrence <breamoreboy@yahoo.co.uk> - 2015-07-24 16:58 +0100
                              Re: OT Re: Math-embarrassment results in CS [was: Should non-security 2.7 bugs be fixed?] Rustom Mody <rustompmody@gmail.com> - 2015-07-23 22:15 -0700
                      Re: OT Re: Math-embarrassment results in CS [was: Should non-security   2.7 bugs be fixed?] Gregory Ewing <greg.ewing@canterbury.ac.nz> - 2015-07-23 18:57 +1200
                        Re: OT Re: Math-embarrassment results in CS [was: Should non-security 2.7 bugs be fixed?] Rustom Mody <rustompmody@gmail.com> - 2015-07-23 02:12 -0700
                        Re: OT Re: Math-embarrassment results in CS [was: Should non-security 2.7 bugs be fixed?] Rustom Mody <rustompmody@gmail.com> - 2015-07-23 05:52 -0700
                    Re: OT Re: Math-embarrassment results in CS [was: Should non-security 2.7 bugs be fixed?] Marko Rauhamaa <marko@pacujo.net> - 2015-07-23 11:24 +0300
          Re: Devanagari int literals [was Re: Should non-security 2.7 bugs be fixed?] Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2015-07-21 18:57 +1000
      Re: Should non-security 2.7 bugs be fixed? Terry Reedy <tjreedy@udel.edu> - 2015-07-19 02:44 -0400
      Re: Should non-security 2.7 bugs be fixed? Terry Reedy <tjreedy@udel.edu> - 2015-07-19 05:11 -0400
        Re: Should non-security 2.7 bugs be fixed? Rustom Mody <rustompmody@gmail.com> - 2015-07-19 07:30 -0700
      Re: Should non-security 2.7 bugs be fixed? Mark Lawrence <breamoreboy@yahoo.co.uk> - 2015-07-19 15:00 +0100
    Re: Should non-security 2.7 bugs be fixed? Steven D'Aprano <steve@pearwood.info> - 2015-07-19 14:45 +1000
      Re: Should non-security 2.7 bugs be fixed? Devin Jeanpierre <jeanpierreda@gmail.com> - 2015-07-19 18:20 -0700
        Re: Should non-security 2.7 bugs be fixed? Steven D'Aprano <steve@pearwood.info> - 2015-07-20 13:05 +1000
          Re: Should non-security 2.7 bugs be fixed? Devin Jeanpierre <jeanpierreda@gmail.com> - 2015-07-19 20:41 -0700
      Re: Should non-security 2.7 bugs be fixed? Mark Lawrence <breamoreboy@yahoo.co.uk> - 2015-07-20 02:46 +0100
        Re: Should non-security 2.7 bugs be fixed? Rustom Mody <rustompmody@gmail.com> - 2015-07-19 19:16 -0700
          Re: Should non-security 2.7 bugs be fixed? Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2015-07-20 12:59 +1000
          Re: Should non-security 2.7 bugs be fixed? Mark Lawrence <breamoreboy@yahoo.co.uk> - 2015-07-20 11:59 +0100
          Re: Should non-security 2.7 bugs be fixed? Rick Johnson <rantingrickjohnson@gmail.com> - 2015-07-20 20:04 -0700
            Re: Should non-security 2.7 bugs be fixed? Rustom Mody <rustompmody@gmail.com> - 2015-07-20 20:15 -0700
              Re: Should non-security 2.7 bugs be fixed? Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2015-07-21 13:33 +1000
              Re: Should non-security 2.7 bugs be fixed? Terry Reedy <tjreedy@udel.edu> - 2015-07-21 00:45 -0400
            Re: Should non-security 2.7 bugs be fixed? breamoreboy@gmail.com - 2015-07-21 14:22 -0700
              Re: Should non-security 2.7 bugs be fixed? Rick Johnson <rantingrickjohnson@gmail.com> - 2015-07-21 19:07 -0700
                Re: Should non-security 2.7 bugs be fixed? Terry Reedy <tjreedy@udel.edu> - 2015-07-22 02:51 -0400
                  Re: Should non-security 2.7 bugs be fixed? Rick Johnson <rantingrickjohnson@gmail.com> - 2015-07-22 16:37 -0700
      Re: Should non-security 2.7 bugs be fixed? Terry Reedy <tjreedy@udel.edu> - 2015-07-20 02:25 -0400
      Re: Should non-security 2.7 bugs be fixed? dieter <dieter@handshake.de> - 2015-07-20 08:58 +0200
      Re: Should non-security 2.7 bugs be fixed? Devin Jeanpierre <jeanpierreda@gmail.com> - 2015-07-20 00:13 -0700

Page 4 of 5 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5  Next page →

#94506 — Re: OT Re: Math-embarrassment results in CS [was: Should non-security 2.7 bugs be fixed?]

On 2015-07-24, Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> Grant Edwards <invalid@invalid.invalid> writes:
>
>> You can always pick out the topologist at a conference: he's the one
>> trying to dunk his coffee cup in his doughnut.
>
> Did you hear about the idiot topologist?  He couldn't tell his butt
> from a hole in the ground, but he *could* tell his butt from two
> holes in the ground.

Wow.  Now I know _two_ topologist jokes.  The girls are going to be
impressed!

-- 
Grant Edwards               grant.b.edwards        Yow! I just got my PRINCE
                                  at               bumper sticker ... But now
                              gmail.com            I can't remember WHO he
                                                   is ...

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

#94508 — Re: OT Re: Math-embarrassment results in CS [was: Should non-security 2.7 bugs be fixed?]

Grant Edwards <invalid@invalid.invalid> writes:
>> Did you hear about the idiot topologist?  He couldn't tell his butt
>> from a hole in the ground, but he *could* tell his butt from two
>> holes in the ground.
>
> Wow.  Now I know _two_ topologist jokes.  The girls are going to be
> impressed!

I got it from here:

http://mathoverflow.net/questions/1083/do-good-math-jokes-exist

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

#94510 — Re: OT Re: Math-embarrassment results in CS [was: Should non-security 2.7 bugs be fixed?]

On 24/07/2015 15:13, Grant Edwards wrote:
> On 2015-07-24, Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>> Grant Edwards <invalid@invalid.invalid> writes:
>>
>>> You can always pick out the topologist at a conference: he's the one
>>> trying to dunk his coffee cup in his doughnut.
>>
>> Did you hear about the idiot topologist?  He couldn't tell his butt
>> from a hole in the ground, but he *could* tell his butt from two
>> holes in the ground.
>
> Wow.  Now I know _two_ topologist jokes.  The girls are going to be
> impressed!
>

Here comes the third.

Q: How many topologists does it take to change a light bulb?
A: It really doesn't matter, since they'd rather knot.

https://www.ocf.berkeley.edu/~mbarrien/jokes/lightblb.txt

-- 
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]

#94491 — Re: OT Re: Math-embarrassment results in CS [was: Should non-security 2.7 bugs be fixed?]

On Friday, July 24, 2015 at 2:59:41 AM UTC+5:30, Marko Rauhamaa wrote:
> Chris :
> 
> > Fortunately, we don't need to completely understand it. New Horizons
> > reached Pluto right on time after a decade of flight that involved
> > taking a left turn at Jupiter... we can predict exactly what angle to
> > fire the rockets at in order to get where we want to go, even without
> > knowing how that gravity yank works.
> >
> > Practicality beats purity?
> 
> Engineer!
> 
> At the time I was in college I heard topology was very fashionable among
> mathematicians. That was because it was one of the last remaining
> research topics that didn't yet have an application.

Probably shows more than anything else how siloed university depts are:

http://www.amazon.in/Topology-Cambridge-Theoretical-Computer-Science/dp/0521576512

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

#94429 — Re: OT Re: Math-embarrassment results in CS [was: Should non-security 2.7 bugs be fixed?]

Rustom Mody wrote:
> Ive known good ones) most practicing-mathematicians proceed on the assumption 
> that they *discover* math and not that they *invent* it.

For something purely abstract like mathematics, I don't
see how there's any distinction between "discovering" and
"inventing". They're two words for the same thing.

I don't know what kind of -ist that makes me...

-- 
Greg

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

#94433 — Re: OT Re: Math-embarrassment results in CS [was: Should non-security 2.7 bugs be fixed?]

On Thursday, July 23, 2015 at 12:28:19 PM UTC+5:30, Gregory Ewing wrote:
> Rustom Mody wrote:
> > Ive known good ones) most practicing-mathematicians proceed on the assumption 
> > that they *discover* math and not that they *invent* it.
> 
> For something purely abstract like mathematics, I don't
> see how there's any distinction between "discovering" and
> "inventing". They're two words for the same thing.
> 
> I don't know what kind of -ist that makes me...

Ummm... Clever!
You give few clues... except for 'purely abstract'.
Does that mean entirely in your consciousness?
Or does it mean completely independent of the (physical) world and even time.
Latter is more or less definition of platonist
Former is some kind of combo of intuitionist and formalist (I guess!).

JFTR: I believe that post-Cantor 'platonism' is an abuse of Plato's original
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allegory_of_the_Cave

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

#94447 — Re: OT Re: Math-embarrassment results in CS [was: Should non-security 2.7 bugs be fixed?]

On Thursday, July 23, 2015 at 12:28:19 PM UTC+5:30, Gregory Ewing wrote:
> Rustom Mody wrote:
> > Ive known good ones) most practicing-mathematicians proceed on the assumption 
> > that they *discover* math and not that they *invent* it.
> 
> For something purely abstract like mathematics, I don't
> see how there's any distinction between "discovering" and
> "inventing". They're two words for the same thing.
> 
> I don't know what kind of -ist that makes me...

By some strange coincidence, a colleague just sent me this article on the mathematician John Horton Conway:
http://www.theguardian.com/science/2015/jul/23/john-horton-conway-the-most-charismatic-mathematician-in-the-world

In which is this paragraph:
--------------------------
"Conway is the rare sort of mathematician whose ability to connect his pet
mathematical interests makes one wonder if he isn't, at some level, shaping 
mathematical reality and not just exploring it," James Propp, a professor of 
mathematics at the University of Massachusetts Lowell, once told me. "The 
example of this that I know best is a connection he discovered between sphere 
packing and games. These were two separate areas of study that Conway had 
arrived at by two different paths. So there's no reason for them to be linked. 
But somehow, through the force of his personality, and the intensity of his 
passion, he bent the mathematical universe to his will."
--------------------------

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

#94432 — Re: OT Re: Math-embarrassment results in CS [was: Should non-security 2.7 bugs be fixed?]

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

> I think that we can equally choose the natural numbers to be
> axiomatic, or sets to be axiomatic and derive natural numbers from
> them. Neither is more correct than the other.

Mathematicians quit trying to define what natural numbers mean and just
chose a standard enumerable sequence as *the* set of natural numbers.
That's analogous to physicists defining the meter as a particular rod in
a vault in Paris. So not even the length of the rod but the rod itself.

To modern mathematicians, the concept "three" simply means the fourth
element in the standard enumeration. When mathematicians need to use
natural numbers to count, they have to escape to predicate logic. For
example, to express that a natural number n has precisely two divisors,
you have to say,

   ∃x∈N ∃y∈N ¬x=y ∧ x|n ∧ y|n

(which avoids counting) or:

   ∃B∈P({x∈N : x|n}×2)
     (∀x∈{x∈N : x|n} ∃y∈2 ((x,y)∈B ∧ ∀z∈2 (x,z)∈B→y=z) ∧
      ∀x∈2 ∃y∈{x∈N : x|n} ((y,x)∈B ∧ ∀z∈{x∈N : x|n} (z,x)∈B→y=z))

This latter clumsy expression captures the notion of counting. However,
in programming terms, you could say counting is not first-class in
mathematics. Counting is done as a "macro" if you will.

If the logicians had managed to define natural numbers the way they
wanted, counting would be first class and simple:

   {x∈N : x|n}∈2


Marko

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

#94278 — Re: Devanagari int literals [was Re: Should non-security 2.7 bugs be fixed?]

On Tuesday 21 July 2015 13:30, Rustom Mody wrote:

> BTW my boys have just mailed me their latest:
> 
>>>> 九.九九
> 
> 9.99
> 
> Can some unicode/Chinese literate person inform me whether
> that ideograph is equivalent to roman '9' or roman 'nine'?
> 

I don't speak or read Chinese, so I could be completely wrong, but my 
understanding is that Chinese does not distinguish between the numeral 9 and 
the word 'nine', they are both spelled the same, 九. I think that the 
distinction you are looking for doesn't really exist in Chinese.

However, 90 would not be written as nine-zero, 九零, but as nine-ten 九十. 
Ninety-one, I believe, would be written as nine-ten-nine: 九十一.

Decimal numbers, however, copy the European usage: 91.1 = 九一.一.

See also:

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%E4%B9%9D
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_numerals


-- 
Steve

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

#94101

On 7/18/2015 11:52 PM, Rustom Mody wrote:

> Not to mention actively hostile attitude to discussions that could at the
> moment be tangential to current CPython. See (and whole thread)
> https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-ideas/2015-May/033708.html

Rustom, I think this is grossly unfair.  Python-ideas was started by 
Guido as a forum for ideas about *future* versions of Python.  Your post 
was about teaching Python,which is something different, as are lost of 
other Python-related topics. It would have fit either this list or 
edu-sig better.

Your post
https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-ideas/2015-May/033661.html
started a thread with nearly 40 responses, which is far more than 
average.  Thou doth protest too much. This
https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-ideas/2015-May/thread.html#33672
is the list for May; there might be a few more in June.

To the extent that you were (vaguely) proposing a change to core python 
itself, by splitting it up into 'teachpacks' (whatever those are) and 
'concentric rings', the idea was quickly rejected. It is too 
specialized, being aimed as one use, and impractically complicated for a 
mostly volunteer development group.  It is the sort of thing one might 
do with a $5 million grant.

Beyond that, the thread veered ogf onto topics that even you labelled 
off-topic.  Yes, we are hostile to prolonged off-topic discussions. 
They detract from the purpose of the list.

-- 
Terry Jan Reedy

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

#94108

On 7/18/2015 11:52 PM, Rustom Mody wrote:
among other things, a complaint about rejection of his desire for a 
mechanism for subsetting Python for teaching purposes.

Response 2: Core python is the most conservatively maintained part of 
Python.  Trying to change it radically, as distributed by PSF, is 
practically asking for rejection.  For subsetting, I suggest a different 
tack: filtering input before sending it to python and raise if it 
contains forbidden code.

After Response 1, I posted on the Devanagari thread a similar 
suggestion. I also posted an idea for implementing the idea by extending 
the internal reach of Idle extensions.  I limited the idea to the 
interactive shell because I could not immediately think of a use for 
filtering code before compiling.  Then I thought of this issue.  Among 
other things, code could be tokenized or parsed to an ast for filtering.

-- 
Terry Jan Reedy

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

#94123

On Sunday, July 19, 2015 at 2:42:41 PM UTC+5:30, Terry Reedy wrote:
> On 7/18/2015 11:52 PM, Rustom Mody wrote:
> among other things, a complaint about rejection of his desire for a 
> mechanism for subsetting Python for teaching purposes.

Sorry Terry if the compliant sounded louder than the answer. You asked:
> If the vast majority of Python programmers are focused on 2.7, why are
> volunteers to help fix 2.7 bugs so scarce? 

As someone who's been associated in one way or other with teaching for near 3 
decades, I'd say that of the two factors which destroy an education institute --
bar to entry too high, bar to entry too low  -- the second is by far the more
dangerous.

I believe open source is no different.  If every patch is to be accepted (or even given a polite answer) there will be no remaining working code.
And this will become more true the more the project is successful.

Super successful projects like the linux kernel are that way because the top guys are ruthlessly meritocratic: If your submission is poor you are told 
"Your code is shit"

If you persist, the "Your code" shortens to "You"

As I said it to Paul: I am thankful that python is meritocratic

As for that specific exchange I would rather not flog that horse further
[in public at least -- we can continue off list]

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

#94119

On 19/07/2015 04:52, Rustom Mody wrote:
>
> Not to mention actively hostile attitude to discussions that could at the
> moment be tangential to current CPython. See (and whole thread)
> https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-ideas/2015-May/033708.html
>

This https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-ideas/2015-May/033686.html 
is "actively hostile"?  Sour grapes springs to my mind.

-- 
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]

#94093

On Sun, 19 Jul 2015 12:33 pm, Devin Jeanpierre wrote:

[...]
> Because it helps even more people. The reason people make upstream
> contributions is so that the world benefits. If you only wanted to
> help yourself, you'd just patch CPython locally, and not bother
> contributing anything upstream.

And have your patch disappear when you upgrade Python? No thanks.


[...]
> It gets really boring submitting 2.7-specific patches, though, when
> they aren't accepted, and the committers have such a hostile attitude
> towards it. I was told by core devs that, instead of fixing bugs in
> Python 2, I should just rewrite my app in Python 3.

Really? Can you point us to this discussion?

If you are right, and that was an official pronouncement, then it seems that
non-security bug fixes to 2.7 are forbidden.

I suspect though that it's not quite that black and white. Perhaps there was
some doubt about whether or not the patch in question was fixing a bug or
adding a feature (a behavioural change). Or the core dev in question was
speaking for themselves, not for all.


> It has even been 
> implied that bugs in Python 2 are *good*, because that might help with
> Python 3 adoption.

Really? Can you point us to this discussion?

As they say on Wikipedia, Citation Needed. I would like to see the context
before taking that at face value.



-- 
Steven

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

#94183

On Sat, Jul 18, 2015 at 9:45 PM, Steven D'Aprano <steve@pearwood.info> wrote:
>> It gets really boring submitting 2.7-specific patches, though, when
>> they aren't accepted, and the committers have such a hostile attitude
>> towards it. I was told by core devs that, instead of fixing bugs in
>> Python 2, I should just rewrite my app in Python 3.
>
> Really? Can you point us to this discussion?

Yes, really. It was on #python-dev IRC.

> If you are right, and that was an official pronouncement, then it seems that
> non-security bug fixes to 2.7 are forbidden.

I never said it was a pronouncement, or official. It wasn't. I have no
idea where you got that idea from, given that I specifically have said
that I think non-security bug fixes are allowed.

> I suspect though that it's not quite that black and white. Perhaps there was
> some doubt about whether or not the patch in question was fixing a bug or
> adding a feature (a behavioural change). Or the core dev in question was
> speaking for themselves, not for all.

They weren't speaking for all. And, I never said they were. Nor did I
imply that they were.

Search your logs for https://bugs.python.org/issue17094 and
http://bugs.python.org/issue5315

I was most frustrated by the first case -- the patch was (informally)
rejected in favor of the "right" fix, and the "right" fix was
(informally) rejected because it changed behavior, leaving me only
with the option of absurd workarounds of a bug in Python, or moving to
python 3.

>> It has even been
>> implied that bugs in Python 2 are *good*, because that might help with
>> Python 3 adoption.
>
> Really? Can you point us to this discussion?
>
> As they say on Wikipedia, Citation Needed. I would like to see the context
> before taking that at face value.

Of course, it was a joke. The format of the joke goes like this:
people spend a lot of time debugging and writing bugfixes for Python
2.7, and you say:

  <dev2> guido wants all python 3 features in python 2, so ssbr` maybe
choose the right time to ask a backport ;-)
  <dev1> oh. if i would be paid to contribute to cpython, i would
probably be ok to backport anything from python 3 to python 2
  <dev1> since i'm not paid for that, i will to kill python 2, it must
suffer a lot

And that's about as close to logs as I am comfortable posting. Grep
your logs for that, too.



I don't like how this is being redirected to "surely you
misunderstood" or "I don't believe you". The fact that some core devs
are hostile to 2.x development is really bleedingly obvious, you
shouldn't need quotes or context thrown at you. The rhetoric almost
always shies _just_ short of ceasing bugfixes (until 2020, when that
abruptly becomes a cracking good idea). e.g. in "2.7 is here until
2020, please don't call it a waste".

I don't want to argue over who said what. I am sure everyone meant the
best, and I misunderstood them given a complicated context and a rough
day. Let's end this thread here, please.

-- Devin

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

#94196

On Mon, 20 Jul 2015 11:20 am, Devin Jeanpierre wrote:

> On Sat, Jul 18, 2015 at 9:45 PM, Steven D'Aprano <steve@pearwood.info>
> wrote:
>>> It gets really boring submitting 2.7-specific patches, though, when
>>> they aren't accepted, and the committers have such a hostile attitude
>>> towards it. I was told by core devs that, instead of fixing bugs in
>>> Python 2, I should just rewrite my app in Python 3.
>>
>> Really? Can you point us to this discussion?
> 
> Yes, really. It was on #python-dev IRC.

Ah, pity, because I really would have liked to have seen the context. (I
assume there are no archives of #python and #python-dev. At least, I've
never found them.)


>> If you are right, and that was an official pronouncement, then it seems
>> that non-security bug fixes to 2.7 are forbidden.
> 
> I never said it was a pronouncement, or official. It wasn't. I have no
> idea where you got that idea from, given that I specifically have said
> that I think non-security bug fixes are allowed.

You said that core devs told you not to fix bugs in Python 2. Do you really
think it's a big stretch to go from "core devs said don't fix Python 2
bugs" to "it's core dev policy to not fix Python 2 bugs"?


> Search your logs for https://bugs.python.org/issue17094 and
> http://bugs.python.org/issue5315
> 
> I was most frustrated by the first case -- the patch was (informally)
> rejected in favor of the "right" fix, and the "right" fix was
> (informally) rejected because it changed behavior, leaving me only
> with the option of absurd workarounds of a bug in Python, or moving to
> python 3.

In the first case, 17094, your comments weren't added until TWO YEARS after
the issue was closed. It's quite possible that nobody has even noticed
them. In the second case, the issue is still open. So I don't understand
your description above: there's no sign that the patch in 17094 was
rejected, the patch had bugs and it was fixed and applied to 3.4. It wasn't
applied to 2.7 for the reasons explained in the tracker: it could break
code that is currently working.

For the second issue, it has neither been applied nor rejected.


> I don't like how this is being redirected to "surely you
> misunderstood" or "I don't believe you". The fact that some core devs
> are hostile to 2.x development is really bleedingly obvious, 

Not to me it isn't. At worst, I would say that some of them are indifferent
to 2.7.


> you 
> shouldn't need quotes or context thrown at you. The rhetoric almost
> always shies _just_ short of ceasing bugfixes (until 2020, when that
> abruptly becomes a cracking good idea). e.g. in "2.7 is here until
> 2020, please don't call it a waste".

Right. So you take an extended ten year maintenance period for Python 2.7 as
evidence that the core devs are *hostile* to maintaining 2.7? That makes no
sense to me.

If you want to say that *some individuals* who happen to have commit rights
are hostile to Python 2.7, I can't really argue with that. Individuals can
have all sorts of ideas and opinions. But the core devs as a group are very
supportive of Python 2.7, even going to the effort of back-porting
performance improvements.



-- 
Steven

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

#94202

On Sun, Jul 19, 2015 at 8:05 PM, Steven D'Aprano <steve@pearwood.info> wrote:
> On Mon, 20 Jul 2015 11:20 am, Devin Jeanpierre wrote:
>> I was most frustrated by the first case -- the patch was (informally)
>> rejected in favor of the "right" fix, and the "right" fix was
>> (informally) rejected because it changed behavior, leaving me only
>> with the option of absurd workarounds of a bug in Python, or moving to
>> python 3.
>
> In the first case, 17094, your comments weren't added until TWO YEARS after
> the issue was closed. It's quite possible that nobody has even noticed
> them. In the second case, the issue is still open. So I don't understand
> your description above: there's no sign that the patch in 17094 was
> rejected, the patch had bugs and it was fixed and applied to 3.4. It wasn't
> applied to 2.7 for the reasons explained in the tracker: it could break
> code that is currently working.
>
> For the second issue, it has neither been applied nor rejected.

I meant search your #python-dev IRC logs, where this was discussed.

As far as whether people notice patches after an issue is closed,
Terry Reedy answered "yes" earlier in the thread. If the answer is
actually "no", then we should fix how bugs are handled post-closure,
in case e.g. someone posts a followup patch that fixes a remaining
case, and so on.

>> you
>> shouldn't need quotes or context thrown at you. The rhetoric almost
>> always shies _just_ short of ceasing bugfixes (until 2020, when that
>> abruptly becomes a cracking good idea). e.g. in "2.7 is here until
>> 2020, please don't call it a waste".
>
> Right. So you take an extended ten year maintenance period for Python 2.7 as
> evidence that the core devs are *hostile* to maintaining 2.7? That makes no
> sense to me.

That isn't what I said at all.

> If you want to say that *some individuals* who happen to have commit rights
> are hostile to Python 2.7, I can't really argue with that. Individuals can
> have all sorts of ideas and opinions. But the core devs as a group are very
> supportive of Python 2.7, even going to the effort of back-porting
> performance improvements.

I do want to say that. It doesn't help that those same individuals are
the only core devs I have interacted with while trying to patch 2.7.

-- Devin

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

#94187

On 20/07/2015 02:20, Devin Jeanpierre wrote:

>
> I don't like how this is being redirected to "surely you
> misunderstood" or "I don't believe you". The fact that some core devs
> are hostile to 2.x development is really bleedingly obvious, you
> shouldn't need quotes or context thrown at you. The rhetoric almost
> always shies _just_ short of ceasing bugfixes (until 2020, when that
> abruptly becomes a cracking good idea). e.g. in "2.7 is here until
> 2020, please don't call it a waste".
>

A couple of things.

First "some core devs are hostile", actually some have stated that 
they're simply not interested in 2.7 and will not work on it.

Second how has the thread got here, as it was originally asking about 
back porting bug fixes from 3.x to 2.7?  Further it said:-

<quote>
If the vast majority of Python programmers are focused on 2.7, why are 
volunteers to help fix 2.7 bugs so scarce?
</quote>

So I most humbly suggest, as I may have hinted at once or twice earlier 
in this thread, that people either put up or shut up.

-- 
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]

#94189

On Monday, July 20, 2015 at 7:16:50 AM UTC+5:30, Mark Lawrence wrote:
> On 20/07/2015 02:20, Devin Jeanpierre wrote:
> 
> >
> > I don't like how this is being redirected to "surely you
> > misunderstood" or "I don't believe you". The fact that some core devs
> > are hostile to 2.x development is really bleedingly obvious, you
> > shouldn't need quotes or context thrown at you. The rhetoric almost
> > always shies _just_ short of ceasing bugfixes (until 2020, when that
> > abruptly becomes a cracking good idea). e.g. in "2.7 is here until
> > 2020, please don't call it a waste".
> >
> 
> A couple of things.
> 
> First "some core devs are hostile", actually some have stated that 
> they're simply not interested in 2.7 and will not work on it.
> 
> Second how has the thread got here, as it was originally asking about 
> back porting bug fixes from 3.x to 2.7?  Further it said:-
> 
> <quote>
> If the vast majority of Python programmers are focused on 2.7, why are 
> volunteers to help fix 2.7 bugs so scarce?
> </quote>
> 
> So I most humbly suggest, as I may have hinted at once or twice earlier 
> in this thread, that people either put up or shut up.

I just ran the following command
$ hg log --template "{author|person}\n" | sort | uniq -c | sort -nr

as giving all the committers to python in sorted order.
I get the list below.
Dont see any Mark Lawrence there
Of course I dont know hg at all well... Just picked up the above command from
http://stackoverflow.com/questions/6126678/how-to-list-commiters-sorted-by-number-of-commits-commit-count

So... May I humbly ask where are your precious commits??

List of python committers:
-------------------------
 11081 Guido van Rossum
   6172 Fred Drake
   6120 Georg Brandl
   5603 Benjamin Peterson
   4077 Raymond Hettinger
   3874 Victor Stinner
   3774 Antoine Pitrou
   3157 Jack Jansen
   3089 Martin v. Löwis
   2668 Tim Peters
   2372 Serhiy Storchaka
   2219 Andrew M. Kuchling
   2205 Barry Warsaw
   2038 Ezio Melotti
   2016 Neal Norwitz
   2009 Mark Dickinson
   1966 Brett Cannon
   1307 R David Murray
   1180 Christian Heimes
   1159 Senthil Kumaran
   1108 Gregory P. Smith
   1075 Éric Araujo
   1071 Vinay Sajip
   1065 Jeremy Hylton
    903 Tarek Ziadé
    872 Greg Ward
    871 Thomas Heller
    780 R. David Murray
    777 Terry Jan Reedy
    728 Skip Montanaro
    695 Nick Coghlan
    687 Ned Deily
    581 Ronald Oussoren
    579 Walter Dörwald
    527 Kurt B. Kaiser
    519 Michael W. Hudson
    511 Amaury Forgeot d'Arc
    481 Stefan Krah
    450 Andrew Svetlov
    432 Thomas Wouters
    423 Zachary Ware
    422 Anthony Baxter
    403 Brian Curtin
    400 Florent Xicluna
    387 Eli Bendersky
    383 Eric Smith
    370 Hirokazu Yamamoto
    364 Charles-François Natali
    362 Alexander Belopolsky
    354 Just van Rossum
    344 Marc-André Lemburg
    340 Alexandre Vassalotti
    334 Michael Foord
    317 Neil Schemenauer
    314 Fredrik Lundh
    293 Jesus Cea
    285 Sandro Tosi
    282 Larry Hastings
    264 Yury Selivanov
    260 Matthias Klose
    259 Berker Peksag
    239 Richard Oudkerk
    233 Nadeem Vawda
    202 Kristján Valur Jónsson
    189 Petri Lehtinen
    174 Collin Winter
    166 Lars Gustäbel
    163 Hye-Shik Chang
    159 Mark Hammond
    159 Facundo Batista
    156 Armin Rigo
    154 Andrew MacIntyre
    153 Steve Dower
    153 doko
    153 Chris Jerdonek
    152 Sjoerd Mullender
    123 Łukasz Langa
    121 cvs2svn
    118 Giampaolo Rodolà
    112 Andrew Kuchling
    109 Guilherme Polo
    109 Giampaolo Rodola'
    106 Eric Snow
    102 Ka-Ping Yee
    101 Meador Inge
    101 Jesse Noller
    101 Jason R. Coombs
     97 Trent Nelson
     97 Steven M. Gava
     96 Hynek Schlawack
     93 Tim Golden
     93 Eric S. Raymond
     91 Ethan Furman
     87 Moshe Zadka
     87 Johannes Gijsbers
     87 Jeffrey Yasskin
     79 Roger E. Masse
     77 Ross Lagerwall
     67 Donald Stufft
     65 George Yoshida
     63 Phillip J. Eby
     63 Philip Jenvey
     62 Gustavo Niemeyer
     59 Jeroen Ruigrok van der Werven
     58 Steven Bethard
     51 Eric V. Smith
     50 Roger Serwy
     46 Bob Ippolito
     45 Terry Reedy
     45 Peter Schneider-Kamp
     45 Gerhard Häring
     42 Tarek Ziade
     42 Edward Loper
     40 Peter Astrand
     39 Alex Martelli
     38 Daniel Stutzbach
     37 Sean Reifscheider
     37 Jason Tishler
     36 Bill Janssen
     34 Trent Mick
     34 Piers Lauder
     33 Jack Diederich
     31 Mark Summerfield
     31 Jim Fulton
     29 Greg Stein
     28 Nicholas Bastin
     27 Andrew McNamara
     23 Robert Schuppenies
     23 Josiah Carlson
     22 Vladimir Marangozov
     21 Kristjan Valur Jonsson
     21 Brian Quinlan
     20 Paul Prescod
     18 Tony Lownds
     18 Steve Purcell
     18 Andrew Dalke
     17 Finn Bock
     17 David Wolever
     16 Steve Holden
     16 Robert Collins
     16 Jean-Paul Calderone
     16 Charles-Francois Natali
     15 Žiga Seilnacht
     15 David Malcolm
     15 Armin Ronacher
     14 Travis E. Oliphant
     14 Tal Einat
     14 Richard Jones
     14 Reid Kleckner
     12 Frank Wierzbicki
     12 Alex Gaynor
     11 guido
     10 David Goodger
     10 Chui Tey
      9 unknown
      9 brian.curtin
      8 Samuele Pedroni
      8 Kushal Das
      7 Sean Reifschneider
      7 Martin v. Loewis
      7 Ken Manheimer
      7 Doug Hellmann
      7 Dirkjan Ochtman
      7 Chris Withers
      7 Christian Tismer
      7 briancurtin
      6 Dave Cole
      6 Ask Solem
      5 Peter Moody
      5 Marc-Andre Lemburg
      5 Felix Crux
      4 Walter Doerwald
      4 Rusi
      4 Martin Blais
      4 Jerry Seutter
      3 Matt Fleming
      2 Ralf Schmitt
      2 Paul Moore
      2 Nicholas Riley
      2 krisvale
      2 Jeremy Kloth
      2 David Ascher
      2 bquinlan
      2 Alexis Metaireau
      1 Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek
      1 Robert Jordens
      1 orsenthil
      1 Gerhard Haering
      1 David Scherer
      1 Daniel Holth
      1 Charles G. Waldman
      1 Atsuo Ishimoto

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

#94195

On Mon, Jul 20, 2015 at 12:16 PM, Rustom Mody <rustompmody@gmail.com> wrote:
> I just ran the following command
> $ hg log --template "{author|person}\n" | sort | uniq -c | sort -nr
>
> as giving all the committers to python in sorted order.
> I get the list below.
> Dont see any Mark Lawrence there
> Of course I dont know hg at all well... Just picked up the above command from
> http://stackoverflow.com/questions/6126678/how-to-list-commiters-sorted-by-number-of-commits-commit-count
>
> So... May I humbly ask where are your precious commits??

Same place that mine aren't. Compare:

http://bugs.python.org/issue24610
https://hg.python.org/cpython/rev/02b81a82a57d

(It's a trivial docs patch, but that makes for a better demo than the
messy PEP 479/issue22906 stuff, where different parts got committed at
different times.)

I create a patch on my local clone of the CPython repository, and
rather than push it directly (which technically I _could_ do, but
socially I don't have jurisdiction over the main source code), I
create a tracker issue and attach the patch. Then someone else commits
it - and it's his name that's on the commit. Same here:

http://bugs.python.org/issue24435
https://hg.python.org/cpython/rev/a9c34db88d79

No matter how many patches I write (not that I write very many), I
won't show up on your list unless I actually push my own code. Mark
isn't a core committer, so you won't see him. A quick search of the
tracker came up with this:

http://bugs.python.org/issue19980

It's a closed issue with a patch by Mark Lawrence. (There may well be
others, I have no idea. All I know is that this one came up in the
search.) The author of the resulting commit is Serhiy, not Mark, so
that's who you'll be counting in your stats.

Sorry to say, the flaw is in your testing methodology.

ChrisA

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

Page 4 of 5 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5  Next page →

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

csiph-web