Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.python > #108830 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Herkermer Sherwood <theherk@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2016-05-19 09:31 -0700 |
| Last post | 2016-06-16 11:19 +1000 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 282 — 43 participants |
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.
for / while else doesn't make sense Herkermer Sherwood <theherk@gmail.com> - 2016-05-19 09:31 -0700
Re: for / while else doesn't make sense Ned Batchelder <ned@nedbatchelder.com> - 2016-05-19 10:22 -0700
Re: for / while else doesn't make sense Steven D'Aprano <steve@pearwood.info> - 2016-05-20 04:02 +1000
Re: for / while else doesn't make sense theherk@gmail.com - 2016-05-19 11:47 -0700
Re: for / while else doesn't make sense Marko Rauhamaa <marko@pacujo.net> - 2016-05-19 23:28 +0300
Re: for / while else doesn't make sense David Jardine <david@jardine.de> - 2016-05-19 21:49 +0200
Re: for / while else doesn't make sense Steven D'Aprano <steve@pearwood.info> - 2016-05-20 03:46 +1000
Re: for / while else doesn't make sense Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.co.uk> - 2016-05-19 17:55 +0000
Re: for / while else doesn't make sense Steven D'Aprano <steve@pearwood.info> - 2016-05-20 10:06 +1000
Re: for / while else doesn't make sense gst <g.starck@gmail.com> - 2016-05-19 19:02 -0700
Re: for / while else doesn't make sense Stephen Hansen <me+python@ixokai.io> - 2016-05-19 23:53 -0700
Re: for / while else doesn't make sense Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.co.uk> - 2016-05-20 11:55 +0000
Re: for / while else doesn't make sense Dennis Lee Bieber <wlfraed@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-05-20 19:57 -0400
Re: for / while else doesn't make sense Steven D'Aprano <steve@pearwood.info> - 2016-05-21 21:26 +1000
Re: for / while else doesn't make sense Ethan Furman <ethan@stoneleaf.us> - 2016-05-20 16:58 -0700
Re: for / while else doesn't make sense Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.co.uk> - 2016-05-21 00:24 +0000
Re: for / while else doesn't make sense Steven D'Aprano <steve@pearwood.info> - 2016-05-21 13:50 +1000
Re: for / while else doesn't make sense Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2016-05-21 14:01 +1000
Re: for / while else doesn't make sense Steven D'Aprano <steve@pearwood.info> - 2016-05-21 19:56 +1000
Re: for / while else doesn't make sense Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2016-05-21 20:08 +1000
Re: for / while else doesn't make sense Steven D'Aprano <steve@pearwood.info> - 2016-05-21 20:55 +1000
Re: for / while else doesn't make sense Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2016-05-21 21:10 +1000
Re: for / while else doesn't make sense Erik <python@lucidity.plus.com> - 2016-05-21 08:20 +0100
Re: for / while else doesn't make sense Marko Rauhamaa <marko@pacujo.net> - 2016-05-21 11:37 +0300
Re: for / while else doesn't make sense Steven D'Aprano <steve@pearwood.info> - 2016-05-21 20:39 +1000
Re: for / while else doesn't make sense Erik <python@lucidity.plus.com> - 2016-05-21 21:48 +0100
Re: for / while else doesn't make sense Steven D'Aprano <steve@pearwood.info> - 2016-05-22 12:57 +1000
Re: for / while else doesn't make sense Michael Selik <michael.selik@gmail.com> - 2016-05-22 02:55 +0000
Re: for / while else doesn't make sense Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2016-05-21 17:29 +1000
Re: for / while else doesn't make sense Bob Martin <bob.martin@excite.com> - 2016-05-20 07:45 +0100
Re: for / while else doesn't make sense Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2016-05-20 06:01 +1000
Re: for / while else doesn't make sense Ian Kelly <ian.g.kelly@gmail.com> - 2016-05-19 14:11 -0600
Re: for / while else doesn't make sense Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2016-05-20 06:27 +1000
Re: for / while else doesn't make sense Gregory Ewing <greg.ewing@canterbury.ac.nz> - 2016-05-20 11:51 +1200
Re: for / while else doesn't make sense Erik <python@lucidity.plus.com> - 2016-05-20 09:09 +0100
Re: for / while else doesn't make sense Zachary Ware <zachary.ware+pylist@gmail.com> - 2016-05-20 10:59 -0500
Re: for / while else doesn't make sense Christopher Reimer <christopher_reimer@icloud.com> - 2016-05-20 12:20 -0700
Re: for / while else doesn't make sense Steven D'Aprano <steve@pearwood.info> - 2016-05-21 08:43 +1000
Re: for / while else doesn't make sense theherk@gmail.com - 2016-05-20 16:24 -0700
Re: for / while else doesn't make sense Marko Rauhamaa <marko@pacujo.net> - 2016-05-21 09:03 +0300
Re: for / while else doesn't make sense Steven D'Aprano <steve@pearwood.info> - 2016-05-21 21:26 +1000
Re: for / while else doesn't make sense Ian Kelly <ian.g.kelly@gmail.com> - 2016-05-21 07:51 -0600
Re: for / while else doesn't make sense Grant Edwards <grant.b.edwards@gmail.com> - 2016-05-21 15:20 +0000
Re: for / while else doesn't make sense Ben Finney <ben+python@benfinney.id.au> - 2016-05-21 10:21 +1000
Re: for / while else doesn't make sense Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.co.uk> - 2016-05-21 00:35 +0000
Re: for / while else doesn't make sense Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2016-05-21 12:05 +1000
Re: for / while else doesn't make sense Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.co.uk> - 2016-05-22 14:15 +0000
Re: for / while else doesn't make sense Marko Rauhamaa <marko@pacujo.net> - 2016-05-22 17:58 +0300
Re: for / while else doesn't make sense Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.co.uk> - 2016-05-22 15:09 +0000
Re: for / while else doesn't make sense Rustom Mody <rustompmody@gmail.com> - 2016-05-22 08:26 -0700
Re: for / while else doesn't make sense Random832 <random832@fastmail.com> - 2016-05-22 13:25 -0400
Re: for / while else doesn't make sense Rustom Mody <rustompmody@gmail.com> - 2016-05-22 10:34 -0700
Re: for / while else doesn't make sense Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.co.uk> - 2016-05-22 18:06 +0000
Re: for / while else doesn't make sense Random832 <random832@fastmail.com> - 2016-05-22 14:17 -0400
Re: for / while else doesn't make sense Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2016-05-23 17:09 +1000
Re: for / while else doesn't make sense Steven D'Aprano <steve@pearwood.info> - 2016-05-23 01:19 +1000
Re: for / while else doesn't make sense Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2016-05-23 01:32 +1000
Re: for / while else doesn't make sense Marko Rauhamaa <marko@pacujo.net> - 2016-05-22 18:50 +0300
Re: for / while else doesn't make sense Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.co.uk> - 2016-05-22 15:52 +0000
Re: for / while else doesn't make sense Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2016-05-23 02:35 +1000
Re: for / while else doesn't make sense Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.co.uk> - 2016-05-22 16:46 +0000
Re: for / while else doesn't make sense Rustom Mody <rustompmody@gmail.com> - 2016-05-22 10:22 -0700
Re: for / while else doesn't make sense Random832 <random832@fastmail.com> - 2016-05-22 13:30 -0400
Re: for / while else doesn't make sense Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.co.uk> - 2016-05-22 17:55 +0000
Re: for / while else doesn't make sense Random832 <random832@fastmail.com> - 2016-05-22 14:14 -0400
Re: for / while else doesn't make sense Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-05-22 20:51 +0100
Re: for / while else doesn't make sense Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.co.uk> - 2016-05-23 00:34 +0000
Re: for / while else doesn't make sense Ian Kelly <ian.g.kelly@gmail.com> - 2016-05-22 17:04 -0600
Re: for / while else doesn't make sense Steven D'Aprano <steve@pearwood.info> - 2016-05-23 08:09 +1000
Re: for / while else doesn't make sense Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.co.uk> - 2016-05-23 00:36 +0000
Re: for / while else doesn't make sense Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2016-05-23 11:01 +1000
Re: for / while else doesn't make sense Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.co.uk> - 2016-05-23 01:00 +0000
Re: for / while else doesn't make sense breamoreboy@gmail.com - 2016-05-22 18:47 -0700
Re: for / while else doesn't make sense Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.co.uk> - 2016-05-23 15:35 +0000
Re: for / while else doesn't make sense MRAB <python@mrabarnett.plus.com> - 2016-05-23 02:51 +0100
Re: for / while else doesn't make sense Ben Finney <ben+python@benfinney.id.au> - 2016-05-23 14:13 +1000
Re: for / while else doesn't make sense Rustom Mody <rustompmody@gmail.com> - 2016-05-22 23:09 -0700
Re: for / while else doesn't make sense Marko Rauhamaa <marko@pacujo.net> - 2016-05-23 09:30 +0300
Re: for / while else doesn't make sense Rustom Mody <rustompmody@gmail.com> - 2016-05-22 23:46 -0700
Re: for / while else doesn't make sense Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2016-05-23 18:09 +1000
Re: for / while else doesn't make sense Ian Kelly <ian.g.kelly@gmail.com> - 2016-05-23 08:14 -0600
Re: for / while else doesn't make sense Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-05-23 15:29 +0100
Re: for / while else doesn't make sense Ian Kelly <ian.g.kelly@gmail.com> - 2016-05-23 08:49 -0600
Re: for / while else doesn't make sense Pete Forman <petef4+usenet@gmail.com> - 2016-05-23 19:16 +0100
Re: for / while else doesn't make sense Ian Kelly <ian.g.kelly@gmail.com> - 2016-05-23 13:24 -0600
Re: for / while else doesn't make sense Pete Forman <petef4+usenet@gmail.com> - 2016-05-23 22:50 +0100
Re: for / while else doesn't make sense Gregory Ewing <greg.ewing@canterbury.ac.nz> - 2016-05-24 18:49 +1200
Re: for / while else doesn't make sense Pete Forman <petef4+usenet@gmail.com> - 2016-05-24 19:03 +0100
Re: for / while else doesn't make sense Gregory Ewing <greg.ewing@canterbury.ac.nz> - 2016-05-25 18:35 +1200
Re: for / while else doesn't make sense Steven D'Aprano <steve@pearwood.info> - 2016-05-24 10:38 +1000
Re: for / while else doesn't make sense Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2016-05-24 00:57 +1000
Re: for / while else doesn't make sense Steven D'Aprano <steve@pearwood.info> - 2016-05-24 01:47 +1000
Re: for / while else doesn't make sense Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2016-05-24 01:57 +1000
Re: for / while else doesn't make sense Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-05-23 17:51 +0100
Re: for / while else doesn't make sense Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2016-05-24 02:59 +1000
Re: for / while else doesn't make sense Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-05-23 20:55 +0100
Re: for / while else doesn't make sense Mark Dickinson <mdickinson@enthought.com> - 2016-05-23 20:17 +0000
Re: for / while else doesn't make sense Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-05-23 22:01 +0100
Numerical methods [was Re: for / while else doesn't make sense] Steven D'Aprano <steve@pearwood.info> - 2016-05-24 10:57 +1000
Re: for / while else doesn't make sense Rustom Mody <rustompmody@gmail.com> - 2016-05-23 08:30 -0700
Re: for / while else doesn't make sense Ian Kelly <ian.g.kelly@gmail.com> - 2016-05-23 10:02 -0600
Re: for / while else doesn't make sense Grant Edwards <grant.b.edwards@gmail.com> - 2016-05-23 20:22 +0000
Re: for / while else doesn't make sense Ian Kelly <ian.g.kelly@gmail.com> - 2016-05-23 09:53 -0600
When were real numbers born? (was for / while else doesn't make sense) Rustom Mody <rustompmody@gmail.com> - 2016-05-23 22:02 -0700
Re: for / while else doesn't make sense Christopher Reimer <christopher_reimer@icloud.com> - 2016-05-23 15:36 -0700
Re: for / while else doesn't make sense Steven D'Aprano <steve@pearwood.info> - 2016-05-24 11:05 +1000
Re: for / while else doesn't make sense Ned Batchelder <ned@nedbatchelder.com> - 2016-05-23 19:19 -0700
META Culture of this place [was Re: for / while else doesn't make sense] Steven D'Aprano <steve@pearwood.info> - 2016-05-25 02:43 +1000
Re: META Culture of this place [was Re: for / while else doesn't make sense] boB Stepp <robertvstepp@gmail.com> - 2016-05-24 12:19 -0500
Re: META Culture of this place [was Re: for / while else doesn't make sense] Ned Batchelder <ned@nedbatchelder.com> - 2016-05-24 10:44 -0700
Re: META Culture of this place [was Re: for / while else doesn't make sense] Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2016-05-24 12:54 -0700
Re: for / while else doesn't make sense Grant Edwards <grant.b.edwards@gmail.com> - 2016-05-24 14:23 +0000
Re: for / while else doesn't make sense Christopher Reimer <christopher_reimer@icloud.com> - 2016-05-24 10:40 -0700
Re: for / while else doesn't make sense Gregory Ewing <greg.ewing@canterbury.ac.nz> - 2016-05-25 18:38 +1200
Extended ASCII [was Re: for / while else doesn't make sense] Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2016-05-25 17:30 +1000
Re: for / while else doesn't make sense Christopher Reimer <christopher_reimer@icloud.com> - 2016-05-25 02:10 -0700
Exended ASCII and code pages [was Re: for / while else doesn't make sense] Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2016-05-25 20:19 +1000
Re: Exended ASCII and code pages [was Re: for / while else doesn't make sense] Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2016-05-25 20:30 +1000
Re: Exended ASCII and code pages [was Re: for / while else doesn't make sense] Erik <python@lucidity.plus.com> - 2016-05-25 22:03 +0100
Re: Exended ASCII and code pages [was Re: for / while else doesn't make sense] Jussi Piitulainen <jussi.piitulainen@helsinki.fi> - 2016-05-26 10:21 +0300
Re: Exended ASCII and code pages [was Re: for / while else doesn't make sense] Rustom Mody <rustompmody@gmail.com> - 2016-05-26 00:44 -0700
Re: Exended ASCII and code pages [was Re: for / while else doesn't make sense] Marko Rauhamaa <marko@pacujo.net> - 2016-05-26 12:11 +0300
Re: Exended ASCII and code pages [was Re: for / while else doesn't make sense] Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2016-05-26 19:20 +1000
Re: Exended ASCII and code pages [was Re: for / while else doesn't make sense] Erik <python@lucidity.plus.com> - 2016-05-26 21:54 +0100
Re: Exended ASCII and code pages [was Re: for / while else doesn't make sense] Jussi Piitulainen <jussi.piitulainen@helsinki.fi> - 2016-05-27 08:03 +0300
Re: Exended ASCII and code pages [was Re: for / while else doesn't make sense] Dennis Lee Bieber <wlfraed@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-05-25 21:28 -0400
Re: Exended ASCII and code pages [was Re: for / while else doesn't make sense] Erik <python@lucidity.plus.com> - 2016-05-26 09:11 +0100
Re: Exended ASCII and code pages [was Re: for / while else doesn't make sense] Marko Rauhamaa <marko@pacujo.net> - 2016-05-26 12:20 +0300
Re: Exended ASCII and code pages [was Re: for / while else doesn't make sense] Erik <python@lucidity.plus.com> - 2016-05-26 21:29 +0100
Re: Exended ASCII and code pages [was Re: for / while else doesn't make sense] Marko Rauhamaa <marko@pacujo.net> - 2016-05-27 00:12 +0300
Re: Exended ASCII and code pages [was Re: for / while else doesn't make sense] Steven D'Aprano <steve@pearwood.info> - 2016-05-27 13:35 +1000
Re: Exended ASCII and code pages [was Re: for / while else doesn't make sense] Marko Rauhamaa <marko@pacujo.net> - 2016-05-27 09:10 +0300
Re: Exended ASCII and code pages [was Re: for / while else doesn't make sense] Steven D'Aprano <steve@pearwood.info> - 2016-05-27 16:47 +1000
Re: Exended ASCII and code pages [was Re: for / while else doesn't make sense] Marko Rauhamaa <marko@pacujo.net> - 2016-05-27 10:04 +0300
Re: Exended ASCII and code pages [was Re: for / while else doesn't make sense] Steven D'Aprano <steve@pearwood.info> - 2016-05-27 19:56 +1000
Re: Exended ASCII and code pages [was Re: for / while else doesn't make sense] Random832 <random832@fastmail.com> - 2016-05-27 09:51 -0400
Re: Exended ASCII and code pages [was Re: for / while else doesn't make sense] Rustom Mody <rustompmody@gmail.com> - 2016-05-27 08:53 -0700
Re: Exended ASCII and code pages [was Re: for / while else doesn't make sense] Random832 <random832@fastmail.com> - 2016-05-27 12:09 -0400
Coding systems are political (was Exended ASCII and code pages) Rustom Mody <rustompmody@gmail.com> - 2016-05-27 21:46 -0700
Re: Coding systems are political (was Exended ASCII and code pages) wxjmfauth@gmail.com - 2016-05-28 08:16 -0700
Re: Coding systems are political (was Exended ASCII and code pages) Ned Batchelder <ned@nedbatchelder.com> - 2016-05-28 08:50 -0700
Re: Coding systems are political (was Exended ASCII and code pages) Random832 <random832@fastmail.com> - 2016-05-28 14:05 -0400
Re: Coding systems are political (was Exended ASCII and code pages) Steven D'Aprano <steve@pearwood.info> - 2016-05-29 15:37 +1000
Re: Coding systems are political (was Exended ASCII and code pages) Rustom Mody <rustompmody@gmail.com> - 2016-05-28 23:12 -0700
Re: Coding systems are political (was Exended ASCII and code pages) Terry Reedy <tjreedy@udel.edu> - 2016-05-29 14:46 -0400
Re: Coding systems are political (was Exended ASCII and code pages) Christian Gollwitzer <auriocus@gmx.de> - 2016-05-29 22:29 +0200
Re: Coding systems are political (was Exended ASCII and code pages) wxjmfauth@gmail.com - 2016-05-30 06:35 -0700
Re: Coding systems are political (was Exended ASCII and code pages) Rustom Mody <rustompmody@gmail.com> - 2016-06-04 20:54 -0700
Re: Coding systems are political (was Exended ASCII and code pages) alister <alister.ware@ntlworld.com> - 2016-05-29 06:19 +0000
Re: Coding systems are political (was Exended ASCII and code pages) Gregory Ewing <greg.ewing@canterbury.ac.nz> - 2016-05-29 20:54 +1200
Re: Coding systems are political (was Exended ASCII and code pages) Marko Rauhamaa <marko@pacujo.net> - 2016-05-29 12:56 +0300
Re: Coding systems are political (was Exended ASCII and code pages) wxjmfauth@gmail.com - 2016-05-30 09:11 -0700
Re: Exended ASCII and code pages [was Re: for / while else doesn't make sense] Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2016-05-28 02:16 +1000
Re: Exended ASCII and code pages [was Re: for / while else doesn't make sense] Steven D'Aprano <steve@pearwood.info> - 2016-05-28 18:54 +1000
Re: Exended ASCII and code pages [was Re: for / while else doesn't make sense] Marko Rauhamaa <marko@pacujo.net> - 2016-05-27 22:03 +0300
Re: Exended ASCII and code pages [was Re: for / while else doesn't make sense] Rustom Mody <rustompmody@gmail.com> - 2016-05-27 21:23 -0700
Re: Exended ASCII and code pages [was Re: for / while else doesn't make sense] Rustom Mody <rustompmody@gmail.com> - 2016-05-26 03:39 -0700
Re: Exended ASCII and code pages [was Re: for / while else doesn't make sense] Dennis Lee Bieber <wlfraed@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-05-26 07:07 -0400
Re: for / while else doesn't make sense Marko Rauhamaa <marko@pacujo.net> - 2016-05-25 13:47 +0300
Re: for / while else doesn't make sense Christopher Reimer <christopher_reimer@icloud.com> - 2016-05-25 05:19 -0700
Re: for / while else doesn't make sense Rustom Mody <rustompmody@gmail.com> - 2016-05-25 22:49 -0700
Re: for / while else doesn't make sense Jussi Piitulainen <jussi.piitulainen@helsinki.fi> - 2016-05-26 09:54 +0300
Re: for / while else doesn't make sense Rustom Mody <rustompmody@gmail.com> - 2016-05-26 00:44 -0700
Re: for / while else doesn't make sense wxjmfauth@gmail.com - 2016-05-26 00:52 -0700
Re: for / while else doesn't make sense Marko Rauhamaa <marko@pacujo.net> - 2016-05-26 12:05 +0300
Re: for / while else doesn't make sense Random832 <random832@fastmail.com> - 2016-05-29 14:41 -0400
Re: for / while else doesn't make sense Marko Rauhamaa <marko@pacujo.net> - 2016-05-29 22:01 +0300
Re: for / while else doesn't make sense Dennis Lee Bieber <wlfraed@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-05-23 20:07 -0400
Re: for / while else doesn't make sense Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2016-05-24 10:11 +1000
Re: for / while else doesn't make sense Steven D'Aprano <steve@pearwood.info> - 2016-05-24 02:59 +1000
Re: for / while else doesn't make sense Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.co.uk> - 2016-05-23 17:09 +0000
Re: for / while else doesn't make sense Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2016-05-24 03:33 +1000
Re: for / while else doesn't make sense Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.co.uk> - 2016-05-23 17:57 +0000
Re: for / while else doesn't make sense Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2016-05-24 04:14 +1000
Re: for / while else doesn't make sense Random832 <random832@fastmail.com> - 2016-05-23 13:44 -0400
Re: for / while else doesn't make sense Ian Kelly <ian.g.kelly@gmail.com> - 2016-05-23 11:52 -0600
Re: for / while else doesn't make sense Alan Evangelista <alanoe@linux.vnet.ibm.com> - 2016-05-23 15:06 -0300
Re: for / while else doesn't make sense Steven D'Aprano <steve@pearwood.info> - 2016-05-24 12:15 +1000
Re: for / while else doesn't make sense Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.co.uk> - 2016-05-24 10:54 +0000
Re: for / while else doesn't make sense Steven D'Aprano <steve@pearwood.info> - 2016-05-25 03:44 +1000
Re: for / while else doesn't make sense Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2016-05-25 03:49 +1000
Re: for / while else doesn't make sense MRAB <python@mrabarnett.plus.com> - 2016-05-24 19:57 +0100
Re: for / while else doesn't make sense Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.co.uk> - 2016-05-24 20:10 +0000
Re: for / while else doesn't make sense Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-05-23 20:29 +0100
Re: for / while else doesn't make sense Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2016-05-23 18:33 +1000
Re: for / while else doesn't make sense Grant Edwards <grant.b.edwards@gmail.com> - 2016-05-21 02:17 +0000
Re: for / while else doesn't make sense Christopher Reimer <christopher_reimer@icloud.com> - 2016-05-20 18:23 -0700
Re: for / while else doesn't make sense Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2016-05-21 12:31 +1000
Re: for / while else doesn't make sense Christopher Reimer <christopher_reimer@icloud.com> - 2016-05-20 20:47 -0700
Re: for / while else doesn't make sense Rustom Mody <rustompmody@gmail.com> - 2016-05-20 22:18 -0700
Education [was Re: for / while else doesn't make sense] Steven D'Aprano <steve@pearwood.info> - 2016-05-21 20:05 +1000
Re: Education [was Re: for / while else doesn't make sense] Christopher Reimer <christopher_reimer@icloud.com> - 2016-05-21 08:51 -0700
Re: Education [was Re: for / while else doesn't make sense] Marko Rauhamaa <marko@pacujo.net> - 2016-05-21 20:08 +0300
Re: Education [was Re: for / while else doesn't make sense] Rob Gaddi <rgaddi@highlandtechnology.invalid> - 2016-05-23 16:44 +0000
Re: for / while else doesn't make sense Lawrence D’Oliveiro <lawrencedo99@gmail.com> - 2016-06-01 16:39 -0700
Re: for / while else doesn't make sense Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2016-06-02 13:44 +1000
Re: for / while else doesn't make sense Rob Gaddi <rgaddi@highlandtechnology.invalid> - 2016-06-02 20:09 +0000
Re: for / while else doesn't make sense Ian Kelly <ian.g.kelly@gmail.com> - 2016-06-02 14:46 -0600
Re: for / while else doesn't make sense BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-06-02 21:52 +0100
Re: for / while else doesn't make sense Lawrence D’Oliveiro <lawrencedo99@gmail.com> - 2016-06-02 18:05 -0700
Re: for / while else doesn't make sense BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-06-03 10:23 +0100
Re: for / while else doesn't make sense Lawrence D’Oliveiro <lawrencedo99@gmail.com> - 2016-06-02 19:47 -0700
Re: for / while else doesn't make sense BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-06-03 10:32 +0100
Re: for / while else doesn't make sense Lawrence D’Oliveiro <lawrencedo99@gmail.com> - 2016-06-03 09:22 -0700
Re: for / while else doesn't make sense Steven D'Aprano <steve@pearwood.info> - 2016-06-04 12:20 +1000
Re: for / while else doesn't make sense Lawrence D’Oliveiro <lawrencedo99@gmail.com> - 2016-06-03 20:41 -0700
Re: for / while else doesn't make sense Steven D'Aprano <steve@pearwood.info> - 2016-06-04 19:27 +1000
Re: for / while else doesn't make sense Lawrence D’Oliveiro <lawrencedo99@gmail.com> - 2016-06-04 20:20 -0700
Re: for / while else doesn't make sense BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-06-04 13:55 +0100
Re: for / while else doesn't make sense Lawrence D’Oliveiro <lawrencedo99@gmail.com> - 2016-06-02 18:08 -0700
Re: for / while else doesn't make sense Rob Gaddi <rgaddi@highlandtechnology.invalid> - 2016-06-03 15:52 +0000
Re: for / while else doesn't make sense Lawrence D’Oliveiro <lawrencedo99@gmail.com> - 2016-06-03 09:24 -0700
Re: for / while else doesn't make sense Steven D'Aprano <steve@pearwood.info> - 2016-06-04 13:00 +1000
Re: for / while else doesn't make sense Lawrence D’Oliveiro <lawrencedo99@gmail.com> - 2016-06-03 20:43 -0700
Re: for / while else doesn't make sense Ned Batchelder <ned@nedbatchelder.com> - 2016-06-04 04:37 -0700
Re: for / while else doesn't make sense Lawrence D’Oliveiro <lawrencedo99@gmail.com> - 2016-06-04 20:29 -0700
Re: for / while else doesn't make sense Steven D'Aprano <steve@pearwood.info> - 2016-06-05 16:35 +1000
Re: for / while else doesn't make sense Ned Batchelder <ned@nedbatchelder.com> - 2016-06-05 04:29 -0700
Re: for / while else doesn't make sense Marko Rauhamaa <marko@pacujo.net> - 2016-06-05 14:43 +0300
Re: for / while else doesn't make sense Lawrence D’Oliveiro <lawrencedo99@gmail.com> - 2016-06-06 17:51 -0700
Re: for / while else doesn't make sense Dan Sommers <dan@tombstonezero.net> - 2016-06-07 03:34 +0000
Re: for / while else doesn't make sense Lawrence D’Oliveiro <lawrencedo99@gmail.com> - 2016-06-07 00:53 -0700
Re: for / while else doesn't make sense Dan Sommers <dan@tombstonezero.net> - 2016-06-07 12:27 +0000
Re: for / while else doesn't make sense Lawrence D’Oliveiro <lawrencedo99@gmail.com> - 2016-06-07 14:57 -0700
Re: for / while else doesn't make sense Ian Kelly <ian.g.kelly@gmail.com> - 2016-06-06 22:35 -0600
Re: for / while else doesn't make sense Lawrence D’Oliveiro <lawrencedo99@gmail.com> - 2016-06-07 00:52 -0700
Re: for / while else doesn't make sense Marko Rauhamaa <marko@pacujo.net> - 2016-06-07 11:00 +0300
Re: for / while else doesn't make sense Lawrence D’Oliveiro <lawrencedo99@gmail.com> - 2016-06-07 15:07 -0700
Re: for / while else doesn't make sense Ned Batchelder <ned@nedbatchelder.com> - 2016-06-07 17:31 -0700
Re: for / while else doesn't make sense Lawrence D’Oliveiro <lawrencedo99@gmail.com> - 2016-06-07 18:25 -0700
Re: for / while else doesn't make sense Lawrence D’Oliveiro <lawrencedo99@gmail.com> - 2016-06-07 18:29 -0700
Re: for / while else doesn't make sense Ned Batchelder <ned@nedbatchelder.com> - 2016-06-07 18:40 -0700
Re: for / while else doesn't make sense breamoreboy@gmail.com - 2016-06-07 20:45 -0700
Re: for / while else doesn't make sense Marko Rauhamaa <marko@pacujo.net> - 2016-06-08 08:24 +0300
Re: for / while else doesn't make sense Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2016-06-07 18:36 +1000
Re: for / while else doesn't make sense Ian Kelly <ian.g.kelly@gmail.com> - 2016-06-07 05:52 -0600
Re: for / while else doesn't make sense Lawrence D’Oliveiro <lawrencedo99@gmail.com> - 2016-06-07 14:58 -0700
Re: for / while else doesn't make sense Marko Rauhamaa <marko@pacujo.net> - 2016-06-08 01:06 +0300
Re: for / while else doesn't make sense Lawrence D’Oliveiro <lawrencedo99@gmail.com> - 2016-06-07 15:08 -0700
Re: for / while else doesn't make sense Marko Rauhamaa <marko@pacujo.net> - 2016-06-08 08:27 +0300
Re: for / while else doesn't make sense Lawrence D’Oliveiro <lawrencedo99@gmail.com> - 2016-06-08 17:34 -0700
Re: for / while else doesn't make sense Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2016-06-09 18:19 +1000
Re: for / while else doesn't make sense Ian Kelly <ian.g.kelly@gmail.com> - 2016-06-07 17:11 -0600
Re: for / while else doesn't make sense Lawrence D’Oliveiro <lawrencedo99@gmail.com> - 2016-06-06 17:53 -0700
Re: for / while else doesn't make sense Ethan Furman <ethan@stoneleaf.us> - 2016-06-07 21:13 -0700
Re: for / while else doesn't make sense pavlovevidence@gmail.com - 2016-06-12 00:01 -0700
AttributeError into a bloc try-except AttributeError Vincent Vande Vyvre <vincent.vande.vyvre@telenet.be> - 2016-06-12 09:20 +0200
Re: AttributeError into a bloc try-except AttributeError Vincent Vande Vyvre <vincent.vande.vyvre@telenet.be> - 2016-06-12 10:30 +0200
Re: for / while else doesn't make sense Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2016-06-12 20:06 +1000
Re: for / while else doesn't make sense Michael Selik <michael.selik@gmail.com> - 2016-06-12 18:44 +0000
Re: for / while else doesn't make sense Steven D'Aprano <steve@pearwood.info> - 2016-06-13 12:12 +1000
Re: for / while else doesn't make sense Rustom Mody <rustompmody@gmail.com> - 2016-06-12 20:46 -0700
Re: for / while else doesn't make sense Michael Selik <michael.selik@gmail.com> - 2016-06-13 23:45 +0000
Re: for / while else doesn't make sense Steven D'Aprano <steve@pearwood.info> - 2016-06-14 12:43 +1000
Re: for / while else doesn't make sense Michael Selik <michael.selik@gmail.com> - 2016-06-14 04:37 +0000
Re: for / while else doesn't make sense Rustom Mody <rustompmody@gmail.com> - 2016-06-14 08:33 -0700
Re: for / while else doesn't make sense Lawrence D’Oliveiro <lawrencedo99@gmail.com> - 2016-06-14 16:27 -0700
Re: for / while else doesn't make sense Rustom Mody <rustompmody@gmail.com> - 2016-06-14 18:29 -0700
Re: for / while else doesn't make sense Steven D'Aprano <steve@pearwood.info> - 2016-06-15 13:12 +1000
Re: for / while else doesn't make sense Rustom Mody <rustompmody@gmail.com> - 2016-06-14 20:38 -0700
Re: for / while else doesn't make sense Rustom Mody <rustompmody@gmail.com> - 2016-06-15 04:19 -0700
Re: for / while else doesn't make sense BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-06-15 13:27 +0100
Re: for / while else doesn't make sense Rustom Mody <rustompmody@gmail.com> - 2016-06-15 05:44 -0700
Re: for / while else doesn't make sense Random832 <random832@fastmail.com> - 2016-06-15 09:51 -0400
Re: for / while else doesn't make sense Rustom Mody <rustompmody@gmail.com> - 2016-06-15 07:20 -0700
Re: for / while else doesn't make sense Random832 <random832@fastmail.com> - 2016-06-15 11:54 -0400
Re: for / while else doesn't make sense Rustom Mody <rustompmody@gmail.com> - 2016-06-15 10:03 -0700
Re: for / while else doesn't make sense BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-06-15 18:27 +0100
Re: for / while else doesn't make sense Steven D'Aprano <steve@pearwood.info> - 2016-06-16 11:40 +1000
Re: for / while else doesn't make sense Michael Selik <michael.selik@gmail.com> - 2016-06-15 17:18 +0000
Re: for / while else doesn't make sense Random832 <random832@fastmail.com> - 2016-06-15 13:41 -0400
Re: for / while else doesn't make sense Rustom Mody <rustompmody@gmail.com> - 2016-06-15 07:31 -0700
Re: for / while else doesn't make sense Lawrence D’Oliveiro <lawrencedo99@gmail.com> - 2016-06-15 19:59 -0700
Re: for / while else doesn't make sense Lawrence D’Oliveiro <lawrencedo99@gmail.com> - 2016-06-15 19:54 -0700
What is structured programming (was for/while else doesn't make sense) Rustom Mody <rustompmody@gmail.com> - 2016-06-15 22:48 -0700
Re: What is structured programming (was for/while else doesn't make sense) Lawrence D’Oliveiro <lawrencedo99@gmail.com> - 2016-06-15 22:57 -0700
Re: What is structured programming (was for/while else doesn't make sense) Rustom Mody <rustompmody@gmail.com> - 2016-06-16 04:12 -0700
Re: What is structured programming (was for/while else doesn't make sense) Lawrence D’Oliveiro <lawrencedo99@gmail.com> - 2016-06-16 18:53 -0700
Re: What is structured programming (was for/while else doesn't make sense) Rustom Mody <rustompmody@gmail.com> - 2016-06-17 09:32 -0700
Re: What is structured programming (was for/while else doesn't make sense) Lawrence D’Oliveiro <lawrencedo99@gmail.com> - 2016-06-17 16:07 -0700
Re: for / while else doesn't make sense Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2016-06-15 23:56 +1000
Re: for / while else doesn't make sense Steven D'Aprano <steve@pearwood.info> - 2016-06-16 11:19 +1000
Page 12 of 15 — ← Prev page 1 … 10 11 [12] 13 14 15 Next page →
| From | Dan Sommers <dan@tombstonezero.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-07 03:34 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <nj5fc2$35m$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #109599 |
On Mon, 06 Jun 2016 17:51:24 -0700, Lawrence D’Oliveiro wrote: > It is nice to have a common, versatile looping form which can be > arranged in different ways to suit the problem at hand. That’s why I > like the C-style for-statement. [example snipped] I used to write a lot of assembly code, for a lot of different CPUs, and they all had a common, versatile looping form which could be arranged in different ways to suit the problem at hand. On most chips, it was (and still is) called JMP. The trouble began with multiple conditional branching, call stack maintenance, and those other higher level abstractions that made my assembly code so hard to follow. Why on Earth would I use something so complicated as a DJNZ instruction when a common, versatile sequence of decrement, test, and branch-on-not-zero instructions was available? And who needed a C-level for statment, let alone local variables and a language-runtime-maintained function call stack when I had a handful of common, versatile CPU registers? http://www.catb.org/jargon/html/story-of-mel.html
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lawrence D’Oliveiro <lawrencedo99@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-07 00:53 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <ef1be856-ba23-4702-b66d-f80fbcdbd22c@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #109602 |
On Tuesday, June 7, 2016 at 3:34:39 PM UTC+12, Dan Sommers wrote: > I used to write a lot of assembly code, for a lot of different CPUs, and > they all had a common, versatile looping form which could be arranged in > different ways to suit the problem at hand. On most chips, it was (and > still is) called JMP. The trouble began with multiple conditional > branching, call stack maintenance, and those other higher level > abstractions that made my assembly code so hard to follow. You’ll notice I don’t use gotos in my code. Next red-herring example, please...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Dan Sommers <dan@tombstonezero.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-07 12:27 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <nj6ek5$3p1$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #109611 |
On Tue, 07 Jun 2016 00:53:31 -0700, Lawrence D’Oliveiro wrote: > On Tuesday, June 7, 2016 at 3:34:39 PM UTC+12, Dan Sommers wrote: > >> I used to write a lot of assembly code, for a lot of different CPUs, and >> they all had a common, versatile looping form which could be arranged in >> different ways to suit the problem at hand. On most chips, it was (and >> still is) called JMP. The trouble began with multiple conditional >> branching, call stack maintenance, and those other higher level >> abstractions that made my assembly code so hard to follow. > > You’ll notice I don’t use gotos in my code. I notice plenty of break statements scattered throughout your loop bodies. Mixing the loop's exit conditions in with the logic is equally unstructured. > Next red-herring example, please... I didn't say anything about a red-herring. Please stick to the topic at hand.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lawrence D’Oliveiro <lawrencedo99@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-07 14:57 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <d550a22c-3350-4d81-8866-cc9d5d73dd99@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #109623 |
On Wednesday, June 8, 2016 at 12:28:02 AM UTC+12, Dan Sommers wrote: > I notice plenty of break statements scattered throughout your loop > bodies. Mixing the loop's exit conditions in with the logic is equally > unstructured. Is this the old “structured-programming-is-mathematically-equivalent-to-gotos” red herring again?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ian Kelly <ian.g.kelly@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-06 22:35 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <mailman.50.1465274181.2306.python-list@python.org> |
| In reply to | #109599 |
On Mon, Jun 6, 2016 at 6:51 PM, Lawrence D’Oliveiro
<lawrencedo99@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sunday, June 5, 2016 at 11:43:20 PM UTC+12, Marko Rauhamaa wrote:
>> I often experiment with different loop constructs to find the one most
>> pleasing to the eye. Working directly off iterators is quite rare but a
>> while-vs-for consideration is frequent. Also, should the stepping part
>> be in the beginning, middle or end of the loop body?
>
> It is nice to have a common, versatile looping form which can be arranged in different ways to suit the problem at hand. That’s why I like the C-style for-statement.
>
> Here’s another example <https://github.com/ldo/ipy_magics/blob/master/rman_magic.py>, for the consideration of those who don’t seem too familiar with looping:
A 500-line function? Yikes, what an eyesore. When you have to include
#end comments in order to visually match things up, that should be a
smell that your code is excessively complex. It took me a lot of
scrolling up and down just to figure out what the scopes of the
variables were.
> while True :
> while True :
> line = next(input_line, None)
> if line != None :
> if len(include_stack) == 0 :
> linenr += 1
> #end if
> break
> #end if
> if len(include_stack) == 0 :
> break
> input_line = include_stack.pop()
> #end while
> if line == None or ... line contains something special ... :
> ...
> if line == None :
> break
> ... process special line ...
> ... replace with None to indicate it’s been processed ...
> #end if
> if line != None :
> ... process regular line ...
> #end if
> #end while
def generate_lines():
nonlocal input_line
while True:
try:
# Note input_line appears to be an iterator, not a string
# as suggested by the name.
yield next(input_line)
except StopIteration:
if include_stack:
input_line = include_stack.pop()
else:
return
for line in generate_lines():
if not include_stack:
linenr += 1
if ... line contains something special ...:
... process special line ...
else:
... process regular line ...
Much simpler than the nested while loop hell above, and not a single
break needed (if you don't count the return, that is; in any case each
loop has a single exit point). I'd be tempted to refactor input_line
and include_stack into some sort of input context class and make
generate_lines a method of the class in order to avoid having those
variables be (effectively) global, but my goal was to keep this as
close to the original in design as possible.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lawrence D’Oliveiro <lawrencedo99@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-07 00:52 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <1da21ea9-cfa8-4fae-960c-e753c9cc185e@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #109603 |
On Tuesday, June 7, 2016 at 4:36:37 PM UTC+12, Ian wrote: > A 500-line function? Yikes, what an eyesore. When you have to include > #end comments in order to visually match things up, that should be a > smell that your code is excessively complex. Feel free to come up with a simpler version. > def generate_lines(): > nonlocal input_line > while True: > try: > # Note input_line appears to be an iterator, not a string > # as suggested by the name. > yield next(input_line) > except StopIteration: > if include_stack: > input_line = include_stack.pop() > else: > return > > for line in generate_lines(): > if not include_stack: > linenr += 1 > if ... line contains something special ...: > ... process special line ... > else: > ... process regular line ... Wow, that’s only twice the length of the code you’re replacing. Well done.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Marko Rauhamaa <marko@pacujo.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-07 11:00 +0300 |
| Message-ID | <871t49mnse.fsf@elektro.pacujo.net> |
| In reply to | #109610 |
Lawrence D’Oliveiro <lawrencedo99@gmail.com>: > On Tuesday, June 7, 2016 at 4:36:37 PM UTC+12, Ian wrote: >> A 500-line function? Yikes, what an eyesore. When you have to include >> #end comments in order to visually match things up, that should be a >> smell that your code is excessively complex. > > [...] > > Wow, that’s only twice the length of the code you’re replacing. Well > done. I understand you are hurt when your code is criticized bluntly. However, you *did* stick your head out. I, too, insist that every function/method must be visible at once in the editor window. Marko
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lawrence D’Oliveiro <lawrencedo99@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-07 15:07 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <64698d39-4a55-45f2-a7a1-1755eac44ed7@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #109613 |
On Tuesday, June 7, 2016 at 8:00:31 PM UTC+12, Marko Rauhamaa wrote:
> I understand you are hurt when your code is criticized bluntly. However,
> you *did* stick your head out.
Don’t worry, I am not the thin-skinned type.
> I, too, insist that every function/method must be visible at once in the
> editor window.
From subprocess.py in the Python 3.5 distribution:
if _mswindows:
#
# Windows methods
#
def _get_handles(self, stdin, stdout, stderr):
"""Construct and return tuple with IO objects:
p2cread, p2cwrite, c2pread, c2pwrite, errread, errwrite
"""
if stdin is None and stdout is None and stderr is None:
return (-1, -1, -1, -1, -1, -1)
p2cread, p2cwrite = -1, -1
c2pread, c2pwrite = -1, -1
errread, errwrite = -1, -1
if stdin is None:
p2cread = _winapi.GetStdHandle(_winapi.STD_INPUT_HANDLE)
if p2cread is None:
p2cread, _ = _winapi.CreatePipe(None, 0)
p2cread = Handle(p2cread)
_winapi.CloseHandle(_)
elif stdin == PIPE:
p2cread, p2cwrite = _winapi.CreatePipe(None, 0)
p2cread, p2cwrite = Handle(p2cread), Handle(p2cwrite)
elif stdin == DEVNULL:
p2cread = msvcrt.get_osfhandle(self._get_devnull())
elif isinstance(stdin, int):
p2cread = msvcrt.get_osfhandle(stdin)
else:
# Assuming file-like object
p2cread = msvcrt.get_osfhandle(stdin.fileno())
p2cread = self._make_inheritable(p2cread)
if stdout is None:
c2pwrite = _winapi.GetStdHandle(_winapi.STD_OUTPUT_HANDLE)
if c2pwrite is None:
_, c2pwrite = _winapi.CreatePipe(None, 0)
c2pwrite = Handle(c2pwrite)
_winapi.CloseHandle(_)
elif stdout == PIPE:
c2pread, c2pwrite = _winapi.CreatePipe(None, 0)
c2pread, c2pwrite = Handle(c2pread), Handle(c2pwrite)
elif stdout == DEVNULL:
c2pwrite = msvcrt.get_osfhandle(self._get_devnull())
elif isinstance(stdout, int):
c2pwrite = msvcrt.get_osfhandle(stdout)
else:
# Assuming file-like object
c2pwrite = msvcrt.get_osfhandle(stdout.fileno())
c2pwrite = self._make_inheritable(c2pwrite)
if stderr is None:
errwrite = _winapi.GetStdHandle(_winapi.STD_ERROR_HANDLE)
if errwrite is None:
_, errwrite = _winapi.CreatePipe(None, 0)
errwrite = Handle(errwrite)
_winapi.CloseHandle(_)
elif stderr == PIPE:
errread, errwrite = _winapi.CreatePipe(None, 0)
errread, errwrite = Handle(errread), Handle(errwrite)
elif stderr == STDOUT:
errwrite = c2pwrite
elif stderr == DEVNULL:
errwrite = msvcrt.get_osfhandle(self._get_devnull())
elif isinstance(stderr, int):
errwrite = msvcrt.get_osfhandle(stderr)
else:
# Assuming file-like object
errwrite = msvcrt.get_osfhandle(stderr.fileno())
errwrite = self._make_inheritable(errwrite)
return (p2cread, p2cwrite,
c2pread, c2pwrite,
errread, errwrite)
Is that “visible at once” in your editor window?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ned Batchelder <ned@nedbatchelder.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-07 17:31 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <435147d0-ae1f-4095-a49c-1d032278179f@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #109637 |
On Tuesday, June 7, 2016 at 6:07:23 PM UTC-4, Lawrence D’Oliveiro wrote: > On Tuesday, June 7, 2016 at 8:00:31 PM UTC+12, Marko Rauhamaa wrote: > > I understand you are hurt when your code is criticized bluntly. However, > > you *did* stick your head out. > > Don’t worry, I am not the thin-skinned type. > > > I, too, insist that every function/method must be visible at once in the > > editor window. > > From subprocess.py in the Python 3.5 distribution: > > if _mswindows: > # > # Windows methods > # > def _get_handles(self, stdin, stdout, stderr): > """Construct and return tuple with IO objects: > > ... 8< snip 8< ... > > errwrite = self._make_inheritable(errwrite) > > return (p2cread, p2cwrite, > c2pread, c2pwrite, > errread, errwrite) > > Is that “visible at once” in your editor window? Lawrence, Marko didn't write that function. Marko didn't claim that all functions fit in a window, just that he wants his to. Lawrence writes code in an unusual style, not a style I would write in, but we aren't going to be able to change his mind. It seems like this discussion has gone beyond the productive stage. We aren't going to come to consensus on coding style. --Ned.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lawrence D’Oliveiro <lawrencedo99@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-07 18:25 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <c8b08fd0-6fa0-4918-a087-ccaed824184b@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #109643 |
On Wednesday, June 8, 2016 at 12:32:01 PM UTC+12, Ned Batchelder wrote: > On Tuesday, June 7, 2016 at 6:07:23 PM UTC-4, Lawrence D’Oliveiro wrote: > > On Tuesday, June 7, 2016 at 8:00:31 PM UTC+12, Marko Rauhamaa wrote: > > > I understand you are hurt when your code is criticized bluntly. However, > > > you *did* stick your head out. > > > > Don’t worry, I am not the thin-skinned type. > > > > > I, too, insist that every function/method must be visible at once in the > > > editor window. > > > > From subprocess.py in the Python 3.5 distribution: > > > > if _mswindows: > > # > > # Windows methods > > # > > def _get_handles(self, stdin, stdout, stderr): > > """Construct and return tuple with IO objects: > > > > ... 8< snip 8< ... > > > > errwrite = self._make_inheritable(errwrite) > > > > return (p2cread, p2cwrite, > > c2pread, c2pwrite, > > errread, errwrite) > > > > Is that “visible at once” in your editor window? > > Lawrence, Marko didn't write that function. Marko didn't claim that all > functions fit in a window, just that he wants his to. Given that he was (presumably) commenting on my code, naturally I understood his statement to apply to code that he had not written.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lawrence D’Oliveiro <lawrencedo99@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-07 18:29 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <7fb81ccb-f80b-4e7c-b9e7-40923ec9f60c@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #109643 |
On Wednesday, June 8, 2016 at 12:32:01 PM UTC+12, Ned Batchelder wrote: > Lawrence writes code in an unusual style... “Unusual” I can deal with. But when some people react with outrage, then it becomes clear they view my code as a personal attack.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ned Batchelder <ned@nedbatchelder.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-07 18:40 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <df836651-e229-4624-9449-e970a4b90126@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #109647 |
On Tuesday, June 7, 2016 at 9:29:59 PM UTC-4, Lawrence D’Oliveiro wrote: > On Wednesday, June 8, 2016 at 12:32:01 PM UTC+12, Ned Batchelder wrote: > > > Lawrence writes code in an unusual style... > > “Unusual” I can deal with. But when some people react with outrage, then it becomes clear they view my code as a personal attack. This is why we should drop it. It doesn't seem like people are trying to understand each other, just score points and prove each other wrong. That isn't going to lead anywhere good. --Ned.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | breamoreboy@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-07 20:45 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <bea46596-2419-4bb4-b9c3-d22c019454f0@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #109647 |
On Wednesday, June 8, 2016 at 2:29:59 AM UTC+1, Lawrence D’Oliveiro wrote: > On Wednesday, June 8, 2016 at 12:32:01 PM UTC+12, Ned Batchelder wrote: > > > Lawrence writes code in an unusual style... > > “Unusual” I can deal with. But when some people react with outrage, then it becomes clear they view my code as a personal attack. I don't see it as unusual, I just see complete shit, which matches perfectly with the crap that you've been spewing throughout this thread. Welcome to my Dream team.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Marko Rauhamaa <marko@pacujo.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-08 08:24 +0300 |
| Message-ID | <87h9d445ja.fsf@elektro.pacujo.net> |
| In reply to | #109637 |
Lawrence D’Oliveiro <lawrencedo99@gmail.com>: > On Tuesday, June 7, 2016 at 8:00:31 PM UTC+12, Marko Rauhamaa wrote: >> I, too, insist that every function/method must be visible at once in the >> editor window. > > From subprocess.py in the Python 3.5 distribution: > [...] > Is that “visible at once” in your editor window? At home, no; at work, yes. Anyway, I didn't write that piece of code so my insisting doesn't affect it one way or another. Marko
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-07 18:36 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <575687ac$0$2839$c3e8da3$76491128@news.astraweb.com> |
| In reply to | #109610 |
On Tuesday 07 June 2016 17:52, Lawrence D’Oliveiro wrote: > On Tuesday, June 7, 2016 at 4:36:37 PM UTC+12, Ian wrote: >> A 500-line function? Yikes, what an eyesore. When you have to include >> #end comments in order to visually match things up, that should be a >> smell that your code is excessively complex. > > Feel free to come up with a simpler version. If I could work out what your convoluted version is supposed to do, I might give it a try. [...] >> def generate_lines(): >> nonlocal input_line [snip code] > Wow, that’s only twice the length of the code you’re replacing. Well done. I count 18 lines in your version using while loops, excluding comments, but including placeholder ... lines, compared to 17 lines in Ian's version. How do you get "twice the length"? Ian's version is also much simpler: there are no breaks and no variables being assigned to None so you can detect the end of the loop, and only three `if`s instead of six in your version. That makes Ian's objectively less complex than your example, assuming it does the same thing. (Although I'm a bit dubious about the use of nonlocal.) -- Steve
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ian Kelly <ian.g.kelly@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-07 05:52 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <mailman.54.1465300411.2306.python-list@python.org> |
| In reply to | #109610 |
On Tue, Jun 7, 2016 at 1:52 AM, Lawrence D’Oliveiro <lawrencedo99@gmail.com> wrote: > Wow, that’s only twice the length of the code you’re replacing. Well done. Huh? The example that you posted was 17 lines, excluding comments. My replacement code is 17 lines, excluding comments. Where are you getting "twice the length" from?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lawrence D’Oliveiro <lawrencedo99@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-07 14:58 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <4a643983-c64e-483a-8e23-3c1485b89475@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #109621 |
On Tuesday, June 7, 2016 at 11:53:46 PM UTC+12, Ian wrote: > On Tue, Jun 7, 2016 at 1:52 AM, Lawrence D’Oliveiro wrote: >> Wow, that’s only twice the length of the code you’re replacing. Well done. > > Huh? The example that you posted was 17 lines, excluding comments. My > replacement code is 17 lines, excluding comments. Where are you > getting "twice the length" from? Maybe not twice. But your code for dealing with the include stack was 16 lines, as opposed to 13 in mine. While elsewhere, you were criticizing my code for already being so terribly large...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Marko Rauhamaa <marko@pacujo.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-08 01:06 +0300 |
| Message-ID | <87shwo4ps2.fsf@elektro.pacujo.net> |
| In reply to | #109635 |
Lawrence D’Oliveiro <lawrencedo99@gmail.com>: > While elsewhere, you were criticizing my code for already being so > terribly large... Code can be large, only no function should be longer than ~70 lines or wider than 79 columns. If your function grows above that limit, you should refactor it and break it into multiple subroutines. Marko
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lawrence D’Oliveiro <lawrencedo99@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-07 15:08 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <82e4fddc-5bf0-4b94-be07-7b5a24967e48@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #109636 |
On Wednesday, June 8, 2016 at 10:07:05 AM UTC+12, Marko Rauhamaa wrote: > Lawrence D’Oliveiro: >> While elsewhere, you were criticizing my code for already being so >> terribly large... > > Code can be large, only no function should be longer than ~70 lines or > wider than 79 columns. If your function grows above that limit, you > should refactor it and break it into multiple subroutines. It already had lots of subfunctions, in case you hadn’t noticed...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Marko Rauhamaa <marko@pacujo.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-08 08:27 +0300 |
| Message-ID | <87d1ns45ds.fsf@elektro.pacujo.net> |
| In reply to | #109638 |
Lawrence D’Oliveiro <lawrencedo99@gmail.com>: > On Wednesday, June 8, 2016 at 10:07:05 AM UTC+12, Marko Rauhamaa wrote: >> Lawrence D’Oliveiro: > >>> While elsewhere, you were criticizing my code for already being so >>> terribly large... >> >> Code can be large, only no function should be longer than ~70 lines >> or wider than 79 columns. If your function grows above that limit, >> you should refactor it and break it into multiple subroutines. > > It already had lots of subfunctions, in case you hadn’t noticed... I didn't take a look at your code. Someone mentioned you had a 500-line function. Marko
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 12 of 15 — ← Prev page 1 … 10 11 [12] 13 14 15 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.python
csiph-web