Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.python > #68711 > unrolled thread
| Started by | vasudevram <vasudevram@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2014-03-21 13:42 -0700 |
| Last post | 2014-03-28 17:05 -0500 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 401 — 30 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.python
Explanation of this Python language feature? [x for x in x for x in x] (to flatten a nested list) vasudevram <vasudevram@gmail.com> - 2014-03-21 13:42 -0700
Re: Explanation of this Python language feature? [x for x in x for x in x] (to flatten a nested list) Rustom Mody <rustompmody@gmail.com> - 2014-03-21 13:54 -0700
Re: Explanation of this Python language feature? [x for x in x for x in x] (to flatten a nested list) vasudevram <vasudevram@gmail.com> - 2014-03-21 13:56 -0700
Re: Explanation of this Python language feature? [x for x in x for x in x] (to flatten a nested list) Rustom Mody <rustompmody@gmail.com> - 2014-03-21 14:09 -0700
Re: Explanation of this Python language feature? [x for x in x for x in x] (to flatten a nested list) Ian Kelly <ian.g.kelly@gmail.com> - 2014-03-21 15:30 -0600
Re: Explanation of this Python language feature? [x for x in x for x in x] (to flatten a nested list) Rustom Mody <rustompmody@gmail.com> - 2014-03-21 19:06 -0700
Re: Explanation of this Python language feature? [x for x in x for x in x] (to flatten a nested list) Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2014-03-22 13:41 +1100
Re: Explanation of this Python language feature? [x for x in x for x in x] (to flatten a nested list) Rustom Mody <rustompmody@gmail.com> - 2014-03-21 21:39 -0700
Re: Explanation of this Python language feature? [x for x in x for x in x] (to flatten a nested list) Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2014-03-22 15:51 +1100
Re: Explanation of this Python language feature? [x for x in x for x in x] (to flatten a nested list) Rustom Mody <rustompmody@gmail.com> - 2014-03-21 22:26 -0700
Re: Explanation of this Python language feature? [x for x in x for x in x] (to flatten a nested list) "Rhodri James" <rhodri@wildebst.org.uk> - 2014-03-23 00:32 +0000
Re: Explanation of this Python language feature? [x for x in x for x in x] (to flatten a nested list) Ian Kelly <ian.g.kelly@gmail.com> - 2014-03-22 20:46 -0600
Re: Explanation of this Python language feature? [x for x in x for x in x] (to flatten a nested list) Rustom Mody <rustompmody@gmail.com> - 2014-03-22 20:16 -0700
Re: Explanation of this Python language feature? [x for x in x for x in x] (to flatten a nested list) Ian Kelly <ian.g.kelly@gmail.com> - 2014-03-22 21:47 -0600
Re: Explanation of this Python language feature? [x for x in x for x in x] (to flatten a nested list) "Rhodri James" <rhodri@wildebst.org.uk> - 2014-03-24 02:35 +0000
Re: Explanation of this Python language feature? [x for x in x for x in x] (to flatten a nested list) Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2014-03-24 14:27 +1100
Re: Explanation of this Python language feature? [x for x in x for x in x] (to flatten a nested list) Rustom Mody <rustompmody@gmail.com> - 2014-03-23 21:14 -0700
Re: Explanation of this Python language feature? [x for x in x for x in x] (to flatten a nested list) Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2014-03-24 16:04 +1100
Re: Explanation of this Python language feature? [x for x in x for x in x] (to flatten a nested list) Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2014-03-24 14:32 +1100
Re: Explanation of this Python language feature? [x for x in x for x in x] (to flatten a nested list) Rustom Mody <rustompmody@gmail.com> - 2014-03-21 22:48 -0700
Re: Explanation of this Python language feature? [x for x in x for x in x] (to flatten a nested list) Mark H Harris <harrismh777@gmail.com> - 2014-03-21 23:51 -0500
Re: Explanation of this Python language feature? [x for x in x for x in x] (to flatten a nested list) Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2014-03-22 09:46 +0000
Re: Explanation of this Python language feature? [x for x in x for x in x] (to flatten a nested list) Mark H Harris <harrismh777@gmail.com> - 2014-03-24 00:52 -0500
Re: Explanation of this Python language feature? [x for x in x for x in x] (to flatten a nested list) Ian Kelly <ian.g.kelly@gmail.com> - 2014-03-24 03:03 -0600
Re: Explanation of this Python language feature? [x for x in x for x in x] (to flatten a nested list) Marko Rauhamaa <marko@pacujo.net> - 2014-03-24 11:55 +0200
Re: Explanation of this Python language feature? [x for x in x for x in x] (to flatten a nested list) Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2014-03-24 22:49 +1100
Re: Explanation of this Python language feature? [x for x in x for x in x] (to flatten a nested list) Marko Rauhamaa <marko@pacujo.net> - 2014-03-24 14:36 +0200
Re: Explanation of this Python language feature? [x for x in x for x in x] (to flatten a nested list) Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2014-03-24 23:53 +1100
Re: Explanation of this Python language feature? [x for x in x for x in x] (to flatten a nested list) Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2014-03-24 14:39 +0000
Re: Explanation of this Python language feature? [x for x in x for x in x] (to flatten a nested list) Mark Lawrence <breamoreboy@yahoo.co.uk> - 2014-03-24 15:22 +0000
Re: Explanation of this Python language feature? [x for x in x for x in x] (to flatten a nested list) Mark Lawrence <breamoreboy@yahoo.co.uk> - 2014-03-24 14:21 +0000
Re: Explanation of this Python language feature? [x for x in x for x in x] (to flatten a nested list) Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2014-03-24 14:04 +0000
Re: Explanation of this Python language feature? [x for x in x for x in x] (to flatten a nested list) Rustom Mody <rustompmody@gmail.com> - 2014-03-24 09:00 -0700
Re: Explanation of this Python language feature? [x for x in x for x in x] (to flatten a nested list) Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2014-03-25 06:12 +1100
Re: Explanation of this Python language feature? [x for x in x for x in x] (to flatten a nested list) Ian Kelly <ian.g.kelly@gmail.com> - 2014-03-24 13:42 -0600
Re: Explanation of this Python language feature? [x for x in x for x in x] (to flatten a nested list) Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2014-03-25 06:57 +1100
Re: Explanation of this Python language feature? [x for x in x for x in x] (to flatten a nested list) Steven D'Aprano <steve@pearwood.info> - 2014-03-25 05:28 +0000
Re: Explanation of this Python language feature? [x for x in x for x in x] (to flatten a nested list) Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2014-03-25 16:43 +1100
Re: Explanation of this Python language feature? [x for x in x for x in x] (to flatten a nested list) Ian Kelly <ian.g.kelly@gmail.com> - 2014-03-24 11:24 -0600
Re: Explanation of this Python language feature? [x for x in x for x in x] (to flatten a nested list) Mark H Harris <harrismh777@gmail.com> - 2014-03-24 16:43 -0500
Re: Explanation of this Python language feature? [x for x in x for x in x] (to flatten a nested list) Marko Rauhamaa <marko@pacujo.net> - 2014-03-25 00:43 +0200
Re: Explanation of this Python language feature? [x for x in x for x in x] (to flatten a nested list) Mark H Harris <harrismh777@gmail.com> - 2014-03-24 18:56 -0500
Re: Explanation of this Python language feature? [x for x in x for x in x] (to flatten a nested list) Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2014-03-25 11:11 +1100
Re: Explanation of this Python language feature? [x for x in x for x in x] (to flatten a nested list) Mark H Harris <harrismh777@gmail.com> - 2014-03-24 19:16 -0500
Re: Explanation of this Python language feature? [x for x in x for x in x] (to flatten a nested list) Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2014-03-25 11:28 +1100
Re: Explanation of this Python language feature? [x for x in x for x in x] (to flatten a nested list) Mark Lawrence <breamoreboy@yahoo.co.uk> - 2014-03-25 00:32 +0000
Re: Explanation of this Python language feature? [x for x in x for x in x] (to flatten a nested list) Mark H Harris <harrismh777@gmail.com> - 2014-03-24 19:50 -0500
Re: Explanation of this Python language feature? [x for x in x for x in x] (to flatten a nested list) Terry Reedy <tjreedy@udel.edu> - 2014-03-24 21:31 -0400
Re: Explanation of this Python language feature? [x for x in x for x in x] (to flatten a nested list) Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2014-03-25 12:41 +1100
Re: Explanation of this Python language feature? [x for x in x for x in x] (to flatten a nested list) Steven D'Aprano <steve@pearwood.info> - 2014-03-25 06:28 +0000
Re: Explanation of this Python language feature? [x for x in x for x in x] (to flatten a nested list) Terry Reedy <tjreedy@udel.edu> - 2014-03-24 21:20 -0400
Re: Explanation of this Python language feature? [x for x in x for x in x] (to flatten a nested list) Mark H Harris <harrismh777@gmail.com> - 2014-03-24 21:39 -0500
Re: Explanation of this Python language feature? [x for x in x for x in x] (to flatten a nested list) Steven D'Aprano <steve@pearwood.info> - 2014-03-25 06:52 +0000
Re: Explanation of this Python language feature? [x for x in x for x in x] (to flatten a nested list) alex23 <wuwei23@gmail.com> - 2014-03-26 16:35 +1000
Re: Explanation of this Python language feature? [x for x in x for x in x] (to flatten a nested list) Mark H Harris <harrismh777@gmail.com> - 2014-03-27 10:44 -0500
Re: Explanation of this Python language feature? [x for x in x for x in x] (to flatten a nested list) Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2014-03-28 03:10 +1100
Re: Explanation of this Python language feature? [x for x in x for x in x] (to flatten a nested list) Mark H Harris <harrismh777@gmail.com> - 2014-03-27 11:37 -0500
Re: Explanation of this Python language feature? [x for x in x for x in x] (to flatten a nested list) Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2014-03-28 03:48 +1100
Re: Explanation of this Python language feature? [x for x in x for x in x] (to flatten a nested list) Mark H Harris <harrismh777@gmail.com> - 2014-03-27 15:54 -0500
Re: Explanation of this Python language feature? [x for x in x for x in x] (to flatten a nested list) Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2014-03-28 08:42 +1100
Re: Explanation of this Python language feature? [x for x in x for x in x] (to flatten a nested list) Mark H Harris <harrismh777@gmail.com> - 2014-03-27 17:14 -0500
Re: Explanation of this Python language feature? [x for x in x for x in x] (to flatten a nested list) Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2014-03-28 13:24 +1100
Re: Explanation of this Python language feature? [x for x in x for x in x] (to flatten a nested list) Rustom Mody <rustompmody@gmail.com> - 2014-03-27 19:46 -0700
Re: Explanation of this Python language feature? [x for x in x for x in x] (to flatten a nested list) Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2014-03-28 14:06 +1100
Re: Explanation of this Python language feature? [x for x in x for x in x] (to flatten a nested list) Rustom Mody <rustompmody@gmail.com> - 2014-03-27 20:20 -0700
Re: Explanation of this Python language feature? [x for x in x for x in x] (to flatten a nested list) Mark H Harris <harrismh777@gmail.com> - 2014-03-27 17:14 -0500
Re: Explanation of this Python language feature? [x for x in x for x in x] (to flatten a nested list) Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2014-03-28 04:45 +0000
Re: Explanation of this Python language feature? [x for x in x for x in x] (to flatten a nested list) Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2014-03-28 00:34 +0000
Re: Explanation of this Python language feature? [x for x in x for x in x] (to flatten a nested list) Mark H Harris <harrismh777@gmail.com> - 2014-03-28 16:18 -0500
Re: Explanation of this Python language feature? [x for x in x for x in x] (to flatten a nested list) Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2014-03-29 13:45 +1100
Re: Explanation of this Python language feature? [x for x in x for x in x] (to flatten a nested list) Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2014-03-29 03:08 +0000
Re: Explanation of this Python language feature? [x for x in x for x in x] (to flatten a nested list) Mark H Harris <harrismh777@gmail.com> - 2014-03-28 22:18 -0500
Re: Explanation of this Python language feature? [x for x in x for x in x] (to flatten a nested list) Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2014-03-29 14:45 +1100
Keyboard standards (was: Explanation of this Python language feature? [x for x in x for x in x] (to flatten a nested list)) Ben Finney <ben+python@benfinney.id.au> - 2014-03-29 15:18 +1100
Re: Keyboard standards Mark H Harris <harrismh777@gmail.com> - 2014-03-28 23:26 -0500
Re: Keyboard standards Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2014-03-29 16:13 +1100
Re: Keyboard standards Mark H Harris <harrismh777@gmail.com> - 2014-03-29 00:40 -0500
Re: Keyboard standards Ian Kelly <ian.g.kelly@gmail.com> - 2014-03-29 04:02 -0600
Re: Keyboard standards Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2014-03-29 16:03 +0000
Re: Keyboard standards Larry Hudson <orgnut@yahoo.com> - 2014-03-29 12:27 -0700
Re: Keyboard standards Michael Torrie <torriem@gmail.com> - 2014-03-29 13:41 -0600
Re: Keyboard standards Larry Hudson <orgnut@yahoo.com> - 2014-03-29 23:53 -0700
Re: Keyboard standards Dave Angel <davea@davea.name> - 2014-03-29 17:26 -0400
Re: Explanation of this Python language feature? [x for x in x for x in x] (to flatten a nested list) Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2014-03-29 03:51 +0000
Re: Explanation of this Python language feature? [x for x in x for x in x] (to flatten a nested list) Mark H Harris <harrismh777@gmail.com> - 2014-03-28 23:07 -0500
Re: Explanation of this Python language feature? [x for x in x for x in x] (to flatten a nested list) Mark H Harris <harrismh777@gmail.com> - 2014-03-28 23:16 -0500
Re: Explanation of this Python language feature? [x for x in x for x in x] (to flatten a nested list) Mark H Harris <harrismh777@gmail.com> - 2014-03-28 23:21 -0500
Re: Explanation of this Python language feature? [x for x in x for x in x] (to flatten a nested list) Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2014-03-29 15:48 +1100
Re: Explanation of this Python language feature? [x for x in x for x in x] (to flatten a nested list) Mark H Harris <harrismh777@gmail.com> - 2014-03-28 23:40 -0500
Re: Explanation of this Python language feature? [x for x in x for x in x] (to flatten a nested list) Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2014-03-29 16:08 +1100
Re: Explanation of this Python language feature? [x for x in x for x in x] (to flatten a nested list) Rustom Mody <rustompmody@gmail.com> - 2014-03-28 22:21 -0700
Re: Explanation of this Python language feature? [x for x in x for x in x] (to flatten a nested list) Mark H Harris <harrismh777@gmail.com> - 2014-03-29 00:51 -0500
Re: Explanation of this Python language feature? [x for x in x for x in x] (to flatten a nested list) Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2014-03-29 17:03 +1100
Re: Explanation of this Python language feature? [x for x in x for x in x] (to flatten a nested list) Mark H Harris <harrismh777@gmail.com> - 2014-03-29 03:21 -0500
Re: Explanation of this Python language feature? [x for x in x for x in x] (to flatten a nested list) Mark Lawrence <breamoreboy@yahoo.co.uk> - 2014-03-29 15:45 +0000
Re: Explanation of this Python language feature? [x for x in x for x in x] (to flatten a nested list) Mark H Harris <harrismh777@gmail.com> - 2014-03-30 00:52 -0500
OFF TOPIC Spanish in the USA [was Re: Explanation of this Python language feature?] Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2014-03-30 06:31 +0000
Re: OFF TOPIC Spanish in the USA [was Re: Explanation of this Python language feature?] Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2014-03-30 17:43 +1100
Re: OFF TOPIC Spanish in the USA [was Re: Explanation of this Python language feature?] Mark H Harris <harrismh777@gmail.com> - 2014-03-30 01:48 -0500
Re: OFF TOPIC Spanish in the USA [was Re: Explanation of this Python language feature?] Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2014-03-30 10:35 +0000
Re: OFF TOPIC Spanish in the USA [was Re: Explanation of this Python language feature?] Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2014-03-30 23:03 +1100
Re: OFF TOPIC Spanish in the USA [was Re: Explanation of this Python language feature?] Mark H Harris <harrismh777@gmail.com> - 2014-03-30 23:29 -0500
Re: OFF TOPIC Spanish in the USA [was Re: Explanation of this Python language feature?] Mark H Harris <harrismh777@gmail.com> - 2014-03-30 23:57 -0500
Re: OFF TOPIC Spanish in the USA [was Re: Explanation of this Python language feature?] Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2014-03-31 16:05 +1100
Re: OFF TOPIC Spanish in the USA [was Re: Explanation of this Python language feature?] Mark H Harris <harrismh777@gmail.com> - 2014-03-31 00:33 -0500
Re: OFF TOPIC Spanish in the USA [was Re: Explanation of this Python language feature?] Mark Lawrence <breamoreboy@yahoo.co.uk> - 2014-03-31 09:31 +0100
Re: OFF TOPIC Spanish in the USA [was Re: Explanation of this Python language feature?] Mark H Harris <harrismh777@gmail.com> - 2014-03-31 00:23 -0500
Re: OFF TOPIC Spanish in the USA [was Re: Explanation of this Python language feature?] Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2014-03-31 16:44 +1100
Re: OFF TOPIC Spanish in the USA Marko Rauhamaa <marko@pacujo.net> - 2014-03-31 11:39 +0300
Re: OFF TOPIC Spanish in the USA Ned Batchelder <ned@nedbatchelder.com> - 2014-03-31 07:33 -0400
Re: OFF TOPIC Spanish in the USA [was Re: Explanation of this Python language feature?] Dennis Lee Bieber <wlfraed@ix.netcom.com> - 2014-03-31 08:41 -0400
Re: OFF TOPIC Spanish in the USA [was Re: Explanation of this Python language feature?] Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2014-04-01 00:04 +1100
Re: OFF TOPIC Spanish in the USA [was Re: Explanation of this Python language feature?] "Rhodri James" <rhodri@wildebst.org.uk> - 2014-03-31 21:47 +0100
Re: OFF TOPIC Spanish in the USA [was Re: Explanation of this Python language feature?] Terry Reedy <tjreedy@udel.edu> - 2014-03-31 18:06 -0400
Re: OFF TOPIC Spanish in the USA [was Re: Explanation of this Python language feature?] Dennis Lee Bieber <wlfraed@ix.netcom.com> - 2014-03-31 20:03 -0400
Re: Explanation of this Python language feature? [x for x in x for x in x] (to flatten a nested list) Larry Hudson <orgnut@yahoo.com> - 2014-03-30 00:32 -0700
Re: Explanation of this Python language feature? [x for x in x for x in x] (to flatten a nested list) Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2014-03-30 10:44 +0000
Re: Explanation of this Python language feature? [x for x in x for x in x] (to flatten a nested list) "Rhodri James" <rhodri@wildebst.org.uk> - 2014-03-30 23:57 +0100
Re: Explanation of this Python language feature? [x for x in x for x in x] (to flatten a nested list) MRAB <python@mrabarnett.plus.com> - 2014-03-31 00:20 +0100
Re: Explanation of this Python language feature? [x for x in x for x in x] (to flatten a nested list) Grant Edwards <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2014-03-31 14:14 +0000
Re: Explanation of this Python language feature? [x for x in x for x in x] (to flatten a nested list) Walter Hurry <walterhurry@gmail.com> - 2014-03-31 00:39 +0000
Re: Explanation of this Python language feature? [x for x in x for x in x] (to flatten a nested list) Roy Smith <roy@panix.com> - 2014-03-30 08:08 -0400
Re: Explanation of this Python language feature? [x for x in x for x in x] (to flatten a nested list) Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2014-03-30 15:22 +0000
Re: Explanation of this Python language feature? [x for x in x for x in x] (to flatten a nested list) Ian Kelly <ian.g.kelly@gmail.com> - 2014-03-30 10:03 -0600
Re: Explanation of this Python language feature? [x for x in x for x in x] (to flatten a nested list) Mark H Harris <harrismh777@gmail.com> - 2014-03-31 01:08 -0500
Re: Explanation of this Python language feature? [x for x in x for x in x] (to flatten a nested list) Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2014-03-31 17:47 +1100
Re: Explanation of this Python language feature? [x for x in x for x in x] (to flatten a nested list) Ben Finney <ben+python@benfinney.id.au> - 2014-03-31 17:53 +1100
Re: Explanation of this Python language feature? [x for x in x for x in x] (to flatten a nested list) Rustom Mody <rustompmody@gmail.com> - 2014-03-31 00:36 -0700
Re: Explanation of this Python language feature? [x for x in x for x in x] (to flatten a nested list) wxjmfauth@gmail.com - 2014-03-31 01:32 -0700
Re: Explanation of this Python language feature? [x for x in x for x in x] (to flatten a nested list) Roy Smith <roy@panix.com> - 2014-03-31 08:16 -0400
Re: Explanation of this Python language feature? [x for x in x for x in x] (to flatten a nested list) "Rhodri James" <rhodri@wildebst.org.uk> - 2014-03-31 21:46 +0100
Re: Explanation of this Python language feature? [x for x in x for x in x] (to flatten a nested list) Mark H Harris <harrismh777@gmail.com> - 2014-04-01 16:26 -0500
Re: Explanation of this Python language feature? [x for x in x for x in x] (to flatten a nested list) Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2014-04-02 08:49 +1100
Re: Explanation of this Python language feature? [x for x in x for x in x] (to flatten a nested list) Mark H Harris <harrismh777@gmail.com> - 2014-04-01 18:18 -0500
Re: Explanation of this Python language feature? [x for x in x for x in x] (to flatten a nested list) Terry Reedy <tjreedy@udel.edu> - 2014-04-01 18:33 -0400
Re: Explanation of this Python language feature? [x for x in x for x in x] (to flatten a nested list) Mark H Harris <harrismh777@gmail.com> - 2014-04-03 11:38 -0500
Re: Explanation of this Python language feature? [x for x in x for x in x] (to flatten a nested list) Marko Rauhamaa <marko@pacujo.net> - 2014-04-03 20:14 +0300
Re: Explanation of this Python language feature? [x for x in x for x in x] (to flatten a nested list) Rustom Mody <rustompmody@gmail.com> - 2014-04-03 11:40 -0700
Re: Explanation of this Python language feature? [x for x in x for x in x] (to flatten a nested list) Mark H Harris <harrismh777@gmail.com> - 2014-04-03 13:55 -0500
Re: Explanation of this Python language feature? [x for x in x for x in x] (to flatten a nested list) Marko Rauhamaa <marko@pacujo.net> - 2014-04-03 22:43 +0300
Re: Explanation of this Python language feature? [x for x in x for x in x] (to flatten a nested list) Mark H Harris <harrismh777@gmail.com> - 2014-04-03 22:12 -0500
Re: Explanation of this Python language feature? [x for x in x for x in x] (to flatten a nested list) Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2014-04-04 09:43 +1100
Re: Explanation of this Python language feature? [x for x in x for x in x] (to flatten a nested list) Mark H Harris <harrismh777@gmail.com> - 2014-04-03 21:09 -0500
Re: Explanation of this Python language feature? [x for x in x for x in x] (to flatten a nested list) Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2014-04-04 07:52 +0000
Re: Explanation of this Python language feature? [x for x in x for x in x] (to flatten a nested list) Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2014-04-04 19:11 +1100
Re: Explanation of this Python language feature? [x for x in x for x in x] (to flatten a nested list) Ian Kelly <ian.g.kelly@gmail.com> - 2014-04-04 02:13 -0600
Re: Explanation of this Python language feature? [x for x in x for x in x] (to flatten a nested list) Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2014-04-04 10:08 +0000
Re: Explanation of this Python language feature? [x for x in x for x in x] (to flatten a nested list) Ian Kelly <ian.g.kelly@gmail.com> - 2014-04-04 11:01 -0600
Re: Explanation of this Python language feature? [x for x in x for x in x] (to flatten a nested list) Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2014-04-05 00:20 +0000
Re: Explanation of this Python language feature? [x for x in x for x in x] (to flatten a nested list) alex23 <wuwei23@gmail.com> - 2014-04-04 12:07 +1000
Re: Explanation of this Python language feature? [x for x in x for x in x] (to flatten a nested list) Mark H Harris <harrismh777@gmail.com> - 2014-04-03 21:29 -0500
Re: Explanation of this Python language feature? [x for x in x for x in x] (to flatten a nested list) Mark Lawrence <breamoreboy@yahoo.co.uk> - 2014-04-04 09:20 +0100
Re: Explanation of this Python language feature? [x for x in x for x in x] (to flatten a nested list) Mark H Harris <harrismh777@gmail.com> - 2014-04-04 15:58 -0500
Re: Explanation of this Python language feature? [x for x in x for x in x] (to flatten a nested list) Ian Kelly <ian.g.kelly@gmail.com> - 2014-04-04 15:40 -0600
Re: Explanation of this Python language feature? [x for x in x for x in x] (to flatten a nested list) Mark Lawrence <breamoreboy@yahoo.co.uk> - 2014-04-04 22:50 +0100
Re: Explanation of this Python language feature? [x for x in x for x in x] (to flatten a nested list) Mark H Harris <harrismh777@gmail.com> - 2014-04-04 17:07 -0500
Re: Explanation of this Python language feature? [x for x in x for x in x] (to flatten a nested list) Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2014-04-05 09:39 +1100
Re: Explanation of this Python language feature? [x for x in x for x in x] (to flatten a nested list) Mark H Harris <harrismh777@gmail.com> - 2014-04-04 17:52 -0500
Re: Explanation of this Python language feature? [x for x in x for x in x] (to flatten a nested list) Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2014-04-05 09:57 +1100
Re: Explanation of this Python language feature? [x for x in x for x in x] (to flatten a nested list) Mark Lawrence <breamoreboy@yahoo.co.uk> - 2014-04-05 00:16 +0100
Re: Explanation of this Python language feature? [x for x in x for x in x] (to flatten a nested list) Mark H Harris <harrismh777@gmail.com> - 2014-04-04 23:10 -0500
Re: Explanation of this Python language feature? [x for x in x for x in x] (to flatten a nested list) Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2014-04-05 15:40 +1100
Re: Explanation of this Python language feature? [x for x in x for x in x] (to flatten a nested list) Mark H Harris <harrismh777@gmail.com> - 2014-04-05 00:11 -0500
Re: Explanation of this Python language feature? [x for x in x for x in x] (to flatten a nested list) Ian Kelly <ian.g.kelly@gmail.com> - 2014-04-04 23:02 -0600
Re: Explanation of this Python language feature? [x for x in x for x in x] (to flatten a nested list) Mark H Harris <harrismh777@gmail.com> - 2014-04-05 00:37 -0500
Re: Explanation of this Python language feature? [x for x in x for x in x] (to flatten a nested list) Ben Finney <ben+python@benfinney.id.au> - 2014-04-05 17:01 +1100
Re: Explanation of this Python language feature? [x for x in x for x in x] (to flatten a nested list) Mark H Harris <harrismh777@gmail.com> - 2014-04-05 01:48 -0500
Re: Explanation of this Python language feature? [x for x in x for x in x] (to flatten a nested list) Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2014-04-05 18:08 +1100
Re: Explanation of this Python language feature? [x for x in x for x in x] (to flatten a nested list) Mark H Harris <harrismh777@gmail.com> - 2014-04-05 01:48 -0500
Re: Explanation of this Python language feature? [x for x in x for x in x] (to flatten a nested list) Ian Kelly <ian.g.kelly@gmail.com> - 2014-04-04 23:07 -0600
Re: Explanation of this Python language feature? [x for x in x for x in x] (to flatten a nested list) Mark H Harris <harrismh777@gmail.com> - 2014-04-04 17:52 -0500
Re: Explanation of this Python language feature? [x for x in x for x in x] (to flatten a nested list) Terry Reedy <tjreedy@udel.edu> - 2014-04-04 23:04 -0400
Re: Explanation of this Python language feature? [x for x in x for x in x] (to flatten a nested list) Mark H Harris <harrismh777@gmail.com> - 2014-04-04 23:18 -0500
Re: Explanation of this Python language feature? [x for x in x for x in x] (to flatten a nested list) Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2014-04-05 14:22 +1100
Re: Explanation of this Python language feature? [x for x in x for x in x] (to flatten a nested list) Terry Reedy <tjreedy@udel.edu> - 2014-04-05 00:10 -0400
Re: Explanation of this Python language feature? [x for x in x for x in x] (to flatten a nested list) Mark H Harris <harrismh777@gmail.com> - 2014-04-04 17:07 -0500
Re: Explanation of this Python language feature? [x for x in x for x in x] (to flatten a nested list) Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2014-04-05 00:00 +0000
Re: Explanation of this Python language feature? [x for x in x for x in x] (to flatten a nested list) Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2014-04-05 12:51 +1100
Re: Explanation of this Python language feature? [x for x in x for x in x] (to flatten a nested list) Mark H Harris <harrismh777@gmail.com> - 2014-04-04 23:31 -0500
Re: Explanation of this Python language feature? [x for x in x for x in x] (to flatten a nested list) Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2014-04-05 15:49 +1100
Re: Explanation of this Python language feature? [x for x in x for x in x] (to flatten a nested list) Mark H Harris <harrismh777@gmail.com> - 2014-04-05 00:23 -0500
Re: Explanation of this Python language feature? [x for x in x for x in x] (to flatten a nested list) Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2014-04-05 16:55 +1100
Re: Explanation of this Python language feature? [x for x in x for x in x] (to flatten a nested list) Mark H Harris <harrismh777@gmail.com> - 2014-04-05 00:23 -0500
Re: Explanation of this Python language feature? [x for x in x for x in x] (to flatten a nested list) Rustom Mody <rustompmody@gmail.com> - 2014-04-04 20:42 -0700
Re: Explanation of this Python language feature? [x for x in x for x in x] (to flatten a nested list) Mark H Harris <harrismh777@gmail.com> - 2014-04-05 00:02 -0500
Re: Explanation of this Python language feature? [x for x in x for x in x] (to flatten a nested list) Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2014-04-05 16:24 +1100
Re: Explanation of this Python language feature? [x for x in x for x in x] (to flatten a nested list) Ben Finney <ben+python@benfinney.id.au> - 2014-04-05 16:29 +1100
Re: Explanation of this Python language feature? [x for x in x for x in x] (to flatten a nested list) Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2014-04-05 16:57 +1100
Re: Explanation of this Python language feature? [x for x in x for x in x] (to flatten a nested list) Rustom Mody <rustompmody@gmail.com> - 2014-04-04 23:59 -0700
Re: Explanation of this Python language feature? [x for x in x for x in x] (to flatten a nested list) Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2014-04-05 18:10 +1100
Re: Explanation of this Python language feature? [x for x in x for x in x] (to flatten a nested list) Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2014-04-05 10:19 +0000
Re: Explanation of this Python language feature? [x for x in x for x in x] (to flatten a nested list) Terry Reedy <tjreedy@udel.edu> - 2014-04-05 07:20 -0400
Re: Explanation of this Python language feature? [x for x in x for x in x] (to flatten a nested list) Roy Smith <roy@panix.com> - 2014-04-05 10:28 -0400
Re: Explanation of this Python language feature? [x for x in x for x in x] (to flatten a nested list) Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2014-04-04 09:53 +0000
Re: Explanation of this Python language feature? [x for x in x for x in x] (to flatten a nested list) Rustom Mody <rustompmody@gmail.com> - 2014-04-04 03:24 -0700
Re: Explanation of this Python language feature? [x for x in x for x in x] (to flatten a nested list) Terry Reedy <tjreedy@udel.edu> - 2014-04-04 06:43 -0400
Re: Explanation of this Python language feature? [x for x in x for x in x] (to flatten a nested list) Mark H Harris <harrismh777@gmail.com> - 2014-04-05 22:59 -0500
Re: Explanation of this Python language feature? [x for x in x for x in x] (to flatten a nested list) Mark H Harris <harrismh777@gmail.com> - 2014-04-05 23:59 -0500
Re: Explanation of this Python language feature? [x for x in x for x in x] (to flatten a nested list) Marko Rauhamaa <marko@pacujo.net> - 2014-04-06 12:05 +0300
Re: Explanation of this Python language feature? [x for x in x for x in x] (to flatten a nested list) Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2014-04-06 16:52 +0000
Re: Explanation of this Python language feature? [x for x in x for x in x] (to flatten a nested list) Rustom Mody <rustompmody@gmail.com> - 2014-04-06 10:31 -0700
Re: Explanation of this Python language feature? [x for x in x for x in x] (to flatten a nested list) Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2014-04-07 03:54 +1000
Re: Explanation of this Python language feature? [x for x in x for x in x] (to flatten a nested list) Rustom Mody <rustompmody@gmail.com> - 2014-04-06 11:13 -0700
Re: Explanation of this Python language feature? [x for x in x for x in x] (to flatten a nested list) Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2014-04-07 04:46 +1000
Re: Explanation of this Python language feature? [x for x in x for x in x] (to flatten a nested list) Rustom Mody <rustompmody@gmail.com> - 2014-04-06 19:32 -0700
Re: Explanation of this Python language feature? [x for x in x for x in x] (to flatten a nested list) Mark H Harris <harrismh777@gmail.com> - 2014-04-07 20:33 -0500
Re: Explanation of this Python language feature? [x for x in x for x in x] (to flatten a nested list) MRAB <python@mrabarnett.plus.com> - 2014-04-08 02:52 +0100
Re: Explanation of this Python language feature? [x for x in x for x in x] (to flatten a nested list) Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2014-04-08 13:02 +1000
Re: Explanation of this Python language feature? [x for x in x for x in x] (to flatten a nested list) Steven D'Aprano <steve@pearwood.info> - 2014-04-08 08:21 +0000
Re: Explanation of this Python language feature? [x for x in x for x in x] (to flatten a nested list) alex23 <wuwei23@gmail.com> - 2014-04-09 10:39 +1000
Re: Explanation of this Python language feature? [x for x in x for x in x] (to flatten a nested list) Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2014-04-09 12:26 +1000
Re: Explanation of this Python language feature? [x for x in x for x in x] (to flatten a nested list) Rustom Mody <rustompmody@gmail.com> - 2014-04-08 03:53 -0700
Re: Explanation of this Python language feature? [x for x in x for x in x] (to flatten a nested list) Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2014-04-07 03:27 +1000
Re: Explanation of this Python language feature? [x for x in x for x in x] (to flatten a nested list) Marko Rauhamaa <marko@pacujo.net> - 2014-04-06 23:23 +0300
Re: Explanation of this Python language feature? [x for x in x for x in x] (to flatten a nested list) Mark Lawrence <breamoreboy@yahoo.co.uk> - 2014-04-06 19:09 +0100
Re: Explanation of this Python language feature? [x for x in x for x in x] (to flatten a nested list) Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2014-04-07 04:14 +1000
Re: Explanation of this Python language feature? [x for x in x for x in x] (to flatten a nested list) Marko Rauhamaa <marko@pacujo.net> - 2014-04-06 23:10 +0300
Re: Explanation of this Python language feature? [x for x in x for x in x] (to flatten a nested list) Mark Lawrence <breamoreboy@yahoo.co.uk> - 2014-04-06 21:56 +0100
Re: Explanation of this Python language feature? [x for x in x for x in x] (to flatten a nested list) Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2014-04-06 23:48 +0000
Re: Explanation of this Python language feature? [x for x in x for x in x] (to flatten a nested list) Terry Reedy <tjreedy@udel.edu> - 2014-04-06 20:45 -0400
Re: Explanation of this Python language feature? [x for x in x for x in x] (to flatten a nested list) Rustom Mody <rustompmody@gmail.com> - 2014-04-06 18:54 -0700
Re: Explanation of this Python language feature? [x for x in x for x in x] (to flatten a nested list) Steven D'Aprano <steve@pearwood.info> - 2014-04-07 05:10 +0000
Re: Explanation of this Python language feature? [x for x in x for x in x] (to flatten a nested list) Marko Rauhamaa <marko@pacujo.net> - 2014-04-07 08:14 +0300
Re: Explanation of this Python language feature? [x for x in x for x in x] (to flatten a nested list) Antoon Pardon <antoon.pardon@rece.vub.ac.be> - 2014-04-08 09:03 +0200
Re: Explanation of this Python language feature? [x for x in x for x in x] (to flatten a nested list) Marko Rauhamaa <marko@pacujo.net> - 2014-04-07 07:54 +0300
Re: Explanation of this Python language feature? [x for x in x for x in x] (to flatten a nested list) Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2014-04-07 12:19 +0000
Re: Explanation of this Python language feature? [x for x in x for x in x] (to flatten a nested list) Mark H Harris <harrismh777@gmail.com> - 2014-04-05 23:01 -0500
Re: Explanation of this Python language feature? [x for x in x for x in x] (to flatten a nested list) Rustom Mody <rustompmody@gmail.com> - 2014-03-28 23:10 -0700
Re: Explanation of this Python language feature? [x for x in x for x in x] (to flatten a nested list) Mark H Harris <harrismh777@gmail.com> - 2014-03-29 00:51 -0500
Re: Explanation of this Python language feature? [x for x in x for x in x] (to flatten a nested list) Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2014-03-29 17:53 +0000
Re: Explanation of this Python language feature? [x for x in x for x in x] (to flatten a nested list) Mark H Harris <harrismh777@gmail.com> - 2014-03-30 01:22 -0500
Re: Explanation of this Python language feature? [x for x in x for x in x] (to flatten a nested list) Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2014-03-30 16:22 +0000
Re: Explanation of this Python language feature? [x for x in x for x in x] (to flatten a nested list) Marko Rauhamaa <marko@pacujo.net> - 2014-03-29 13:39 +0200
Re: Explanation of this Python language feature? [x for x in x for x in x] (to flatten a nested list) Roy Smith <roy@panix.com> - 2014-03-29 07:53 -0400
Re: Explanation of this Python language feature? [x for x in x for x in x] (to flatten a nested list) Marko Rauhamaa <marko@pacujo.net> - 2014-03-29 13:59 +0200
Re: Explanation of this Python language feature? [x for x in x for x in x] (to flatten a nested list) Gene Heskett <gheskett@wdtv.com> - 2014-03-29 13:48 -0400
Re: Explanation of this Python language feature? [x for x in x for x in x] (to flatten a nested list) Mark H Harris <harrismh777@gmail.com> - 2014-03-30 00:57 -0500
Re: Explanation of this Python language feature? [x for x in x for x in x] (to flatten a nested list) Gene Heskett <gheskett@wdtv.com> - 2014-03-29 13:46 -0400
Re: Explanation of this Python language feature? [x for x in x for x in x] (to flatten a nested list) Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2014-03-25 10:01 +1100
Re: Explanation of this Python language feature? [x for x in x for x in x] (to flatten a nested list) Mark H Harris <harrismh777@gmail.com> - 2014-03-24 18:44 -0500
Re: Explanation of this Python language feature? [x for x in x for x in x] (to flatten a nested list) Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2014-03-25 10:57 +1100
Re: Explanation of this Python language feature? [x for x in x for x in x] (to flatten a nested list) Steven D'Aprano <steve@pearwood.info> - 2014-03-25 06:16 +0000
Re: Explanation of this Python language feature? [x for x in x for x in x] (to flatten a nested list) Ian Kelly <ian.g.kelly@gmail.com> - 2014-03-24 17:58 -0600
Time we switched to unicode? (was Explanation of this Python language feature?) Rustom Mody <rustompmody@gmail.com> - 2014-03-24 20:00 -0700
Re: Time we switched to unicode? (was Explanation of this Python language feature?) Mark H Harris <harrismh777@gmail.com> - 2014-03-24 22:15 -0500
Re: Time we switched to unicode? (was Explanation of this Python language feature?) Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2014-03-25 14:17 +1100
Re: Time we switched to unicode? (was Explanation of this Python language feature?) Mark H Harris <harrismh777@gmail.com> - 2014-03-24 22:25 -0500
Re: Time we switched to unicode? (was Explanation of this Python language feature?) Mark H Harris <harrismh777@gmail.com> - 2014-03-24 22:28 -0500
Re: Time we switched to unicode? (was Explanation of this Python language feature?) Roy Smith <roy@panix.com> - 2014-03-24 23:29 -0400
Re: Time we switched to unicode? (was Explanation of this Python language feature?) Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2014-03-25 14:51 +1100
Re: Time we switched to unicode? (was Explanation of this Python language feature?) Mark H Harris <harrismh777@gmail.com> - 2014-03-24 22:59 -0500
Re: Time we switched to unicode? (was Explanation of this Python language feature?) Rustom Mody <rustompmody@gmail.com> - 2014-03-24 21:08 -0700
Re: Time we switched to unicode? (was Explanation of this Python language feature?) Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2014-03-25 15:29 +1100
Re: Time we switched to unicode? (was Explanation of this Python language feature?) Rustom Mody <rustompmody@gmail.com> - 2014-03-24 22:00 -0700
Re: Time we switched to unicode? (was Explanation of this Python language feature?) Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2014-03-25 16:08 +1100
Re: Time we switched to unicode? (was Explanation of this Python language feature?) Mark H Harris <harrismh777@gmail.com> - 2014-03-25 00:14 -0500
Re: Time we switched to unicode? (was Explanation of this Python language feature?) Rustom Mody <rustompmody@gmail.com> - 2014-03-24 22:23 -0700
Re: Time we switched to unicode? (was Explanation of this Python language feature?) Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2014-03-25 16:31 +1100
Re: Time we switched to unicode? (was Explanation of this Python language feature?) Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2014-03-25 16:27 +1100
Re: Time we switched to unicode? (was Explanation of this Python language feature?) Mark H Harris <harrismh777@gmail.com> - 2014-03-25 00:34 -0500
Re: Time we switched to unicode? (was Explanation of this Python language feature?) Rustom Mody <rustompmody@gmail.com> - 2014-03-24 22:42 -0700
Re: Time we switched to unicode? (was Explanation of this Python language feature?) Mark H Harris <harrismh777@gmail.com> - 2014-03-25 00:47 -0500
Re: Time we switched to unicode? (was Explanation of this Python language feature?) Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2014-03-25 16:54 +1100
Re: Time we switched to unicode? (was Explanation of this Python language feature?) Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2014-03-25 16:48 +1100
Re: Time we switched to unicode? (was Explanation of this Python language feature?) Mark H Harris <harrismh777@gmail.com> - 2014-03-25 00:56 -0500
Re: Time we switched to unicode? (was Explanation of this Python language feature?) Roy Smith <roy@panix.com> - 2014-03-25 08:36 -0400
Re: Time we switched to unicode? (was Explanation of this Python language feature?) Rustom Mody <rustompmody@gmail.com> - 2014-03-25 05:53 -0700
Re: Time we switched to unicode? (was Explanation of this Python language feature?) Antoon Pardon <antoon.pardon@rece.vub.ac.be> - 2014-03-25 14:43 +0100
Re: Time we switched to unicode? (was Explanation of this Python language feature?) Rustom Mody <rustompmody@gmail.com> - 2014-03-25 06:52 -0700
Re: Time we switched to unicode? (was Explanation of this Python language feature?) Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2014-03-26 00:56 +1100
Re: Time we switched to unicode? (was Explanation of this Python language feature?) Rustom Mody <rustompmody@gmail.com> - 2014-03-25 07:08 -0700
Re: Time we switched to unicode? (was Explanation of this Python language feature?) Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2014-03-25 14:23 +0000
Re: Time we switched to unicode? (was Explanation of this Python language feature?) Rustom Mody <rustompmody@gmail.com> - 2014-03-25 08:19 -0700
Re: Time we switched to unicode? (was Explanation of this Python language feature?) Gregory Ewing <greg.ewing@canterbury.ac.nz> - 2014-03-26 09:33 +1300
Re: Time we switched to unicode? (was Explanation of this Python language feature?) Mark H Harris <harrismh777@gmail.com> - 2014-03-25 11:58 -0500
Re: Time we switched to unicode? (was Explanation of this Python language feature?) Dennis Lee Bieber <wlfraed@ix.netcom.com> - 2014-03-25 20:02 -0400
Re: Time we switched to unicode? (was Explanation of this Python language feature?) Mark H Harris <harrismh777@gmail.com> - 2014-03-25 01:01 -0500
Re: Time we switched to unicode? (was Explanation of this Python language feature?) Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2014-03-25 17:19 +1100
Re: Time we switched to unicode? (was Explanation of this Python language feature?) Steven D'Aprano <steve@pearwood.info> - 2014-03-25 07:03 +0000
Re: Time we switched to unicode? (was Explanation of this Python language feature?) Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2014-03-25 18:12 +1100
Re: Time we switched to unicode? (was Explanation of this Python language feature?) Dennis Lee Bieber <wlfraed@ix.netcom.com> - 2014-03-25 20:05 -0400
Re: Time we switched to unicode? Marko Rauhamaa <marko@pacujo.net> - 2014-03-25 10:05 +0200
Re: Time we switched to unicode? Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2014-03-25 19:23 +1100
Re: Time we switched to unicode? Steven D'Aprano <steve@pearwood.info> - 2014-03-25 08:59 +0000
Re: Time we switched to unicode? Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2014-03-25 20:03 +1100
Re: Time we switched to unicode? Chris “Kwpolska” Warrick <kwpolska@gmail.com> - 2014-03-25 18:24 +0100
Re: Time we switched to unicode? Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2014-03-26 01:01 +0000
Re: Time we switched to unicode? Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2014-03-26 06:40 +1100
Re: Time we switched to unicode? (was Explanation of this Python language feature?) Rustom Mody <rustompmody@gmail.com> - 2014-03-24 22:28 -0700
Re: Time we switched to unicode? (was Explanation of this Python language feature?) Mark H Harris <harrismh777@gmail.com> - 2014-03-25 00:36 -0500
Re: Time we switched to unicode? (was Explanation of this Python language feature?) Steven D'Aprano <steve@pearwood.info> - 2014-03-25 06:07 +0000
Re: Time we switched to unicode? (was Explanation of this Python language feature?) Mark H Harris <harrismh777@gmail.com> - 2014-03-25 01:48 -0500
Re: Time we switched to unicode? (was Explanation of this Python language feature?) Antoon Pardon <antoon.pardon@rece.vub.ac.be> - 2014-03-25 10:43 +0100
Re: Time we switched to unicode? (was Explanation of this Python language feature?) Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2014-03-25 20:54 +1100
Re: Time we switched to unicode? (was Explanation of this Python language feature?) Antoon Pardon <antoon.pardon@rece.vub.ac.be> - 2014-03-25 11:38 +0100
Re: Time we switched to unicode? (was Explanation of this Python language feature?) Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2014-03-25 11:14 +0000
Re: Time we switched to unicode? (was Explanation of this Python language feature?) Antoon Pardon <antoon.pardon@rece.vub.ac.be> - 2014-03-25 12:46 +0100
Re: Time we switched to unicode? (was Explanation of this Python language feature?) Rustom Mody <rustompmody@gmail.com> - 2014-03-25 05:09 -0700
Re: Time we switched to unicode? (was Explanation of this Python language feature?) Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2014-03-25 15:18 +0000
Re: Time we switched to unicode? (was Explanation of this Python language feature?) Terry Reedy <tjreedy@udel.edu> - 2014-03-25 19:55 -0400
Re: Time we switched to unicode? (was Explanation of this Python language feature?) Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2014-03-26 00:12 +0000
Re: Time we switched to unicode? (was Explanation of this Python language feature?) Terry Reedy <tjreedy@udel.edu> - 2014-03-26 00:30 -0400
Re: Time we switched to unicode? (was Explanation of this Python language feature?) Rustom Mody <rustompmody@gmail.com> - 2014-03-25 21:56 -0700
Delayed evaluation of expressions [was Re: Time we switched to unicode?] Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2014-03-26 16:05 +0000
Re: Delayed evaluation of expressions [was Re: Time we switched to unicode?] Rustom Mody <rustompmody@gmail.com> - 2014-03-26 10:32 -0700
Re: Delayed evaluation of expressions [was Re: Time we switched to unicode?] Rustom Mody <rustompmody@gmail.com> - 2014-03-26 10:57 -0700
Re: Delayed evaluation of expressions [was Re: Time we switched to unicode?] Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2014-03-27 09:24 +1100
Re: Delayed evaluation of expressions Marko Rauhamaa <marko@pacujo.net> - 2014-03-27 00:45 +0200
Re: Delayed evaluation of expressions Rustom Mody <rustompmody@gmail.com> - 2014-03-26 22:02 -0700
Re: Delayed evaluation of expressions [was Re: Time we switched to unicode?] Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2014-03-26 23:43 +0000
Re: Delayed evaluation of expressions [was Re: Time we switched to unicode?] Rustom Mody <rustompmody@gmail.com> - 2014-03-26 18:59 -0700
Re: Delayed evaluation of expressions [was Re: Time we switched to unicode?] Terry Reedy <tjreedy@udel.edu> - 2014-03-26 20:44 -0400
Re: Delayed evaluation of expressions [was Re: Time we switched to unicode?] Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2014-03-27 02:16 +0000
Re: Time we switched to unicode? (was Explanation of this Python language feature?) Roy Smith <roy@panix.com> - 2014-03-25 08:35 -0400
Re: Time we switched to unicode? (was Explanation of this Python language feature?) Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2014-03-26 00:13 +1100
Re: Time we switched to unicode? (was Explanation of this Python language feature?) Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2014-03-25 14:13 +0000
Re: Time we switched to unicode? (was Explanation of this Python language feature?) Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2014-03-26 01:37 +1100
Re: Time we switched to unicode? (was Explanation of this Python language feature?) Gregory Ewing <greg.ewing@canterbury.ac.nz> - 2014-03-26 09:58 +1300
Re: Time we switched to unicode? (was Explanation of this Python language feature?) Dennis Lee Bieber <wlfraed@ix.netcom.com> - 2014-03-25 20:10 -0400
Re: Time we switched to unicode? (was Explanation of this Python language feature?) Gregory Ewing <greg.ewing@canterbury.ac.nz> - 2014-03-26 09:21 +1300
Re: Time we switched to unicode? (was Explanation of this Python language feature?) Larry Martell <larry.martell@gmail.com> - 2014-03-25 16:31 -0400
Re: Time we switched to unicode? (was Explanation of this Python language feature?) Mark Lawrence <breamoreboy@yahoo.co.uk> - 2014-03-25 21:22 +0000
Re: Time we switched to unicode? (was Explanation of this Python language feature?) Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2014-03-25 15:19 +1100
Re: Time we switched to unicode? (was Explanation of this Python language feature?) Steven D'Aprano <steve@pearwood.info> - 2014-03-25 06:04 +0000
Re: Time we switched to unicode? (was Explanation of this Python language feature?) Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2014-03-25 17:26 +1100
Re: Time we switched to unicode? (was Explanation of this Python language feature?) Roy Smith <roy@panix.com> - 2014-03-25 08:24 -0400
Re: Time we switched to unicode? (was Explanation of this Python language feature?) Dennis Lee Bieber <wlfraed@ix.netcom.com> - 2014-03-25 19:44 -0400
Re: Time we switched to unicode? (was Explanation of this Python language feature?) Rustom Mody <rustompmody@gmail.com> - 2014-03-24 20:43 -0700
Re: Time we switched to unicode? (was Explanation of this Python language feature?) Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2014-03-25 14:57 +1100
Re: Time we switched to unicode? (was Explanation of this Python language feature?) Steven D'Aprano <steve@pearwood.info> - 2014-03-25 05:47 +0000
Re: Time we switched to unicode? (was Explanation of this Python language feature?) Rustom Mody <rustompmody@gmail.com> - 2014-03-24 23:10 -0700
Re: Time we switched to unicode? (was Explanation of this Python language feature?) Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2014-03-25 17:33 +1100
Re: Time we switched to unicode? (was Explanation of this Python language feature?) Rustom Mody <rustompmody@gmail.com> - 2014-03-24 23:41 -0700
Re: Time we switched to unicode? (was Explanation of this Python language feature?) Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2014-03-25 17:50 +1100
Re: Time we switched to unicode? (was Explanation of this Python language feature?) Terry Reedy <tjreedy@udel.edu> - 2014-03-25 18:39 -0400
Re: Time we switched to unicode? (was Explanation of this Python language feature?) Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2014-03-25 17:12 +1100
Re: Time we switched to unicode? (was Explanation of this Python language feature?) Rustom Mody <rustompmody@gmail.com> - 2014-03-24 23:35 -0700
Re: Time we switched to unicode? (was Explanation of this Python language feature?) Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2014-03-25 17:45 +1100
Re: Time we switched to unicode? (was Explanation of this Python language feature?) Rustom Mody <rustompmody@gmail.com> - 2014-03-24 23:52 -0700
Re: Time we switched to unicode? (was Explanation of this Python language feature?) "Rhodri James" <rhodri@wildebst.org.uk> - 2014-03-27 01:16 +0000
Re: Time we switched to unicode? (was Explanation of this Python language feature?) Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2014-03-27 12:26 +1100
Re: Time we switched to unicode? (was Explanation of this Python language feature?) Rustom Mody <rustompmody@gmail.com> - 2014-03-24 20:44 -0700
Re: Time we switched to unicode? (was Explanation of this Python language feature?) Rustom Mody <rustompmody@gmail.com> - 2014-03-24 20:56 -0700
Re: Time we switched to unicode? (was Explanation of this Python language feature?) Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2014-03-25 15:14 +1100
Re: Time we switched to unicode? (was Explanation of this Python language feature?) Steven D'Aprano <steve@pearwood.info> - 2014-03-25 07:03 +0000
Re: Time we switched to unicode? (was Explanation of this Python language feature?) Rustom Mody <rustompmody@gmail.com> - 2014-03-25 00:22 -0700
Re: Time we switched to unicode? (was Explanation of this Python language feature?) Antoon Pardon <antoon.pardon@rece.vub.ac.be> - 2014-03-25 11:24 +0100
Re: Time we switched to unicode? (was Explanation of this Python language feature?) Roy Smith <roy@panix.com> - 2014-03-25 08:21 -0400
Re: Time we switched to unicode? (was Explanation of this Python language feature?) Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2014-03-25 13:36 +0000
Re: Time we switched to unicode? (was Explanation of this Python language feature?) Antoon Pardon <antoon.pardon@rece.vub.ac.be> - 2014-03-25 15:01 +0100
Re: Time we switched to unicode? (was Explanation of this Python language feature?) Terry Reedy <tjreedy@udel.edu> - 2014-03-25 22:10 -0400
Re: Time we switched to unicode? (was Explanation of this Python language feature?) Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2014-03-26 13:39 +1100
Re: Time we switched to unicode? (was Explanation of this Python language feature?) Ian Kelly <ian.g.kelly@gmail.com> - 2014-03-27 01:32 -0600
Re: Time we switched to unicode? (was Explanation of this Python language feature?) Ian Kelly <ian.g.kelly@gmail.com> - 2014-03-27 01:43 -0600
Re: Time we switched to unicode? (was Explanation of this Python language feature?) Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2014-03-25 22:12 +1100
Re: Time we switched to unicode? (was Explanation of this Python language feature?) Antoon Pardon <antoon.pardon@rece.vub.ac.be> - 2014-03-25 13:07 +0100
Re: Time we switched to unicode? (was Explanation of this Python language feature?) Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2014-03-25 23:45 +1100
Re: Time we switched to unicode? (was Explanation of this Python language feature?) Rustom Mody <rustompmody@gmail.com> - 2014-03-25 06:07 -0700
Re: Time we switched to unicode? (was Explanation of this Python language feature?) Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2014-03-26 00:50 +1100
Re: Time we switched to unicode? (was Explanation of this Python language feature?) Gregory Ewing <greg.ewing@canterbury.ac.nz> - 2014-03-26 09:37 +1300
Re: Time we switched to unicode? (was Explanation of this Python language feature?) Antoon Pardon <antoon.pardon@rece.vub.ac.be> - 2014-03-25 14:07 +0100
Re: Time we switched to unicode? (was Explanation of this Python language feature?) Terry Reedy <tjreedy@udel.edu> - 2014-03-25 20:24 -0400
Re: Time we switched to unicode? (was Explanation of this Python language feature?) Antoon Pardon <antoon.pardon@rece.vub.ac.be> - 2014-03-26 10:22 +0100
Re: Explanation of this Python language feature? [x for x in x for x in x] (to flatten a nested list) Steven D'Aprano <steve@pearwood.info> - 2014-03-25 06:20 +0000
Re: Explanation of this Python language feature? [x for x in x for x in x] (to flatten a nested list) Steven D'Aprano <steve@pearwood.info> - 2014-03-24 09:49 +0000
Re: Explanation of this Python language feature? [x for x in x for x in x] (to flatten a nested list) Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2014-03-24 22:21 +1100
Re: Explanation of this Python language feature? [x for x in x for x in x] (to flatten a nested list) Mark H Harris <harrismh777@gmail.com> - 2014-03-24 14:47 -0500
Re: Explanation of this Python language feature? [x for x in x for x in x] (to flatten a nested list) Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2014-03-25 01:45 +0000
Re: Explanation of this Python language feature? [x for x in x for x in x] (to flatten a nested list) Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2014-03-25 13:17 +1100
Re: Explanation of this Python language feature? [x for x in x for x in x] (to flatten a nested list) Mark Lawrence <breamoreboy@yahoo.co.uk> - 2014-03-25 02:06 +0000
Re: Explanation of this Python language feature? [x for x in x for x in x] (to flatten a nested list) Mark H Harris <harrismh777@gmail.com> - 2014-03-24 22:48 -0500
Re: Explanation of this Python language feature? [x for x in x for x in x] (to flatten a nested list) Mark Lawrence <breamoreboy@yahoo.co.uk> - 2014-03-24 09:58 +0000
Re: Explanation of this Python language feature? [x for x in x for x in x] (to flatten a nested list) Mark H Harris <harrismh777@gmail.com> - 2014-03-24 13:58 -0500
Re: Explanation of this Python language feature? [x for x in x for x in x] (to flatten a nested list) Mark Lawrence <breamoreboy@yahoo.co.uk> - 2014-03-24 19:13 +0000
Re: Explanation of this Python language feature? [x for x in x for x in x] (to flatten a nested list) Ian Kelly <ian.g.kelly@gmail.com> - 2014-03-24 13:12 -0600
Re: Explanation of this Python language feature? [x for x in x for x in x] (to flatten a nested list) Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2014-03-25 06:22 +1100
Re: Explanation of this Python language feature? [x for x in x for x in x] (to flatten a nested list) Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2014-03-24 22:58 +0000
Re: Explanation of this Python language feature? [x for x in x for x in x] (to flatten a nested list) Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2014-03-25 10:07 +1100
Re: Explanation of this Python language feature? [x for x in x for x in x] (to flatten a nested list) Terry Reedy <tjreedy@udel.edu> - 2014-03-24 21:04 -0400
Re: Explanation of this Python language feature? [x for x in x for x in x] (to flatten a nested list) Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2014-03-25 06:45 +1100
Re: Explanation of this Python language feature? [x for x in x for x in x] (to flatten a nested list) Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2014-03-22 04:47 +0000
Re: Explanation of this Python language feature? [x for x in x for x in x] (to flatten a nested list) Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2014-03-22 16:05 +1100
Re: Explanation of this Python language feature? [x for x in x for x in x] (to flatten a nested list) Marko Rauhamaa <marko@pacujo.net> - 2014-03-22 12:24 +0200
Re: Explanation of this Python language feature? [x for x in x for x in x] (to flatten a nested list) Ian Kelly <ian.g.kelly@gmail.com> - 2014-03-22 03:09 -0600
Re: Explanation of this Python language feature? [x for x in x for x in x] (to flatten a nested list) Marko Rauhamaa <marko@pacujo.net> - 2014-03-22 12:30 +0200
Re: Explanation of this Python language feature? [x for x in x for x in x] (to flatten a nested list) Rustom Mody <rustompmody@gmail.com> - 2014-03-22 10:16 -0700
Re: Explanation of this Python language feature? [x for x in x for x in x] (to flatten a nested list) Mark Lawrence <breamoreboy@yahoo.co.uk> - 2014-03-22 10:40 +0000
Re: Explanation of this Python language feature? [x for x in x for x in x] (to flatten a nested list) Mark Lawrence <breamoreboy@yahoo.co.uk> - 2014-03-22 17:57 +0000
Re: Explanation of this Python language feature? [x for x in x for x in x] (to flatten a nested list) Marko Rauhamaa <marko@pacujo.net> - 2014-03-22 20:40 +0200
Re: Explanation of this Python language feature? [x for x in x for x in x] (to flatten a nested list) Rustom Mody <rustompmody@gmail.com> - 2014-03-22 11:42 -0700
Re: Explanation of this Python language feature? [x for x in x for x in x] (to flatten a nested list) 88888 Dihedral <dihedral88888@gmail.com> - 2014-03-25 03:17 -0700
Re: Explanation of this Python language feature? [x for x in x for x in x] (to flatten a nested list) Gregory Ewing <greg.ewing@canterbury.ac.nz> - 2014-03-22 10:34 +1300
Re: Explanation of this Python language feature? [x for x in x for x in x] (to flatten a nested list) vasudevram <vasudevram@gmail.com> - 2014-03-22 13:59 -0700
Re: Explanation of this Python language feature? [x for x in x for x in x] (to flatten a nested list) Mark H Harris <harrismh777@gmail.com> - 2014-03-24 20:56 -0500
Re: Explanation of this Python language feature? [x for x in x for x in x] (to flatten a nested list) Dan Stromberg <drsalists@gmail.com> - 2014-03-27 16:45 -0700
How to flatten a list of lists was (Explanation of this Python language feature?) Mark H Harris <harrismh777@gmail.com> - 2014-03-28 17:00 -0500
How to flatten a list of lists was (Explanation of this Python language feature?) Mark H Harris <harrismh777@gmail.com> - 2014-03-28 17:00 -0500
To flatten a nested list was (Explanation of this Python language feature? [x for x in x for x in x] Mark H Harris <harrismh777@gmail.com> - 2014-03-28 17:05 -0500
Re: To flatten a nested list was (Explanation of this Python language feature? [x for x in x for x in x] Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2014-03-29 02:31 +0000
Re: To flatten a nested list was (Explanation of this Python language feature? [x for x in x for x in x] Mark H Harris <harrismh777@gmail.com> - 2014-03-28 22:33 -0500
To flatten a nested list was (Explanation of this Python language feature? [x for x in x for x in x] Mark H Harris <harrismh777@gmail.com> - 2014-03-28 17:05 -0500
Page 18 of 21 — ← Prev page 1 … 16 17 [18] 19 20 21 Next page →
| From | Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-03-27 12:26 +1100 |
| Subject | Re: Time we switched to unicode? (was Explanation of this Python language feature?) |
| Message-ID | <mailman.8596.1395883591.18130.python-list@python.org> |
| In reply to | #69160 |
On Thu, Mar 27, 2014 at 12:16 PM, Rhodri James <rhodri@wildebst.org.uk> wrote: > It's not quite that simple, sadly (for me). I have mild dyscalculia, which > in my case is another way of saying that collections of digits *aren't* > tokens to me unless I ascribe a specific meaning to them. I don't work with > day-level time differences a lot, so 86400 is just a string of digits to me. > Powers of two and one less than powers of two I use a lot, so 65535 for > example is a token. The more digits there are in the number, the harder it > is for me to take in in a way that doesn't happen with letters. Even > "forty" is better than "40" if you want me to recall it! Interesting. This suggests that your brain works happily with words (since you can recall "forty" more easily), but not with digits. But even in the normal case, that will be true to some extent. It's common to break up long numbers into groups of three or four digits - look at credit cards and phone numbers, for two very common examples. Treating 86400 as a single token comes more easily when you know it's the number of seconds in a day, and recognizing 604800 as the number of seconds in a week is pretty much essential to seeing it as a single token. ChrisA
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Rustom Mody <rustompmody@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-03-24 20:44 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Time we switched to unicode? (was Explanation of this Python language feature?) |
| Message-ID | <3605803d-ec90-4484-8a3f-37d06d0b1207@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #68936 |
On Tuesday, March 25, 2014 12:28:16 AM UTC+5:30, Mark H. Harris wrote:
> On 3/24/14 4:58 AM, Mark Lawrence wrote:
> > Where do you get reduce from if it's not in the standard library?
> That was "a" proposal for 3000. Its there, but its not on the
> built-ins; ie., you have to import it. The confusion: why reduce, why
> not filter, nor map? {rhetorical}
> > As for lambda I've no real interest in it, other than when copying examples
> > where it's used to (say) provide a key function.
> This is one of my main points to Steven. In my experience "most" people
> do not intend to use lambda for anything; they are trying to sort this
> or that and don't quite know how to get the key right and some helpful
> somebody gives them a key=lambda yadda yadda . They use it, and it
> works, but they are scratching their head saying to themselves, "what it
> that, how does it work, how can I understand it and on and on".
Your example backfires more than you perhaps realize
1. Most people who-have-not-heard-of (WHNHO) generators dont intend to use
generators. Somebody shows then a couple of uses and they then find them
useful in other contexts
2. Most programmers coming from C where vararg exists but is really
much too painful to use outside of printf, dont want to use default
arguments. Somebody shows them default arguments then they find nifty uses
for the same
3. Most people WHNHO special methods ...
4. Most people WHNHO slices ...
Just sayin...
> That is what we mean by confusing. Or another really great example is
> this thread. Somebody asks about a language feature and somebody else
> helpfully answers the question by providing them with a similar lambda!!
I am not in pro or anti lambda camp.
My grouses are 3, all re comprehensions
1. Technical: I consider the comprehension binding rules wrong -- not lambda
2. Methodological: Experienced people showing comprehensions
as 'nothing more than' a short-form for a for-loop are being less helpful
to the noob than they know.
3. Pedagogical: Comprehensions are hard, for loops are easy.
To convey comprehensions two contrasting perspectives are needed:
1. The for-loop view
2. The set-theory view
Give only one, and misunderstandings and confusions proliferate
Yes 'only one' can be either one. In the haskell world the pedagogical error
tends to be the opposite to the one out here:
Noobs write: [... x in l, y in m,...]
and wonder why the efficiency is vastly different from
[... y in m, x in l, ...]
Comes from emphasising the declarative (set-theory) view too much, the
imperative (for-loop) view too little
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Rustom Mody <rustompmody@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-03-24 20:56 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Time we switched to unicode? (was Explanation of this Python language feature?) |
| Message-ID | <53060a97-44fb-4e53-a7a7-d5eeed416f62@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #68936 |
On Tuesday, March 25, 2014 8:47:35 AM UTC+5:30, Chris Angelico wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 2:00 PM, Rustom Mody wrote:
> > Yeah: Its 2014 (at least out here)...
> > About time we started using unicode in earnest dont you think??
> We do.
> > Id like to see the following spellings corrected:
> > lambda to λ
> > in to ∈
> > (preferably with the 'in' predicate and the 'in' in 'for' disambiguated)
> > set([]) to ∅
> The problems with these is not Unicode or a lack thereof, but keys. I
> know how to type "lambda" on any keyboard I reach for; if it's a
> full-sized QWERTY variant, I can type it without looking, and if it's
> something else then I can peer at the thing and find the appropriate
> five letters. (Phone keyboards are notoriously peer-worthy.) How do I
> type λ? Do I have to memorize an alt-key sequence? Do I need to keep a
> set of "language keywords" in a file somewhere so I can copy and
> paste? Does my editor have to provide them?
> What is really gained by using the short-hand? It becomes nigh
> ungoogleable; yes, you can paste λ into Google and find out that it's
> called lambda (and, if Python used that as a keyword, you could type
> "λ python" into Google and get to the docs), but how do you figure out
> which part of this to search for?
> sockets.sort(key=λdata:data[1])
> More likely you'd search for "sockets" or "sort" or maybe "key" or
> "data", but you wouldn't expect to search for the symbol.
> > And some parentheses disambiguation
> > Internal ambiguity: Is '(...)' a paren? a function? a tuple?
> > External ambiguity: {} in python vs in set theory
> I don't know about the difference between {} in set theory and Python,
> but the multiple uses of () actually boil down to two:
In set theory {} makes sets
In python {} makes dictionaries
> 1) Grouping, which includes tuples; there's a special case whereby
> grouping nothing makes a zero-item tuple, but everything else is just
> the comma
> 2) Functions (both definition and call)
> Disambiguating them might be of some small value, but since they're
> the same in pretty much every language under the sun, it would feel
What 'they'?? I dont get: If you are talking of disambiguating function definition and call -- yeah thats overkill
If you are talking of overlap between tuples parentheses and function (call)
well consider
f(x,y) vs f((x,y)) vs (x,y) vs ((x,y))
Paren vs tuples: why do we need to write (x,) not (x)
All this is because () is doing triple-duty
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-03-25 15:14 +1100 |
| Subject | Re: Time we switched to unicode? (was Explanation of this Python language feature?) |
| Message-ID | <mailman.8487.1395720873.18130.python-list@python.org> |
| In reply to | #68946 |
On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 2:56 PM, Rustom Mody <rustompmody@gmail.com
>> I don't know about the difference between {} in set theory and Python,
>> but the multiple uses of () actually boil down to two:
>
> In set theory {} makes sets
> In python {} makes dictionaries
That's a backward-compatibility issue. Braces in Python meant a
dictionary before it acquired a set type (at least, so I learned in
history class - I wasn't using Python back then), so empty braces have
to continue to mean empty dictionary. I sympathize with the confusion,
but short of confusing everyone terribly by changing dicts to use
something other than braces (maybe borrow Pike's mapping notation, ([
])??), I don't really see a solution.
>> 1) Grouping, which includes tuples; there's a special case whereby
>> grouping nothing makes a zero-item tuple, but everything else is just
>> the comma
>
>> 2) Functions (both definition and call)
>
>> Disambiguating them might be of some small value, but since they're
>> the same in pretty much every language under the sun, it would feel
>
> What 'they'?? I dont get: If you are talking of disambiguating function definition and call -- yeah thats overkill
No no. Disambiguating grouping and fuction definition/call. There's no
reason to have definition and call of functions differ.
> If you are talking of overlap between tuples parentheses and function (call)
> well consider
> f(x,y) vs f((x,y)) vs (x,y) vs ((x,y))
> Paren vs tuples: why do we need to write (x,) not (x)
>
> All this is because () is doing triple-duty
Tuples don't use parentheses. You only confuse yourself when you
insist on that. The only case with parens that actually makes a tuple
is the special empty tuple; imagine if that were given a name instead,
like "Empty". That would solve that confusion.
There's another minorly special case, and that's that the trailing
comma is mandatory on a one-item tuple. In all others, it's optional,
but the one-item tuple would be ambiguous otherwise.
>>> len((1,2,3,))
3
>>> len((1,2,))
2
>>> len((1,))
1
(By the way, bringing in another discussion: The comma isn't part of
the element, nor is it exactly a separator, nor is it exactly a
terminator. Just like a newline in a text file.)
So the only ambiguity is between function calls and grouping. Tuples
are just part of grouping, in that you need to disambiguate a
one-tuple-arg function call from a multiple-arg function call - as in
the above len() calls. And that's where I think it would be highly
confusing to mandate something different. Suppose we used $( )$ for
function calls, and ^( )^ for grouping:
x = ^(1 + 2)^ * 3
y = range$(x)$
What have we gained by distinguishing them? Not a lot. If an open
parenthesis immediately follows another token, it's calling that
previous token; if it follows an operator, it's grouping. Seems pretty
simple to me.
(Cue the spate of emails pointing out something I've missed that
breaks that rule, in which case call it a rule of thumb.)
ChrisA
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Steven D'Aprano <steve@pearwood.info> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-03-25 07:03 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: Time we switched to unicode? (was Explanation of this Python language feature?) |
| Message-ID | <53312a54$0$2756$c3e8da3$76491128@news.astraweb.com> |
| In reply to | #68946 |
On Mon, 24 Mar 2014 20:56:19 -0700, Rustom Mody wrote: > Paren vs tuples: why do we need to write (x,) not (x) You don't. You can write x, without the brackets: py> t = 23, py> type(t) <class 'tuple'> It's the comma that makes tuples, not the brackets. -- Steven
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Rustom Mody <rustompmody@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-03-25 00:22 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Time we switched to unicode? (was Explanation of this Python language feature?) |
| Message-ID | <256f713b-c8b9-4cf3-a403-6865288fbef6@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #68990 |
On Tuesday, March 25, 2014 12:33:49 PM UTC+5:30, Steven D'Aprano wrote: > On Mon, 24 Mar 2014 20:56:19 -0700, Rustom Mody wrote: > > Paren vs tuples: why do we need to write (x,) not (x) > You don't. You can write x, without the brackets: > py> t = 23, > py> type(t) > It's the comma that makes tuples, not the brackets. Yeah Chris already corrected that misconception of mine Doesn't chage my point much though -- () overloaded to ',' overloaded
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Antoon Pardon <antoon.pardon@rece.vub.ac.be> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-03-25 11:24 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: Time we switched to unicode? (was Explanation of this Python language feature?) |
| Message-ID | <mailman.8511.1395743071.18130.python-list@python.org> |
| In reply to | #68946 |
On 25-03-14 05:14, Chris Angelico wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 2:56 PM, Rustom Mody <rustompmody@gmail.com
>>> I don't know about the difference between {} in set theory and Python,
>>> but the multiple uses of () actually boil down to two:
>> In set theory {} makes sets
>> In python {} makes dictionaries
> That's a backward-compatibility issue. Braces in Python meant a
> dictionary before it acquired a set type (at least, so I learned in
> history class - I wasn't using Python back then), so empty braces have
> to continue to mean empty dictionary.
No they didn't have to. With the transition to python3, the developers
could have opted for empty braces to mean an empty set. And if they
wanted a literal for an empty dictionary, they might have chosen {:}.
Backward-compatibility was already broken so that wasn't an argument.
> I sympathize with the confusion,
> but short of confusing everyone terribly by changing dicts to use
> something other than braces (maybe borrow Pike's mapping notation, ([
> ])??), I don't really see a solution.
Come on. The problem isn't that both set and dictionary literal use
braces. That doesn't seem to be a problem in python3. The only question
was what should {} represent and how do we get an empty collection of
the other kind. If {} had been an empty set, dict() could have been
used for an empty dictionary is {:} had been unacceptable.
--
Antoon Pardon
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Roy Smith <roy@panix.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-03-25 08:21 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: Time we switched to unicode? (was Explanation of this Python language feature?) |
| Message-ID | <roy-333172.08211925032014@news.panix.com> |
| In reply to | #69004 |
In article <mailman.8511.1395743071.18130.python-list@python.org>,
Antoon Pardon <antoon.pardon@rece.vub.ac.be> wrote:
> Come on. The problem isn't that both set and dictionary literal use
> braces. That doesn't seem to be a problem in python3. The only question
> was what should {} represent and how do we get an empty collection of
> the other kind. If {} had been an empty set, dict() could have been
> used for an empty dictionary is {:} had been unacceptable.
By analogy to tuples, it could have been {,}.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-03-25 13:36 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: Time we switched to unicode? (was Explanation of this Python language feature?) |
| Message-ID | <53318664$0$29994$c3e8da3$5496439d@news.astraweb.com> |
| In reply to | #69014 |
On Tue, 25 Mar 2014 08:21:19 -0400, Roy Smith wrote:
> In article <mailman.8511.1395743071.18130.python-list@python.org>,
> Antoon Pardon <antoon.pardon@rece.vub.ac.be> wrote:
>
>> Come on. The problem isn't that both set and dictionary literal use
>> braces. That doesn't seem to be a problem in python3. The only question
>> was what should {} represent and how do we get an empty collection of
>> the other kind. If {} had been an empty set, dict() could have been
>> used for an empty dictionary is {:} had been unacceptable.
>
> By analogy to tuples, it could have been {,}.
An empty tuple is (), not (,). {,} is just making up random syntax almost
unrelated to anything else. One might as well used {?} or {+}.
If Python 3 had introduced {} to mean the empty set, I *guarantee* that
right now people would be arguing that "Python 3 could have used {} for
the empty dict, and used set() for the empty set" -- and very likely the
same people now arguing the opposite.
Yes, Python could have changed the meaning of {} to mean the empty set.
But you know what? The empty set is not that important. Sets are not
fundamental to Python. Python didn't even have sets until 2.3, and at
first they were just a standard library module, not even built-in. Dicts,
on the other hand, are fundamental to Python. They are used everywhere.
Python is, in a very real sense, built on dicts, not sets. You can
implement sets starting from dicts, but not the other way around: dicts
are more fundamental than sets.
I'm sure it is awfully impressive that mathematicians can derive the laws
of integer maths starting only from the empty set ∅, but as far as
programming goes that's not a very useful thing. Dicts are much more
important, and they are much more commonly used.
--
Steven D'Aprano
http://import-that.dreamwidth.org/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Antoon Pardon <antoon.pardon@rece.vub.ac.be> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-03-25 15:01 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: Time we switched to unicode? (was Explanation of this Python language feature?) |
| Message-ID | <mailman.8523.1395756074.18130.python-list@python.org> |
| In reply to | #69024 |
On 25-03-14 14:36, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
> On Tue, 25 Mar 2014 08:21:19 -0400, Roy Smith wrote:
>
>> In article <mailman.8511.1395743071.18130.python-list@python.org>,
>> Antoon Pardon <antoon.pardon@rece.vub.ac.be> wrote:
>>
>>> Come on. The problem isn't that both set and dictionary literal use
>>> braces. That doesn't seem to be a problem in python3. The only question
>>> was what should {} represent and how do we get an empty collection of
>>> the other kind. If {} had been an empty set, dict() could have been
>>> used for an empty dictionary is {:} had been unacceptable.
>> By analogy to tuples, it could have been {,}.
> An empty tuple is (), not (,). {,} is just making up random syntax almost
> unrelated to anything else. One might as well used {?} or {+}.
>
> If Python 3 had introduced {} to mean the empty set, I *guarantee* that
> right now people would be arguing that "Python 3 could have used {} for
> the empty dict, and used set() for the empty set" -- and very likely the
> same people now arguing the opposite.
Sure and other people would have defended that choice and very likely
the same people that are defending the current choice now. What is
your point?
> Yes, Python could have changed the meaning of {} to mean the empty set.
> But you know what? The empty set is not that important. Sets are not
> fundamental to Python. Python didn't even have sets until 2.3, and at
> first they were just a standard library module, not even built-in. Dicts,
> on the other hand, are fundamental to Python. They are used everywhere.
> Python is, in a very real sense, built on dicts, not sets. You can
> implement sets starting from dicts, but not the other way around: dicts
> are more fundamental than sets.
Fine, dicts are more fundamental. I just don't see that as such a big
argument against using a different literal for the empty dictionary
than was used in python2 and using {} to indicate the empty set. I
would have preferred it that way, but I don't consider it a big deal.
I just consider the arguments weak for those who seem to argue that
using {} for an empty dictionary in python3 was as good as unavoidable.
--
Antoon Pardon
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Terry Reedy <tjreedy@udel.edu> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-03-25 22:10 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: Time we switched to unicode? (was Explanation of this Python language feature?) |
| Message-ID | <mailman.8556.1395799848.18130.python-list@python.org> |
| In reply to | #69024 |
On 3/25/2014 9:36 AM, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
> Yes, Python could have changed the meaning of {} to mean the empty set.
> But you know what? The empty set is not that important. Sets are not
> fundamental to Python. Python didn't even have sets until 2.3, and at
> first they were just a standard library module, not even built-in.
Leaving aside the fact that dicts are, conceptually, specialized sets of
ordered pairs in which first members are both unique to equality and, in
Python, hashable, this is all true.
> Dicts, on the other hand, are fundamental to Python. > They are used everywhere.
I would rather say that functions/mappings are fundamental to Python,
and in programming in general. Dicts are functions implemented as sets.
Lists and tuples are functions implemented as tables (ordered sets).
Callables are functions implemented as rules. The fact that functions as
sets (dicts) are both extremely useful and not built-in to most
languages, makes their presence in Python a major differentiating feature.
> Python is, in a very real sense, built on dicts, not sets.
It is build on functions, but dicts are a differentiating features. The
'problem' with sets as sets is that they are purely featureless data
structures.
> You can implement sets starting from dicts,
> but not the other way around:
You should be more careful about claiming impossibility;-).
Sets can be easily implemented from dicts because dicts are sets with an
extra feature (the value associated with each key) that is easily
ignored (or always set to the key or None). To implement a dict class
starting with sets would be difficult because CPython sets and dicts are
implemented in C and one cannot reach into their C internals from
Python, or even (mostly) with the C API. One would have to implement or
even simulate the C structures and code in Python and the result would
be much slower.
> dicts are more fundamental than sets.
One can easily implement floats from complex numbers by making the .imag
part always 0. It would be much harder to implement complex numbers from
floats, for the same reasons that it would be hard to implements dicts
from sets. But it must be possible. Would you say that complex numbers
are, because of this implementation quirk, more fundamental than floats?
> I'm sure it is awfully impressive that mathematicians can derive the laws
> of integer maths starting only from the empty set ∅, but as far as
> programming goes that's not a very useful thing.
I agree. Deriving counts and integers from 0 and an increment function
is much more apropos to how we use then to describe and drive algorithms
and prove things about them.
--
Terry Jan Reedy
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-03-26 13:39 +1100 |
| Subject | Re: Time we switched to unicode? (was Explanation of this Python language feature?) |
| Message-ID | <mailman.8559.1395801551.18130.python-list@python.org> |
| In reply to | #69024 |
On Wed, Mar 26, 2014 at 1:10 PM, Terry Reedy <tjreedy@udel.edu> wrote: >> dicts are more fundamental than sets. > > One can easily implement floats from complex numbers by making the .imag > part always 0. It would be much harder to implement complex numbers from > floats, for the same reasons that it would be hard to implements dicts from > sets. But it must be possible. Would you say that complex numbers are, > because of this implementation quirk, more fundamental than floats? I would say that this proves that dicts and complexes are more general, rather than more fundamental. The fundamentals of boolean logic are AND/OR/NOT, but it's common to build everything out of the more general NAND gates because they can do everything. (I may be sketchy on details there, I'm a software guy not a hardware designer.) ChrisA
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ian Kelly <ian.g.kelly@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-03-27 01:32 -0600 |
| Subject | Re: Time we switched to unicode? (was Explanation of this Python language feature?) |
| Message-ID | <mailman.8600.1395905606.18130.python-list@python.org> |
| In reply to | #69024 |
On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 7:36 AM, Steven D'Aprano
<steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> wrote:
> Yes, Python could have changed the meaning of {} to mean the empty set.
> But you know what? The empty set is not that important. Sets are not
> fundamental to Python. Python didn't even have sets until 2.3, and at
> first they were just a standard library module, not even built-in. Dicts,
> on the other hand, are fundamental to Python. They are used everywhere.
> Python is, in a very real sense, built on dicts, not sets. You can
> implement sets starting from dicts, but not the other way around: dicts
> are more fundamental than sets.
Challenge accepted!
The _lookup method in the following is based on a recipe from Raymond Hettinger.
from collections.abc import MutableMapping
class SetBasedDict(MutableMapping):
def __init__(self, initial, **kwargs):
self._contents = set()
self.update(initial, **kwargs)
def clear(self):
self._contents.clear()
def __iter__(self):
for item in self._contents:
yield item.key
def __len__(self):
return len(self._contents)
def __getitem__(self, key):
item = self._lookup(key)
if item is None:
raise KeyError(key)
return item.value
def __setitem__(self, key, value):
item = self._lookup(key)
if item is not None:
item.value = value
else:
item = _DictItem(key, value)
self._contents.add(item)
def __delitem__(self, key):
self._contents.remove(_DictItem(key, None))
def _lookup(self, key):
p = _DictSearchProxy(key)
if p in self._contents:
return p.match
return None
class _DictItem:
def __init__(self, key, value):
self.key = key
self.value = value
def __hash__(self):
return hash(self.key)
def __eq__(self, other):
if not isinstance(other, _DictItem):
return NotImplemented
return self.key == other.key
class _DictSearchProxy:
def __init__(self, obj):
self.obj = obj
self.match = obj
def __eq__(self, other):
if not isinstance(other, _DictItem):
return NotImplemented
result = (self.obj == other.key)
if result:
self.match = other
return result
def __hash__(self):
return hash(self.obj)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ian Kelly <ian.g.kelly@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-03-27 01:43 -0600 |
| Subject | Re: Time we switched to unicode? (was Explanation of this Python language feature?) |
| Message-ID | <mailman.8601.1395906264.18130.python-list@python.org> |
| In reply to | #69024 |
On Thu, Mar 27, 2014 at 1:32 AM, Ian Kelly <ian.g.kelly@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 7:36 AM, Steven D'Aprano
> <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> wrote:
>> Yes, Python could have changed the meaning of {} to mean the empty set.
>> But you know what? The empty set is not that important. Sets are not
>> fundamental to Python. Python didn't even have sets until 2.3, and at
>> first they were just a standard library module, not even built-in. Dicts,
>> on the other hand, are fundamental to Python. They are used everywhere.
>> Python is, in a very real sense, built on dicts, not sets. You can
>> implement sets starting from dicts, but not the other way around: dicts
>> are more fundamental than sets.
>
> Challenge accepted!
Oops, I forgot to allow for a 0-argument constructor. Please revise
the SetBasedDict.__init__ method to:
def __init__(self, initial=(), **kwargs):
self._contents = set()
if initial or kwargs:
self.update(initial, **kwargs)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-03-25 22:12 +1100 |
| Subject | Re: Time we switched to unicode? (was Explanation of this Python language feature?) |
| Message-ID | <mailman.8513.1395745969.18130.python-list@python.org> |
| In reply to | #68946 |
On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 9:24 PM, Antoon Pardon
<antoon.pardon@rece.vub.ac.be> wrote:
> No they didn't have to. With the transition to python3, the developers
> could have opted for empty braces to mean an empty set. And if they
> wanted a literal for an empty dictionary, they might have chosen {:}.
> Backward-compatibility was already broken so that wasn't an argument.
Python 3.0 didn't just say "to Hades with backward compatibility". The
breakage was only in places where it was deemed worthwhile. Changing
the meaning of {} would have only small benefit and would potentially
break a LOT of programs, so the devs were right to not do it.
Python 3 and Python 2 are not, contrary to some people's opinions,
completely different languages.
ChrisA
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Antoon Pardon <antoon.pardon@rece.vub.ac.be> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-03-25 13:07 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: Time we switched to unicode? (was Explanation of this Python language feature?) |
| Message-ID | <mailman.8515.1395749268.18130.python-list@python.org> |
| In reply to | #68946 |
On 25-03-14 12:12, Chris Angelico wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 9:24 PM, Antoon Pardon
> <antoon.pardon@rece.vub.ac.be> wrote:
>> No they didn't have to. With the transition to python3, the developers
>> could have opted for empty braces to mean an empty set. And if they
>> wanted a literal for an empty dictionary, they might have chosen {:}.
>> Backward-compatibility was already broken so that wasn't an argument.
> Python 3.0 didn't just say "to Hades with backward compatibility". The
> breakage was only in places where it was deemed worthwhile. Changing
> the meaning of {} would have only small benefit and would potentially
> break a LOT of programs, so the devs were right to not do it.
More programs than those who broke because print was now a function?
Do you think it would have been so problamatic that it couldn't have
been handled by '2to3'?
Maybe breaking backward-compatibility wasn't considered worthwhile,
but that is not the same as stating backward-compatibility was
necessary. And that is how I understood how you stated your claim.
> Python 3 and Python 2 are not, contrary to some people's opinions,
> completely different languages.
And changing the meaning of {} to now indicate the emppty set, wouldn't
have turned it in a completely different language either.
--
Antoon Pardon.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-03-25 23:45 +1100 |
| Subject | Re: Time we switched to unicode? (was Explanation of this Python language feature?) |
| Message-ID | <mailman.8516.1395751525.18130.python-list@python.org> |
| In reply to | #68946 |
On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 11:07 PM, Antoon Pardon
<antoon.pardon@rece.vub.ac.be> wrote:
> On 25-03-14 12:12, Chris Angelico wrote:
>
>> On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 9:24 PM, Antoon Pardon
>> <antoon.pardon@rece.vub.ac.be> wrote:
>>> No they didn't have to. With the transition to python3, the developers
>>> could have opted for empty braces to mean an empty set. And if they
>>> wanted a literal for an empty dictionary, they might have chosen {:}.
>>> Backward-compatibility was already broken so that wasn't an argument.
>> Python 3.0 didn't just say "to Hades with backward compatibility". The
>> breakage was only in places where it was deemed worthwhile. Changing
>> the meaning of {} would have only small benefit and would potentially
>> break a LOT of programs, so the devs were right to not do it.
>
> More programs than those who broke because print was now a function?
> Do you think it would have been so problamatic that it couldn't have
> been handled by '2to3'?
It makes the same notation mean different things, in ways that are
hard to render clearly. You can write a Py3 program and put this at
the top for Py2:
try:
input = raw_input
range = xrange
except NameError:
# We're running on Python 3
pass
But you can't do the same for braces. You'd have to eschew *both*
literal-ish notations and use explicit constructors everywhere. Not
clean.
ChrisA
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Rustom Mody <rustompmody@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-03-25 06:07 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Time we switched to unicode? (was Explanation of this Python language feature?) |
| Message-ID | <38bbeeeb-8e3b-47fa-a5e7-e3ab40432fb4@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #69018 |
On Tuesday, March 25, 2014 6:15:16 PM UTC+5:30, Chris Angelico wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 11:07 PM, Antoon Pardon
> > On 25-03-14 12:12, Chris Angelico wrote:
> >> On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 9:24 PM, Antoon Pardon
> >>> No they didn't have to. With the transition to python3, the developers
> >>> could have opted for empty braces to mean an empty set. And if they
> >>> wanted a literal for an empty dictionary, they might have chosen {:}.
> >>> Backward-compatibility was already broken so that wasn't an argument.
> >> Python 3.0 didn't just say "to Hades with backward compatibility". The
> >> breakage was only in places where it was deemed worthwhile. Changing
> >> the meaning of {} would have only small benefit and would potentially
> >> break a LOT of programs, so the devs were right to not do it.
> > More programs than those who broke because print was now a function?
> > Do you think it would have been so problamatic that it couldn't have
> > been handled by '2to3'?
> It makes the same notation mean different things, in ways that are
> hard to render clearly. You can write a Py3 program and put this at
> the top for Py2:
> try:
> input = raw_input
> range = xrange
> except NameError:
> # We're running on Python 3
> pass
> But you can't do the same for braces. You'd have to eschew *both*
> literal-ish notations and use explicit constructors everywhere. Not
> clean.
What you are answering (2) is somewhat different from what Anton is asking (1).
1. Use a tool (2to3 inspired) to help move programs to the the new lexicon
2. Use 2to3 to (help) write code that is backward-compatible
It is an invariable given that when heavily compatible code is desired, the
programmer gets the worst of all worlds
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-03-26 00:50 +1100 |
| Subject | Re: Time we switched to unicode? (was Explanation of this Python language feature?) |
| Message-ID | <mailman.8520.1395755419.18130.python-list@python.org> |
| In reply to | #69021 |
On Wed, Mar 26, 2014 at 12:07 AM, Rustom Mody <rustompmody@gmail.com> wrote: > What you are answering (2) is somewhat different from what Anton is asking (1). > > 1. Use a tool (2to3 inspired) to help move programs to the the new lexicon > 2. Use 2to3 to (help) write code that is backward-compatible > > It is an invariable given that when heavily compatible code is desired, the > programmer gets the worst of all worlds That is true. But writing cross-compatible code IS important, and that means that backward compatibility is still important, and that breaking it is a cost - which was my original point. Other non-backward-compatible changes at 3.0 are not justification to arbitrarily change the meanings of syntactic elements. Don't forget, even if you're not writing a single file that gets executed unmodified on two versions, you still have to worry about your brain changing gear. ChrisA
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gregory Ewing <greg.ewing@canterbury.ac.nz> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-03-26 09:37 +1300 |
| Subject | Re: Time we switched to unicode? (was Explanation of this Python language feature?) |
| Message-ID | <bpe7o5F51fdU2@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #69018 |
Chris Angelico wrote: > But you can't do the same for braces. You'd have to eschew *both* > literal-ish notations and use explicit constructors everywhere. Not > clean. This could have been dealt with by giving Python 2.7 a "from __future__ import braces_mean_sets" option or something like that. But I agree that the disruption would not have been worth the benefit. -- Greg
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 18 of 21 — ← Prev page 1 … 16 17 [18] 19 20 21 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.python
csiph-web