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 11 of 21 — ← Prev page 1 … 9 10 [11] 12 13 … 21 Next page →
| From | Rustom Mody <rustompmody@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-04-06 10:31 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <38795bc9-f67d-423f-a929-212b6b38ec8c@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #69770 |
On Sunday, April 6, 2014 10:22:21 PM UTC+5:30, Steven D'Aprano wrote: > On Sun, 06 Apr 2014 12:05:16 +0300, Marko Rauhamaa wrote: > > Mark H Harris : > >> On 4/4/14 4:53 AM, Steven D'Aprano wrote: > >>> Python is not a computer-science-ey language. > >> Every programming language is interesting from a comp sci standpoint. > >> Some are more useful for research; python is one of those. > >> For what reasons do you disagree? > > Computer science doesn't mean "anything related to computers." > > Physicists typically couldn't care less about your heating up your lunch > > in the microwave oven. Similarly, computer scientists aren't interested > > in the mundane applications of their lofty research topics. > > Python, BTW, is perfectly suitable for computer science. > I don't think it is. Python is not a pure functional language, so it's > very difficult to prove anything about the code apart from running it. > For example, see Brett Cannon's master's thesis, where he essentially > demonstrates that: > - you can't do compile-time type inference of general types in Python; > - although you can infer a very small amount of information about a > few built-in types; > - adding specialized byte-codes to handle those types gives, at best, > a marginal performance boost, and sometimes even slows code down. > To quote from the conclusion: > "Introducing over 3,000 lines of new C code to Python's compiler > to get, at best, a 1% improvement is in no way justified. The > level of added complexity that would be introduced into the > compilation step would definitely need to lead to a noticeable > performance improvement, the 5% that was the goal, to justify the > cost of code maintenance." > http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download? > doi=10.1.1.90.3231&rep=rep1&type=pdf Thanks for the link. It think however you are reading it more widely than intended. The appropriate context is a few paras below: | In the end, it seems that Python, as a language, is not geared towards | type inference. Its flexibility, considered a great strength, | interferes with how extensive type inference can be performed. Without | a significant change to the language, type inference is not worth the | hassle of implementation So... Yes if CS begins and ends with type-inference then your conclusion would be valid. However consider that some of the things that people did around 40 years ago and do today - use FORTRAN for numerical/simulation work -- now use scipy/sage etc - NLP with Lisp/Prolog -- look at Nltk - ??? with Data Analysis in Pandas - Scheme (basis for programming pedagogy, semantics research) -> Python you can add/multiply ad libitum Yeah you covered this in your (2) as "...just a tool..." Ask some recent PhD about what is for you "just" an almost irrelevant tool and you are very likely to find that that choice may well have been the difference between completing the research and giving up. I think python wins because it (usually) lets people do their thing (includes but not limited to CS-research) and gets out of the way. To say therefore that it is irrelevant to the research is a strange inversion of its advantages. [Or simply just switch to C++ for 3 months and report back with the increment in your white-hair-count] In short, I just dispute your 'just'!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-04-07 03:54 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <mailman.8957.1396806858.18130.python-list@python.org> |
| In reply to | #69771 |
On Mon, Apr 7, 2014 at 3:31 AM, Rustom Mody <rustompmody@gmail.com> wrote: > However consider that some of the things that people did around 40 years > ago and do today > > - use FORTRAN for numerical/simulation work -- now use scipy/sage etc > - NLP with Lisp/Prolog -- look at Nltk > - ??? with Data Analysis in Pandas > - Scheme (basis for programming pedagogy, semantics research) -> Python > > you can add/multiply ad libitum > > Yeah you covered this in your (2) as "...just a tool..." > > Ask some recent PhD about what is for you "just" an almost irrelevant > tool and you are very likely to find that that choice may well have > been the difference between completing the research and giving up. > > I think python wins because it (usually) lets people do their thing Allow me to put it another way. Mathematicians use the language of algebra to describe their research; they don't, by and large, use a programming language. They use pencils and paper [1] as tools to get their work done, and may well have strong opinions on which pencil brand is the best, but the point of the pencil (pun intended) is to enable something else. It's supposed to get out of the way and let them do their thing. Python is highly practical because it gets out of the way. It's not the way that you develop programming language theory, though. I might start out designing a language with the express purpose of implementing everything as an expression. The whole program consists of one long expression, with perhaps the semicolon being a sequence point that evaluates its left side, then evaluates its right side, and returns the latter (like the C comma operator). I could then go through a whole lot of lovely mental exploration as to what the benefits and costs of that system are, all the while writing nothing more than design documents and example code. At some point, if I'm happy with it, I'll write a reference implementation, and maybe then I'll use Python for the job. But that's not using Python to explore a language concept; that's using Python to rapidly prototype the executable code that I need in order to show my new language at work. All the work of developing the language is done in the design stage, with nothing at all even needing a computer (although I *guarantee* you that if I were to start something like that, I'd find part way through that I've made some fundamental mistakes early on - and a computer is better for editing text than anything on paper). I could just as easily write my reference implementation using yacc/bison and C, and it wouldn't be materially different. Using Python at the design stage would be what Steven's talking about - actually using it to build the theory of programming. I have about as much experience in the area as he has, so we can't speak to the lack of examples, but that's the sort of example it would take. ChrisA [1] As the old joke goes: The physics department needs a whole lot of expensive equipment, but the math department needs only pencils, paper, and wastepaper baskets. And the philosophy department goes even further: they don't need wastepaper baskets.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Rustom Mody <rustompmody@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-04-06 11:13 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <d34c38f0-315a-4e0d-afd7-b2f0664e49e0@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #69774 |
On Sunday, April 6, 2014 11:24:15 PM UTC+5:30, Chris Angelico wrote: > On Mon, Apr 7, 2014 at 3:31 AM, Rustom Mody wrote: > > However consider that some of the things that people did around 40 years > > ago and do today > > - use FORTRAN for numerical/simulation work -- now use scipy/sage etc > > - NLP with Lisp/Prolog -- look at Nltk > > - ??? with Data Analysis in Pandas > > - Scheme (basis for programming pedagogy, semantics research) -> Python > > you can add/multiply ad libitum > > Yeah you covered this in your (2) as "...just a tool..." > > Ask some recent PhD about what is for you "just" an almost irrelevant > > tool and you are very likely to find that that choice may well have > > been the difference between completing the research and giving up. > > I think python wins because it (usually) lets people do their thing > [1] As the old joke goes: The physics department needs a whole lot of > expensive equipment, but the math department needs only pencils, > paper, and wastepaper baskets. And the philosophy department goes even > further: they don't need wastepaper baskets. HaHa! Very funny and unpleasantly accurate! > Allow me to put it another way. Mathematicians use the language of > algebra to describe their research; they don't, by and large, use a > programming language. They use pencils and paper [1] as tools to get > their work done, and may well have strong opinions on which pencil > brand is the best, but the point of the pencil (pun intended) is to > enable something else. It's supposed to get out of the way and let > them do their thing. Python is highly practical because it gets out of > the way. It's not the way that you develop programming language > theory, though. Right. Whats wrong is (the implication -- maybe its not there??) that CS begins and ends with "develop programming language theory" > I might start out designing a language with the express purpose of > implementing everything as an expression. The whole program consists > of one long expression, with perhaps the semicolon being a sequence > point that evaluates its left side, then evaluates its right side, and > returns the latter (like the C comma operator). I could then go > through a whole lot of lovely mental exploration as to what the > benefits and costs of that system are, all the while writing nothing > more than design documents and example code. At some point, if I'm > happy with it, I'll write a reference implementation, and maybe then > I'll use Python for the job. But that's not using Python to explore a > language concept; that's using Python to rapidly prototype the > executable code that I need in order to show my new language at work. > All the work of developing the language is done in the design stage, > with nothing at all even needing a computer (although I *guarantee* > you that if I were to start something like that, I'd find part way > through that I've made some fundamental mistakes early on - and a > computer is better for editing text than anything on paper). I could > just as easily write my reference implementation using yacc/bison and > C, and it wouldn't be materially different. Again I dispute the 'just'. Its a right example for the wrong reason: State of art of writing language implementations in python is no-better-probably-worse than the venerable yacc ecosystem. Choose an example where the difference between poor and good tool is more palpable and the 'just' will no longer be upholdable as just. Is the diff between cvs/svn and git "just one vcs or another"? > Using Python at the design stage would be what Steven's talking about > - actually using it to build the theory of programming. I have about > as much experience in the area as he has, so we can't speak to the > lack of examples, but that's the sort of example it would take. !Parse Error! What are you saying -- I don get :-)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-04-07 04:46 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <mailman.8961.1396810022.18130.python-list@python.org> |
| In reply to | #69776 |
On Mon, Apr 7, 2014 at 4:13 AM, Rustom Mody <rustompmody@gmail.com> wrote: > Is the diff between cvs/svn and git "just one vcs or another"? The theory of version control, or source control, or whatever you want to call it, can be found in some of the docs for those systems (git goes into some depth about the Directed Acyclic Graph that underpins everything), but that theory isn't what makes git or cvs/svn useful. The theory behind my MUD client "Gypsum" is that it should be built the way a server is, including that it should not need to be restarted even when there's new code to be loaded in; but that's not what makes Gypsum useful. The theory behind an ergonomic keyboard is that it should hurt your hands less than a classic keyboard does, but that's not what makes it useful. Actually, in that instance, it might be what makes it useless... >> Using Python at the design stage would be what Steven's talking about >> - actually using it to build the theory of programming. I have about >> as much experience in the area as he has, so we can't speak to the >> lack of examples, but that's the sort of example it would take. > > !Parse Error! What are you saying -- I don get :-) What I'm saying is that I - and, if my reading is correct, similarly with Steven - am looking for is a prominent example of someone using Python as the very basis for a discussion on the future of computer science *as a field*. So, not "here's what can be done with Python", and not "here's something about hydraulics, with some Python code showing how my theory adds up". If you're developing a cryptography algorithm, it might well be convenient to support it with Python code (although I mostly see reference implementations in C), but that's still using Python as a tool, rather than as a language for fundamental development of comp sci theories. ChrisA
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Rustom Mody <rustompmody@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-04-06 19:32 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <aece817f-dc23-4299-9475-7077e1bf17b0@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #69779 |
On Monday, April 7, 2014 12:16:54 AM UTC+5:30, Chris Angelico wrote: > On Mon, Apr 7, 2014 at 4:13 AM, Rustom Mody wrote: > >> Using Python at the design stage would be what Steven's talking about > >> - actually using it to build the theory of programming. I have about > >> as much experience in the area as he has, so we can't speak to the > >> lack of examples, but that's the sort of example it would take. > > !Parse Error! What are you saying -- I don get :-) > What I'm saying is that I - and, if my reading is correct, similarly > with Steven - am looking for is a prominent example of someone using > Python as the very basis for a discussion on the future of computer > science *as a field*. So, not "here's what can be done with Python", > and not "here's something about hydraulics, with some Python code > showing how my theory adds up". If you're developing a cryptography > algorithm, it might well be convenient to support it with Python code > (although I mostly see reference implementations in C), but that's > still using Python as a tool, rather than as a language for > fundamental development of comp sci theories. Nice example 10 years ago Nicholas Carr wrote an article: "Does IT matter?" http://hbr.org/2003/05/it-doesnt-matter/ar/1 | Twenty years ago, most executives looked down on computers as | proletarian tools—glorified typewriters and calculators—best relegated | to low level employees like secretaries, analysts, and technicians. It | was the rare executive who would let his fingers touch a keyboard, | much less incorporate information technology into his strategic | thinking. Today, that has changed completely. Chief executives now | routinely talk about the strategic value of information technology... | | Behind the change in thinking lies a simple assumption: that as IT’s | potency and ubiquity have increased, so too has its strategic | value. It’s a reasonable assumption, even an intuitive one. But it’s | mistaken. What makes a resource truly strategic—what gives it the | capacity to be the basis for a sustained competitive advantage—is not | ubiquity but scarcity. You only gain an edge over rivals by having or | doing something that they can’t have or do. By now, the core functions | of IT—data storage, data processing, and data transport—have become | available and affordable to all.1 Their very power and presence have | begun to transform them from potentially strategic resources into | commodity factors of production. They are becoming costs of doing | business that must be paid by all but provide distinction to none. Now replace IT by CS. CS matters because it has stopped being visible -- entered the woodword. This is the underlying principle of python replacing scheme for programming at MIT. Its not that python is a better language. Its rather that doing the job and getting out of the way is more crucial today than 1980. http://cemerick.com/2009/03/24/why-mit-now-uses-python-instead-of-scheme-for-its-undergraduate-cs-program/ So cryptographic algos need (typically) 1. An algorithmic language 2. Fast implementations Python only provides 1, C provides both.So C is more useful (ignoring the marginal effects of inertia) > > Is the diff between cvs/svn and git "just one vcs or another"? > The theory of version control, or source control, or whatever you want > to call it, can be found in some of the docs for those systems (git > goes into some depth about the Directed Acyclic Graph that underpins > everything), but that theory isn't what makes git or cvs/svn useful. > The theory behind my MUD client "Gypsum" is that it should be built > the way a server is, including that it should not need to be restarted > even when there's new code to be loaded in; but that's not what makes > Gypsum useful. > The theory behind an ergonomic keyboard is that it should hurt your > hands less than a classic keyboard does, but that's not what makes it > useful. Actually, in that instance, it might be what makes it > useless... These examples are very different: 1. MUD I dont know 2. Ergonomic keyboard is a good example. For a ergonomic keyboard to be useful it has to satisfy the precondition "Not more than a δ neighborhood away from QWERTY" 3. Git: We differ on whats the underlying theory. For me crucial is a. Peer-to-peer replacing client-server -- this gives the D in DVCS b. Branching as central to software (more generally any material) development
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Mark H Harris <harrismh777@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-04-07 20:33 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <lhvjlb$p9o$1@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #69771 |
On 4/6/14 12:31 PM, Rustom Mody wrote:
> I think python wins because it (usually) lets people do their thing
> (includes but not limited to CS-research)
> and gets out of the way. To say therefore that it is irrelevant to the
> research is a strange inversion of its advantages.
I think so too. I find python useful for modeling (prototyping)
constructs that it [python interpreter] was not 'designed' to do.
> [Or simply just switch to C++ for 3 months and report back with
> the increment in your white-hair-count]
Back in the day I used Rexx to prototype a new language idea, or a
new computational technique. Today I use python for prototyping.
From a CS standpoint I can use python for research in morphology
because of the flexibility and extensibility of the namespace, and the
easy ability to create new nouns and verbs through 'def' (as either
function or generator) and the iterative process over data types like
'list' and 'dict'. I am playing with neural nets again, using python,
and liking the fact that I can put my ideas into practice easily and
python gets out of the way. I find it a great research language. I am
surprised that others only see it as a problem solving tool.
I have another question for y'all, is a function (particularly a
generator) a noun or a verb? Does a function (or generator) 'do'
something (based on name and parms) or does it 'return' something based
on name and parms? Based on name and parms should a function (or
generator) function as a noun, or function as a verb, or *both*? --or,
are Classes nouns only, and all functions *are* verbs only?
marcus
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | MRAB <python@mrabarnett.plus.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-04-08 02:52 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <mailman.8988.1396921964.18130.python-list@python.org> |
| In reply to | #69823 |
On 2014-04-08 02:33, Mark H Harris wrote: > On 4/6/14 12:31 PM, Rustom Mody wrote: > >> I think python wins because it (usually) lets people do their thing >> (includes but not limited to CS-research) >> and gets out of the way. To say therefore that it is irrelevant to the >> research is a strange inversion of its advantages. > > I think so too. I find python useful for modeling (prototyping) > constructs that it [python interpreter] was not 'designed' to do. > >> [Or simply just switch to C++ for 3 months and report back with >> the increment in your white-hair-count] > > Back in the day I used Rexx to prototype a new language idea, or a > new computational technique. Today I use python for prototyping. > > From a CS standpoint I can use python for research in morphology > because of the flexibility and extensibility of the namespace, and the > easy ability to create new nouns and verbs through 'def' (as either > function or generator) and the iterative process over data types like > 'list' and 'dict'. I am playing with neural nets again, using python, > and liking the fact that I can put my ideas into practice easily and > python gets out of the way. I find it a great research language. I am > surprised that others only see it as a problem solving tool. > > > I have another question for y'all, is a function (particularly a > generator) a noun or a verb? Does a function (or generator) 'do' > something (based on name and parms) or does it 'return' something based > on name and parms? Based on name and parms should a function (or > generator) function as a noun, or function as a verb, or *both*? --or, > are Classes nouns only, and all functions *are* verbs only? > A function is an object (noun) that does stuff (verb). Does that make it clearer? :-)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-04-08 13:02 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <mailman.8990.1396926161.18130.python-list@python.org> |
| In reply to | #69823 |
On Tue, Apr 8, 2014 at 11:33 AM, Mark H Harris <harrismh777@gmail.com> wrote: > Does a function (or generator) 'do' something (based on name and parms) or > does it 'return' something based on name and parms? If it has no side effects, then it does something, where the 'something' is returning a value. "Return" is a verb. (It can also be a noun, but in the context of functions, it's a verb.) ChrisA
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Steven D'Aprano <steve@pearwood.info> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-04-08 08:21 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <5343b186$0$11109$c3e8da3@news.astraweb.com> |
| In reply to | #69823 |
On Mon, 07 Apr 2014 20:33:31 -0500, Mark H Harris wrote:
> I have another question for y'all, is a function (particularly a
> generator) a noun or a verb?
Mu.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mu_%28negative%29#.22Unasking.22_the_question
Nouns and verbs are concepts from a completely different magisteria,
namely linguistics. Functions are no more a noun (or verb) than list
comprehensions are adjectives.
What we can say is that in Python, functions are objects, and being
objects, they are also values, like ints, strings, lists, floats, etc.
Even in languages where functions are not first-class values, e.g.
Pascal, we treat them as abstract things rather than actions, so
linguistically we use functions as nouns. E.g. given a function "spam",
we might say "pass the argument to spam" rather than "spam that argument".
We do that even when the function is named for a verb: "pass the argument
to execute". (English is great for this: we can use nearly every verb as
a noun, if the context is understood.)
> Does a function (or generator) 'do'
> something (based on name and parms) or does it 'return' something based
> on name and parms?
Both. Returning something is just a special case of doing. Monkeys climb,
fish swim, cows moo, functions return, and programmers drink caffeinated
drinks.
> Based on name and parms should a function (or
> generator) function as a noun, or function as a verb, or *both*? --or,
> are Classes nouns only, and all functions *are* verbs only?
I *think* you are referring to naming conventions here.
Functions which are intended to be used as a procedure, that is, only for
their side-effects, should be named using a verb:
time.sleep
dict.update
list.append
Spam.make_yummy_foodstuffs
Functions which are intended to return a value may be named as verbs:
run
eval
sorted
print
or as nouns:
int
str
dict
namedtuple
coordinate
array
(the first three are now types, i.e. classes, but early in Python they
were functions).
Classes represent things (possible abstract things), and so should be
named as nouns, not verbs:
Runner not Run or Do_Run
Decimal not Decimalize or Do_Decimal
float not Make_Floating_Point
Generator functions are called for their value: a generator function
returns a generator, and a generator is a value:
def make_generator(n):
for i in range(n):
yield "something"
gen = make_generator(23)
Since the generator object itself is a thing, it should be named with a
noun. Since the generator function is also a thing, and it is called for
it's return value, not a side-effect, it could be named as a verb or a
noun, whichever you prefer, or makes sense in context.
Are there "things" in Python that aren't values? No. But there is syntax
that represents verbs:
import this
del that
for <something> [do]: this
while condition [do]: that
There's no such thing in Python as an "Import object" or a "DelType
value", but Python provides verbs for those commands.
--
Steven
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | alex23 <wuwei23@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-04-09 10:39 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <li24sm$3g9$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #69843 |
On 8/04/2014 6:21 PM, Steven D'Aprano wrote: > Functions which are intended to return a value may be named as verbs: > [...] > or as nouns: > int Shorthand for 'integerise'. > str 'stringify' > dict 'dictionarate' > coordinate > array These are both verbs. ...I'll get me coat.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-04-09 12:26 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <mailman.9050.1397010375.18130.python-list@python.org> |
| In reply to | #69913 |
On Wed, Apr 9, 2014 at 10:39 AM, alex23 <wuwei23@gmail.com> wrote: >> int > > > Shorthand for 'integerise'. Not at all. "Integrate". It's a vital mathematical operation, that's why you always get a number back. ... I'll get my coat, too. ChrisA
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Rustom Mody <rustompmody@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-04-08 03:53 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <3bd43172-2cd3-4aba-8946-a02c87f61257@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #69823 |
On Tuesday, April 8, 2014 7:03:31 AM UTC+5:30, Mark H. Harris wrote: > I have another question for y'all, is a function (particularly a > generator) a noun or a verb? Does a function (or generator) 'do' > something (based on name and parms) or does it 'return' something based > on name and parms? Based on name and parms should a function (or > generator) function as a noun, or function as a verb, or *both*? --or, > are Classes nouns only, and all functions *are* verbs only? If your question is "What is (function/generator...)?" the answer is noun If your question is "What does it (function/generator...) do/behave?" the answer is verb
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-04-07 03:27 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <mailman.8955.1396805656.18130.python-list@python.org> |
| In reply to | #69770 |
On Mon, Apr 7, 2014 at 2:52 AM, Steven D'Aprano
<steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> wrote:
> (4) This is the category which I was referring to when I said that Python
> wasn't a "computer-science-ey language": do people use Python for
> research into language-independent fundamental principles of computation?
> I don't think so. I agree with Marko that normally you:
>
>> you either use a pseudolanguage or some sort of formalism that
>> hasn't been implemented.
>
> E.g. most of the really deep stuff by Turing wasn't even performed on a
> computer...
A simple reason for that is summed up in the Zen of Python:
Practicality beats purity. For a comp sci theoretical study, you want
something that exemplifies purity. That's why you get examples like
the ones mentioned below - a dining philosopher is fundamentally
unable to do such a simple thing as look to see what his neighbours
are doing, and is also apparently unable to think and eat at the same
time (plus, why on earth can't they afford a few more forks in the
interests of hygiene??!?). Defining all of mathematics in terms of
lambda is wonderfully pure, and utterly useless for any practical
purpose.
It's the same, in my opinion, with the eternal arguments about
functional vs imperative vs declarative programming languages, and
with the differences between compilers and interpreters, and whether
something's a second-generation or third-generation or
fourth-generation language. You can define all those terms in nice
pure ways ("a compiler translates code into something that can be
executed directly, but an interpreter parses code bit by bit and
executes it"), but most actually-usable systems blur the lines. I
still haven't seen any real definition of FP or OOP (especially the
latter, O!) that doesn't ultimately come down to "avoid these language
features which violate FP/OOP principles", which means that most
programming languages (and more so with popular languages) are neither
and/or both. It's all very well to say that everything is a function
whose return value depends solely on its arguments, but practicality
demands that you allow side effects in certain places. And it's all
very well to say that everything's an object and every bit of code is
a method, but aiming too far for purity results in Java-like syntactic
salt. Pike avoids this somewhat by letting you pretend that it's a
C-like module with top-level functions, but actually it's instantiated
an object and called a method on it. That's occasionally useful, but
most of the time you just ignore it and work imperatively. Python goes
a bit further: top-level is just code like anything else, and it gets
executed straight down the line. Practicality beats purity.
>> * unfaithful husbands on an island ruled by female logicians
>
> I don't know that one.
Me neither, although I can see elements of classic logic analysis
elements. Islands ruled by logicians, people who always tell the truth
/ always tell exact falsehoods, etc, etc. I don't know of any that
involve unfaithful husbands, but it wouldn't surprise me. Would like
to hear it though.
ChrisA
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Marko Rauhamaa <marko@pacujo.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-04-06 23:23 +0300 |
| Message-ID | <87ppku436s.fsf@elektro.pacujo.net> |
| In reply to | #69772 |
Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com>:
>>> * unfaithful husbands on an island ruled by female logicians
>>
>> I don't know that one.
>
> Me neither, although I can see elements of classic logic analysis
> elements. Islands ruled by logicians, people who always tell the truth
> / always tell exact falsehoods, etc, etc. I don't know of any that
> involve unfaithful husbands, but it wouldn't surprise me. Would like
> to hear it though.
Here's how I remember it:
There was a tiny matriarchal island ruled by a queen. The women were
capable logicians and that was common knowledge. The idyllic island had
a problem, though: faithless husbands. The queen decided to solve the
problem and summoned all women to the market square. She said:
We need to solve the problem of unfaithful husbands once and for
all. Now, we all know which men are cheating on their wives except
our own. I hereby ban you from talking about this matter with each
other ever again. However, if one day you should come to know your
husband has been unfaithful, I am ordering you to show no mercy but
shoot him to death the following night while he is asleep.
The women left and went back to their business. The night after 40
days, shots were heard throughout the island.
How many husbands were unfaithful? How did they find out?
It was a variation of numerous similar puzzles and was the topic of a
dissertation on knowledge logic, IIRC.
Marko
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Mark Lawrence <breamoreboy@yahoo.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-04-06 19:09 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <mailman.8958.1396807789.18130.python-list@python.org> |
| In reply to | #69770 |
On 06/04/2014 18:27, Chris Angelico wrote: > (plus, why on earth can't they afford a few more forks in the > interests of hygiene??!?). They couldn't get the purchase order for these capital cost items past the accountants. -- My fellow Pythonistas, ask not what our language can do for you, ask what you can do for our language. Mark Lawrence --- This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active. http://www.avast.com
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-04-07 04:14 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <mailman.8960.1396808070.18130.python-list@python.org> |
| In reply to | #69770 |
On Mon, Apr 7, 2014 at 4:09 AM, Mark Lawrence <breamoreboy@yahoo.co.uk> wrote: > On 06/04/2014 18:27, Chris Angelico wrote: >> >> (plus, why on earth can't they afford a few more forks in the >> interests of hygiene??!?). > > > They couldn't get the purchase order for these capital cost items past the > accountants. That would explain why they spend so much time thinking. Can't afford pencils and paper to write their thoughts down, so they sit in the sun and one by one they collect their thoughts and think them over. ChrisA
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Marko Rauhamaa <marko@pacujo.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-04-06 23:10 +0300 |
| Message-ID | <87txa643so.fsf@elektro.pacujo.net> |
| In reply to | #69770 |
Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info>: > On Sun, 06 Apr 2014 12:05:16 +0300, Marko Rauhamaa wrote: >> Python, BTW, is perfectly suitable for computer science. > > I don't think it is. Python is not a pure functional language, so it's > very difficult to prove anything about the code apart from running it. Many classic CS ideas are expressed in terms of an Algol-like language. Nothing would prevent you from framing those ideas in a Python-like (pseudo)language. The question is mostly whether you prefer begin/end, braces or indentation. >> * combinatory birds in forests > > I don't believe that came from academia. If I've understood correctly, > that was from a non-academic book on applying the lambda calculus to > solve practical applications. It is academic because the author, Raymond Smullyan, was a professor of philosophy and, more importantly, my professor selected that as a textbook for us graduate students. Marko
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Mark Lawrence <breamoreboy@yahoo.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-04-06 21:56 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <mailman.8964.1396817791.18130.python-list@python.org> |
| In reply to | #69780 |
On 06/04/2014 21:10, Marko Rauhamaa wrote: > > Many classic CS ideas are expressed in terms of an Algol-like language. > Nothing would prevent you from framing those ideas in a Python-like > (pseudo)language. The question is mostly whether you prefer begin/end, > braces or indentation. > Of course whilst all this work in the fields of languages, algorithms and such like has been going on, in parallel engineers have been working on the hardware side of things. My understanding is that some abacuses now have as many as ten strings on them. Although this scale was at first difficult for the users to grasp, the designers came up with the fantastic idea of using different coloured beads on different strings to simplify the user experience. -- My fellow Pythonistas, ask not what our language can do for you, ask what you can do for our language. Mark Lawrence --- This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active. http://www.avast.com
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-04-06 23:48 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <5341e7c6$0$29993$c3e8da3$5496439d@news.astraweb.com> |
| In reply to | #69780 |
On Sun, 06 Apr 2014 23:10:47 +0300, Marko Rauhamaa wrote: > Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info>: > >> On Sun, 06 Apr 2014 12:05:16 +0300, Marko Rauhamaa wrote: >>> Python, BTW, is perfectly suitable for computer science. >> >> I don't think it is. Python is not a pure functional language, so it's >> very difficult to prove anything about the code apart from running it. > > Many classic CS ideas are expressed in terms of an Algol-like language. > Nothing would prevent you from framing those ideas in a Python-like > (pseudo)language. The question is mostly whether you prefer begin/end, > braces or indentation. Okay, I made an error in stating that it's because Python is not a pure functional language. It's because Python is so dynamic that it is very difficult to prove anything about the code apart from running it. Take this code-snippet of Python: n = len([1, 2, 3]) What can we say about it? Almost nothing! All we know is that the name "len" will be looked up, it may or may not find something, that thing may or may not be callable, calling it with a list may or may not succeed, and it may or may not return 3 when given that specific list as input. From the perspective of wanting to prove things about the code, there's not a lot of certainty there. If we replace Python with a Python-like language which is closer to the traditional Algol mode of built-in functions being keywords (and hence unable to be shadowed or deleted) then we can reason about the behaviour more successfully. Alas, a Python-like language is not Python, and our discussion is about whether or not *Python* is suitable for this use. >>> * combinatory birds in forests >> >> I don't believe that came from academia. If I've understood correctly, >> that was from a non-academic book on applying the lambda calculus to >> solve practical applications. > > It is academic because the author, Raymond Smullyan, was a professor of > philosophy and, more importantly, my professor selected that as a > textbook for us graduate students. Ah. Well they do that, don't they? I've always consider the ability of professors to select their own book as text to be a classic case of conflict of interest. They're supposed to pick the best book, not necessarily the one that earns them money. -- Steven D'Aprano http://import-that.dreamwidth.org/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Terry Reedy <tjreedy@udel.edu> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-04-06 20:45 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <mailman.8967.1396831574.18130.python-list@python.org> |
| In reply to | #69787 |
On 4/6/2014 7:48 PM, Steven D'Aprano wrote: > On Sun, 06 Apr 2014 23:10:47 +0300, Marko Rauhamaa wrote: > >> Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info>: >> >>> On Sun, 06 Apr 2014 12:05:16 +0300, Marko Rauhamaa wrote: >>>> Python, BTW, is perfectly suitable for computer science. >>> >>> I don't think it is. Python is not a pure functional language, so it's >>> very difficult to prove anything about the code apart from running it. >> >> Many classic CS ideas are expressed in terms of an Algol-like language. >> Nothing would prevent you from framing those ideas in a Python-like >> (pseudo)language. The question is mostly whether you prefer begin/end, >> braces or indentation. > > Okay, I made an error in stating that it's because Python is not a pure > functional language. It's because Python is so dynamic that it is very > difficult to prove anything about the code apart from running it. Take > this code-snippet of Python: > > n = len([1, 2, 3]) > > What can we say about it? Almost nothing! One merely needs to stipulate that builtin names have not been rebound to give the answer: n is bound to 3. In the absence of code or text specifying otherwise, that is the reasonable default assumption and the one that most makes when reading code. Restricting the usage of Python's flexibility does not make it another language. It makes it the actual language that the vast majority of programs are written in and that people assume when reading code. -- Terry Jan Reedy
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 11 of 21 — ← Prev page 1 … 9 10 [11] 12 13 … 21 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.python
csiph-web