On Fri, May 26, 2006, Fredrik Lundh wrote:
and while we're at it, let's fix this:
0.66 * (1, 2, 3)
(1, 2)
and maybe even this
0.5 * (1, 2, 3)
(1, 1)
but I guess the latter one might need a pronunciation.
This should certainly get fixed in 3.0 thanks to
Greg Ewing wrote:
Steve Holden wrote:
In actual fact the effbot has lately found itself so permeated with
Windows that it has become constituionally incapable of using a forward
slash. Don't know what's with the square brackets though ...
I was thinking maybe that message had resulted
2006/5/25, Fredrik Lundh [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
-1 * (1, 2, 3)
()
-(1, 2, 3)
Traceback (most recent call last):
File stdin, line 1, in module
TypeError: bad operand type for unary -
We Really Need To Fix This!
I don't see here an inconsistency. The operator * is not a
multiplier as in
On Fri, May 26, 2006 at 12:37:02PM -0300, Facundo Batista wrote:
- Treat the negative as a reverser, so we get back (3, 2, 1).
Then we could get:
print -123
321
Yay!
Thanks,
Sean
--
Sometimes it pays to stay in bed on Monday, rather than spending the rest
of the week debugging
2006/5/26, Sean Reifschneider [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
On Fri, May 26, 2006 at 12:37:02PM -0300, Facundo Batista wrote:
- Treat the negative as a reverser, so we get back (3, 2, 1).
Then we could get:
print -123
321
An integer is NOT a sequence.
OTOH, that should be consistent to
-1 *
Facundo Batista wrote:
2006/5/26, Sean Reifschneider [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
On Fri, May 26, 2006 at 12:37:02PM -0300, Facundo Batista wrote:
- Treat the negative as a reverser, so we get back (3, 2, 1).
Then we could get:
print -123
321
An integer is NOT a sequence.
OTOH, that
Sean Reifschneider wrote:
- Treat the negative as a reverser, so we get back (3, 2, 1).
Then we could get:
print -123
321
Yay!
and while we're at it, let's fix this:
0.66 * (1, 2, 3)
(1, 2)
and maybe even this
0.5 * (1, 2, 3)
(1, 1)
but I guess the
On Friday 26 May 2006 11:50, Georg Brandl wrote:
This is actually a nice idea, because it's even a more nonintuitive
answer for Python newbies posting to c.l.py asking how to reverse
a string wink
Even better:
123*-1
We'd get to explain:
- what the *- operator is all about, and
-
Fredrik Lundh wrote:
Sean Reifschneider wrote:
- Treat the negative as a reverser, so we get back (3, 2, 1).
Then we could get:
print -123
321
Yay!
and while we're at it, let's fix this:
0.66 * (1, 2, 3)
(1, 2)
and maybe even this
0.5 * (1, 2, 3)
Fred I see possibilities here. :-)
Fred appears to be looking for more job security. ;-)
Skip
___
Python-Dev mailing list
Python-Dev@python.org
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev
Unsubscribe:
Fred L. Drake, Jr. wrote:
Even better:
123*-1
We'd get to explain:
- what the *- operator is all about, and
- why we'd use it with a string and an int.
I see possibilities here. :-)
the infamous *- clear operator? who snuck that one into python?
/F
2006/5/26, Fred L. Drake, Jr. [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Even better:
123*-1
We'd get to explain:
- what the *- operator is all about, and
- why we'd use it with a string and an int.
I see possibilities here. :-)
All this different ways enforce my vote: we should get an error...
On 5/26/06, Facundo Batista [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
All this different ways enforce my vote: we should get an error...
Perhaps you missed Tim's post, so here's a few lines of my own code
that I know would break:
padding = [None] * (self.width - len(leaves))
left_padding = [None] *
2006/5/26, Steven Bethard [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
On 5/26/06, Facundo Batista [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
All this different ways enforce my vote: we should get an error...
...
But if this change goes in, I want a big we're breaking backwards
incompatibility message somewhere. I say if you
On 5/26/06, Facundo Batista [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I think that we can do one of the following, when we found -1 * (1, 2, 3):
- Treat -1 as 0 and return an empty tuple (actual behavior).
- Treat the negative as a reverser, so we get back (3, 2, 1).
- Raise an error.
No, no, no. The
-1 * (1, 2, 3)
()
-(1, 2, 3)
Traceback (most recent call last):
File stdin, line 1, in module
TypeError: bad operand type for unary -
We Really Need To Fix This!
[\F]
___
Python-Dev mailing list
Python-Dev@python.org
Fredrik Lundh wrote:
-1 * (1, 2, 3)
()
-(1, 2, 3)
Traceback (most recent call last):
File stdin, line 1, in module
TypeError: bad operand type for unary -
We Really Need To Fix This!
I can't find this inconsistency horrible.
py +Hello
Traceback (most recent call last):
File
Martin v. Löwis wrote:
Fredrik Lundh wrote:
-1 * (1, 2, 3)
()
-(1, 2, 3)
Traceback (most recent call last):
File stdin, line 1, in module
TypeError: bad operand type for unary -
We Really Need To Fix This!
I can't find this inconsistency horrible.
py +Hello
Traceback (most
You're joking right?
On 5/25/06, Fredrik Lundh [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
-1 * (1, 2, 3)
()
-(1, 2, 3)
Traceback (most recent call last):
File stdin, line 1, in module
TypeError: bad operand type for unary -
We Really Need To Fix This!
[\F]
Doesn't the real effbot have /F as sig?
On 25-mei-2006, at 23:04, Martin v. Löwis wrote:
Fredrik Lundh wrote:
-1 * (1, 2, 3)
()
-(1, 2, 3)
Traceback (most recent call last):
File stdin, line 1, in module
TypeError: bad operand type for unary -
We Really Need To Fix This!
I can't find this inconsistency horrible.
py
Ronald Oussoren wrote:
I don't know which one Fredrik thinks is wrong, but I think the result
of -1*(1,2,3) is very surprising. I'd expect an exception here.
I agree, but this has nothing to do with whether or not the unary -
is supported.
Regards,
Martin
On Thu, May 25, 2006 at 09:06:49PM +, Georg Brandl wrote:
Don't tell me that! I was actually working on a patch right now...
While undoubtedly a performance patch, it wasn't on the list of tasks to do
today. You risk Steve's wrath!
Thanks,
Sean
--
In the end, we will remember not the
Fredrik Lundh wrote:
-1 * (1, 2, 3)
()
-(1, 2, 3)
Traceback (most recent call last):
File stdin, line 1, in module
TypeError: bad operand type for unary -
We Really Need To Fix This!
The second one doesn't bug me. Unary minus on a sequence is meaningless.
The first is a bit odd.
[Fredrik]
-1 * (1, 2, 3)
()
-(1, 2, 3)
Traceback (most recent call last):
File stdin, line 1, in module
TypeError: bad operand type for unary -
We Really Need To Fix This!
What's broken? It's generally true that
n*s == s*n == empty_container_of_type_type(s)
whenever s is a
On 5/25/06, Raymond Hettinger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Fredrik Lundh wrote:
-1 * (1, 2, 3)
()
-(1, 2, 3)
Traceback (most recent call last):
File stdin, line 1, in module
TypeError: bad operand type for unary -
We Really Need To Fix This!
The second one doesn't bug me.
[Raymond Hettinger]
...
Also, I'm not clear on the rationale for transforming negative
repetition counts to zero instead of raising an exception.
There are natural use cases. Here's one: you have a string and want
to right-justify it to 80 columns with blanks if it's shorter than 80.
s =
Guido van Rossum wrote:
We Really Need To Fix This!
[\F]
Doesn't the real effbot have /F as sig?
yeah, we've had some trouble with fake bots lately. I mean, there's a
timbot posting to this thread, but I know for sure that the real Tim got
tired of hacking on Python earlier tonight, and
Fredrik Lundh wrote:
Guido van Rossum wrote:
We Really Need To Fix This!
[\F]
Doesn't the real effbot have /F as sig?
yeah, we've had some trouble with fake bots lately. I mean, there's a
timbot posting to this thread, but I know for sure that the real Tim got
tired of hacking on
Georg Brandl wrote:
Martin v. Löwis wrote:
Fredrik Lundh wrote:
-1 * (1, 2, 3)
()
-(1, 2, 3)
Traceback (most recent call last):
File stdin, line 1, in module
TypeError: bad operand type for unary -
We Really Need To Fix This!
I can't find this inconsistency horrible.
py
Steve Holden wrote:
In actual fact the effbot has lately found itself so permeated with
Windows that it has become constituionally incapable of using a forward
slash. Don't know what's with the square brackets though ...
I was thinking maybe that message had resulted from
a Windows and a
30 matches
Mail list logo
