Citizen Kant wrote:
What I do here is to try to "understand". That's different from just knowing. Knowledge growth must be consequence of understanding's increasing. As the scope of my understanding increases, the more I look for increasing my knowledge. Never vice versa, because, knowing isn't like to be right, it's just knowing.
It doesn't always work that way. With some facts plus a theory, you can deduce more facts. But it's always possible for there to be more facts that you can't deduce from what you already know.
But take in account that with "shortening" I refer to "according to Python's axiomatic parameters".
I think what you're trying to say is that it takes an expression and reduces it to a canonical form, such as a single number or single string. That's true as far as it goes, but it barely scratches the surface of what the Python interpreter is capable of doing. In the most general terms, the Python interpeter (or any other computer system, for that matter) can be thought of as something with an internal state, and a transition function that takes the state together with some input and produces another state together with some output: F(S1, I) --> (S2, O) (Computer scientists call this a "finite state machine", because there is a limited number of possible internal states -- the computer only has so much RAM, disk space, etc.) This seems to be what you're trying to get at with your game-of-chess analogy. What distinguishes one computer system from another is the transition function. The transition function of the Python interpreter is rather complicated, and it's unlikely that you would be able to figure out all its details just by poking in inputs and observing the outputs. If you really want to understand it, you're going to have to learn some facts, I'm sorry to say. :-) -- Greg -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list