date:20110407

Re: who moved reload?

2011-04-07 Thread harrismh777


harrismh777 wrote:

You guys want one more...?

... we can't import tkconstants any longer nope.


import tkinter.tkconstants


oops... so upset I finger-checked...  long day...

This works:

import tkinter
from tkinter.constants import *


This used to work:

import Tkinter
from Tkconstants import *

...  not any more.


regards,
m harris
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list

Re: who moved reload?

2011-04-07 Thread geremy condra

On Wed, Apr 6, 2011 at 10:57 PM, harrismh777 harrismh...@charter.net wrote:
 harrismh777 wrote:

 You guys want one more...?

 ... we can't import tkconstants any longer nope.


 import tkinter.tkconstants

 oops... so upset I finger-checked...  long day...

 This works:

 import tkinter
 from tkinter.constants import *


 This used to work:

 import Tkinter
 from Tkconstants import *

 ...  not any more.

Yep, things have moved. Glad you're finding your way around now!

Geremy Condra
-- 
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list

Re: Multiprocessing, shared memory vs. pickled copies

2011-04-07 Thread John Ladasky

Hello again, Philip,

I really appreciate you sticking with me.  Hopefully this will help
someone else, too.  I've done some more reading, and will offer some
minimal code below.

I've known about this page for a while, and it describes some of the
unconventional things one needs to consider when subclassing
numpy.ndarray:

http://www.scipy.org/Subclasses

Now, section 11.1 of the Python documentation says the following
concerning pickling:  Classes can further influence how their
instances are pickled; if the class defines the method __getstate__(),
it is called and the return state is pickled as the contents for the
instance, instead of the contents of the instance’s dictionary. If
there is no __getstate__() method, the instance’s __dict__ is
pickled.

http://docs.python.org/release/2.6.6/library/pickle.html

That being said, I'm having problems there!  I've found this minimal
example of pickling with overridden __getstate__ and __setstate__
methods:

http://stackoverflow.com/questions/1939058/please-give-me-a-simple-example-about-setstate-and-getstate-thanks

I'll put all of the thoughts generated by these links together after
responding to a few things you wrote.

On Apr 5, 10:43 am, Philip Semanchuk phi...@semanchuk.com wrote:
 But as Dan Stromberg pointed out, there are some pickle-free ways to 
 communicate between processes using multiprocessing.

I only see your reply to Dan Stromberg in this thread, but not Dan
Stromberg's original post.  I am reading this through Google Groups.
Perhaps Dan's post failed to make it through a gateway for some
reason?

 As a side note, you should always use new style classes, particularly since 
 you're exploring the details of Python class construction. New is a bit a 
 of misnomer now, as new style classes were introduced in Python 2.2. They 
 have been the status quo in Python 2.x for a while now and are the only 
 choice in Python 3.x.

Sorry, that was an oversight on my part.  Normally I do remember that,
but I've been doing a lot of subclassing rather than defining top-
level classes, and therefore it slipped my mind.

 One can pickle user-defined classes:

OK, I got that working, I'll show an example farther down.  (I never
tried to pickle a minimal class until now, I went straight for a hard
one.)

 And as Robert Kern pointed out, numpy arrays are also pickle-able.

OK, but SUBCLASSES of numpy.ndarray are not, in my hands, pickling as
I would expect.  I already have lots of code that is based on such
subclasses, and they do everything I want EXCEPT pickle correctly.  I
may have to direct this line of questions to the numpy discussion
group after all.

This is going to be a longer exposition.  So let me thank you in
advance for your patience, and ask you to get comfortable.


== begin code ==

from numpy import array, ndarray
from pickle import dumps, loads

##===

class Foo(object):

def __init__(self, contents):
self.contents = contents

def __str__(self):
return str(type(self)) + \n + str(self.__dict__)

##===

class SuperFoo(Foo):

def __getstate__(self):
print __getstate__
duplicate = dict(self.__dict__)
duplicate[bonus] = added during pickling
return duplicate

def __setstate__(self, d):
print __setstate__
self.__dict__ = d
self.finale = added during unpickling

##===

class ArraySubclass(ndarray):

See http://www.scipy.org/Subclasses, this class is very similar.

def __new__(subclass, data, extra=None, dtype=None, copy=False):
print   __new__
arr = array(data, dtype=dtype, copy=copy)
arr = arr.view(subclass)
if extra is not None:
arr.extra = extra
elif hasattr(data, extra):
arr.extra = data.extra
return arr

def __array_finalize__(self, other):
print   __array_finalize__
self.__dict__ = getattr(other, __dict__, {})

def __str__(self):
return str(type(self)) + \n + ndarray.__str__(self) + \
\n__dict__ :  + str(self.__dict__)

##===

class PicklableArraySubclass(ArraySubclass):

def __getstate__(self):
print __getstate__
return self.__dict__

def __setstate__(self, d):
print __setstate__
self.__dict__ = d

##===

print \n\n** Create a Foo object, then create a copy via pickling.
original = Foo(pickle me please)
print original
clone = loads(dumps(original))
print clone

print \n\n** Create a SuperFoo object, just to watch __setstate__ and
__getstate__.
original = SuperFoo(pickle me too, please)
print original
clone = loads(dumps(original))
print clone

print \n\n** Create a numpy ndarray, then create a copy via
pickling.
original = array(((1,2,3),(4,5,6)))
print original
clone = loads(dumps(original))
print clone

print \n\n** Create an ArraySubclass object, with meta-data...
original = ArraySubclass(((9,8,7),(6,5,4)), extra = pickle me
PLEASE!)
print original
print \n...now

Re: Python benefits over Cobra

2011-04-07 Thread Steven D'Aprano

On Thu, 07 Apr 2011 00:25:46 -0500, harrismh777 wrote:

 The gnu suite of tools and the linux kernel were the keys to unlocking
 Microsoft lock-in... brilliant technologies for innovation and freedom.

I used to believe this too, but then I found I was relying on Linux and 
GNU software so much that I couldn't afford to move away from Linux and 
GNU. Damn lock-in.



-- 
Steven
-- 
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list

Re: python 3 - instantiating class from user input

2011-04-07 Thread Steven D'Aprano

On Wed, 06 Apr 2011 21:04:44 -0700, Brad Bailey wrote:

 I dont understand why this is such a big deal. Nor do i understand why
 google can't find a reasonable answer. If one can't figure out from the
 title what I'm trying to do, then a look at code should firmly plant the
 intent. The general idea of the code is, in my opinion, very basic.
 
 I notice, that when you are coding a class instance, it's in the format
 of: newInstance = someClass()
 
 OK, so we are calling someClass as if it's a function. Is there a way to
 do something to the effect of:
  someClass(newInstance)

I don't know. What effect do you expect? 

Please don't assume that just because you've spent hours searching for an 
answer, we know what the question is.





-- 
Steven
-- 
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list

Hack SkyPe Account 2.1

2011-04-07 Thread John Carenal

Hi EveryBody This Program To Hack Sky Pe Account
Just Paste A Email For Sky Pe And Click (Get Pass) Yeah Its True Try

It Its Free From Here

http://www.4shared.com/file/wFtoiI7z/Promar_Hack_Skype_21.html

Download Now
-- 
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list

Re: [OT] Free software versus software idea patents

2011-04-07 Thread Steven D'Aprano

On Thu, 07 Apr 2011 00:03:54 -0500, harrismh777 wrote:

 Ben Finney wrote:
 It's difficult to take a claim of “free” seriously for a technology
 (Mono) that knowingly implements techniques (the “C#” language, the
 “.NET” platform, etc.) covered by specific idea patents held by an
 entity that demonstrates every intention of wielding them to restrict
 the freedom of software recipients.
 
 Yes, precisely.
 
 In my view, Mono encourages .NET; and that's bad. Idea patents and
 particularly idea patents covering mathematics 

Do you have an example of a patent covering mathematics that applies 
to .NET?


 ( every known piece of
 software ever written can be described by lambda algebra ) 

And every piece of hardware can be described by a mathematical function, 
so does this mean you oppose *all* patents?


 are not truly
 patentable... which is why some of us are vigorously fighting software
 patents (as well at the corporations who wield them).

What are you doing to fight software patents?



 Software must be free (as in freedom). Encouraging interoperability with
 known agendas against freedom is inconsistent with the fundamental
 proposal. 

I would have thought that if you really, truly believed in freedom, you 
would be happy to allow people the freedom to interoperate with non-free 
software. But perhaps you meant that software must be free, provided only 
the right sorts of freedom are supported.


 C# was an effort to lock-in commercial developers into the
 .NET framework (and it almost damn-well worked!).

Got a source for that?

News just in: 100% of all enterprises are using .NET or Java!

http://discuss.fogcreek.com/joelonsoftware5/default.asp?cmd=showixPost=162367

sarcasm
And you can trust it because Forrester said so!
/sarcasm


As I see it, C# has never had more than an 8% market share. But perhaps 
you have some better data.



 At this point Microsoft has absolutely nothing to offer the computer
 science community at large except bzillions of euros ( or dollars ) of
 wasteful litigation and head-ache. 

Do you have an example of this wasteful litigation?




-- 
Steven
-- 
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list

Re: [OT] Free software versus software idea patents (was: Python benefits over Cobra)

2011-04-07 Thread Steven D'Aprano

On Thu, 07 Apr 2011 07:50:56 +1000, Ben Finney wrote:

Steven D'Aprano steve+comp.lang.pyt...@pearwood.info writes:

Mono is free, open source software that is compatible with .NET
[…]

It's difficult to take a claim of “free” seriously for a technology
(Mono) that knowingly implements techniques (the “C#” language, the
“.NET” platform, etc.) covered by specific idea patents held by an
entity that demonstrates every intention of wielding them to restrict
the freedom of software recipients.

It's astonishing how anti-Mono FUD just won't die. (Something can be
true, and still FUD. Oh no, people might *choke* on a peanut, or have an
allergic reaction, we must label every piece of food May Contain Nuts
just in case, because you never know!!!)

Let's reword your concern slightly:

It's difficult to take a claim of “free” seriously for
technologies (including, but not limited to, HTML, CSS, C++,
XML, Public Key Cryptography, packet-based multimedia, IPv6)
that knowingly or unknowingly [the later not being a defence
against infringement] implement techniques covered by specific
idea patents held by an entity that allegedly demonstrates
every intention, or at least some intention, of wielding them
to restrict the freedom of software recipients.

Perhaps every piece of software should be labeled May Infringe Patents.

I've seen a lot of FUD about Mono, but nothing to suggest that it is at
more risk than any other piece of non-trivial software. As far as I know,
there is only one major piece of FOSS that *has* actually been sued for
patent infringement, and it's not Mono.

Software idea patents are incompatible with free software. Every
non-trivial program likely violates countless such patents, but most of
those patents are not yet enforced even in the unlucky jurisdictions
where they are recognised by law.

Right. So why single out Mono? Python likely violates countless such
patents, so obviously we can't take the idea of Python being free
seriously either. Same with Perl, and the Linux kernel, and the entire
Gnu tool set. As you say, quite probably every piece of non-trivial
software you have used, or ever will use, or write, infringes.

By this logic, we can't take the idea of FOSS software seriously at all,
since no software can be expected to be free from infringing some patent
somewhere.

But of course, the conclusion does not follow from the premise. Yes, Mono
is at risk from patents, *possibly even from Microsoft*. So is everything
else. So why single out Mono as non-serious?

(Although it is in Microsoft's best interest to tolerate Mono. It's in
their best interests to tolerate FOSS. And as their recent actions show:

http://www.betanews.com/article/Microsoft-cozies-up-to-open-source-donates-10-to-Apache/1217018107
http://www.crunchgear.com/2009/07/24/linus-torvalds-speaks-out-on-the-microsoft-gpl-code-contribution/

at least parts of Microsoft have finally come to recognise this.)

More here:

http://www.jprl.com/Blog/archive/development/mono/2009/Jan-19.html

Microsoft, though, is clearly a vigorous enforcer of software idea
patents they hold. They have been very cagey about stating what they
will and won't enforce about patents they hold on .NET – and none of
those statements are binding.

This is complete FUD. I suggest you start with this:

http://www.microsoft.com/interop/cp/default.mspx

Perhaps what you mean is, none of the licences granted are *irrevocable*.
But the same applies to the GPL -- break the GPL's (generous) terms, and
you too could find that your licence is revoked.

Is it possible that there could be portions of .NET or Mono which are
unclear patent-wise? Of course it is possible, it's even likely. Software
patents are truly a mess. But there is zero evidence I have seen that Mono
is more of a mess patent-wise, or more of a risk, than any other non-trivial
piece of software. With large portions of Mono protected by the Microsoft
Community Promise licence, it may even be that Mono is *safer* than most
FOSS software.

Microsoft is far less vigorous at enforcing patents than many other
companies. (This is possibly a bad thing, when they darkly drop hints
that there are secret patent infringements in Linux and some day there
will be a reckoning...) Given the tens, or is it hundreds, of thousands
of patents they hold, they've barely used them.

Do you want to know who scares me? Google and Apple. Google, because
they're turning software from something you run on your own computer to
something you use on a distant server you have no control over. And
Apple, because they're turning the computer from a general purpose
computing device you control, to a locked-down, restricted, controlled
specialist machine that only runs what they permit you to run. But I
digress.

1 2 3 >

1 - 100 of 209 matches

Mail list logo