Re: Removing Pubic Hair Methods
class genital: def pubic_hair(self): pass def remove(self): del(self.pubic_hair) Removing pubic hair methods [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Shaving is the most common removing pubic hair method. However, it is not the only one. After you have decided you want to remove your pubic hair, you will have to examine the different methods for removing pubic hair and decide which one is the best for you. The following lines include a brief glance of the existing pubic hair removal methods: 1. Shaving - razor shaving is the most popular removing pubic hair method. One should shave his pubic hair area carefully and gently using a proper razor and shaving cream. Make sure you wash and clean your pubic hair area before and after the shave. 2. Hair removal creams - those can cause lots of pain and allergic reactions. However, they are very effective in removing pubic hair. We suggest you test in on a harmless spot like your back or the inside of your elbow to check for possible allergic reactions. If your skin gets red or itchy for a long period of time (more than 3 hours) do use it. Again, wash you pubic hair area carefully after using this removing pubic hair method. 3. Waxing - We strongly suggest avoiding using wax for removing pubic hair. Most of the women can not stand the pain and the outcome is as good as the other removing pubic hair methods. 4. Electrolysis - A permanent pubic hair removing methods using electric shocks. It can be done in a hair salon or at home after purchasing a personal device. This method is very expensive (It may cost more than a thousand dollars). It also painful in most cases but this method provides a permanent pubic hair removal. 5. Pulling - We got to know in our research quite a few women who prefer pull their pubic hair out. It takes time, Its painful but it involves a satisfaction. Now you can make the proper decision on the best removing pubic hair method for you. Good luck. http://www.dontplayplay.com/html/Bothsexes/20061002/47329.html -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Removing Pubic Hair Methods
On Tue, 29 Jan 2008 11:48:38 -0800, Tobiah wrote: class genital: def pubic_hair(self): pass def remove(self): del(self.pubic_hair) I think `pubic_hair` is an attribute instead of a method. Oh, and ``del`` is a statement and not a function. So the way you wrote it with parentheses is a bit misleading. Ciao, Marc 'BlackJack' Rintsch -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Removing Pubic Hair Methods
Sion Arrowsmith wrote: Marc 'BlackJack' Rintsch [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Tue, 29 Jan 2008 11:48:38 -0800, Tobiah wrote: class genital: def pubic_hair(self): pass def remove(self): del(self.pubic_hair) I think `pubic_hair` is an attribute instead of a method. Oh, and ``del`` is a statement and not a function. So the way you wrote it with parentheses is a bit misleading. And who's going to want to call genital().remove() anyway? I will use genital().extend(), thats for shure ^^ -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Removing Pubic Hair Methods
Gerardo Herzig wrote: I will use genital().extend(), thats for shure ^^ Well, you never go wrong with apply(genital(), females), do you? /W -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Removing Pubic Hair Methods
Marc 'BlackJack' Rintsch [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Tue, 29 Jan 2008 11:48:38 -0800, Tobiah wrote: class genital: def pubic_hair(self): pass def remove(self): del(self.pubic_hair) I think `pubic_hair` is an attribute instead of a method. Oh, and ``del`` is a statement and not a function. So the way you wrote it with parentheses is a bit misleading. And who's going to want to call genital().remove() anyway? -- \S -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- http://www.chaos.org.uk/~sion/ Frankly I have no feelings towards penguins one way or the other -- Arthur C. Clarke her nu becomeþ se bera eadward ofdun hlæddre heafdes bæce bump bump bump -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Removing Pubic Hair Methods
Wildemar Wildenburger wrote: Gerardo Herzig wrote: I will use genital().extend(), thats for shure ^^ Well, you never go wrong with apply(genital(), females), do you? /W That's enough genitalia [ed] -- Steve Holden+1 571 484 6266 +1 800 494 3119 Holden Web LLC http://www.holdenweb.com/ -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Removing Pubic Hair Methods
On Wed, 30 Jan 2008 15:29:45 +0100, Wildemar Wildenburger wrote: Gerardo Herzig wrote: I will use genital().extend(), thats for shure ^^ Well, you never go wrong with apply(genital(), females), do you? `apply()` is deprecated. And ``genital(*females)`` looks a bit odd. :-) Ciao, Marc 'BlackJack' Rintsch -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Removing Pubic Hair Methods
On Jan 30, 5:03 pm, Marc 'BlackJack' Rintsch [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Wed, 30 Jan 2008 15:29:45 +0100, Wildemar Wildenburger wrote: Gerardo Herzig wrote: I will use genital().extend(), thats for shure ^^ Well, you never go wrong with apply(genital(), females), do you? `apply()` is deprecated. And ``genital(*females)`` looks a bit odd. :-) Well, that use case alone is enough to convince anyone that apply should stay :-) George -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Removing Pubic Hair Methods
On Jan 31, 3:13 am, Steve Holden [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Wildemar Wildenburger wrote: Well, you never go wrong with apply(genital(), females), do you? Never?! class PowerSocket () : def __init__ (self, plug=female, active=False) : self.plug = plug self.active = active females = [p for p in powersockets if p.active and p.plug == 'female'] Ouch!! If on the other hand 'females' is populated by instances of (or merely includes instances of) class 'Human', I suggest you test for female.consent somewhere in your code! -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Removing Pubic Hair Methods
On Jan 31, 12:57 am, Asun Friere [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Jan 31, 3:13 am, Steve Holden [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Wildemar Wildenburger wrote: Well, you never go wrong with apply(genital(), females), do you? Never?! class PowerSocket () : def __init__ (self, plug=female, active=False) : self.plug = plug self.active = active females = [p for p in powersockets if p.active and p.plug == 'female'] Ouch!! If on the other hand 'females' is populated by instances of (or merely includes instances of) class 'Human', I suggest you test for female.consent somewhere in your code! The Pythonic approach would be to try the action and catch a NoConsentException. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Removing Pubic Hair Methods
On Jan 31, 1:09 am, George Sakkis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Jan 30, 5:03 pm, Marc 'BlackJack' Rintsch [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Wed, 30 Jan 2008 15:29:45 +0100, Wildemar Wildenburger wrote: Gerardo Herzig wrote: I will use genital().extend(), thats for shure ^^ Well, you never go wrong with apply(genital(), females), do you? `apply()` is deprecated. And ``genital(*females)`` looks a bit odd. :-) Well, that use case alone is enough to convince anyone that apply should stay :-) The original had genital(), so that would be genital()(*females). But what is genital() anyway? A factory? -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Removing Pubic Hair Methods
MRAB [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: On Jan 31, 12:57 am, Asun Friere [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Ouch!! If on the other hand 'females' is populated by instances of (or merely includes instances of) class 'Human', I suggest you test for female.consent somewhere in your code! The Pythonic approach would be to try the action and catch a NoConsentException. You're making the classic Pythonista mistake: you behave as though EAFP applies everywhere. I assure you, in the above situation, it does not apply. -- \ He may look like an idiot and talk like an idiot but don't let | `\ that fool you. He really is an idiot. —Groucho Marx | _o__) | Ben Finney -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Removing Pubic Hair Methods
So in this case it is REALLY better to ask for permission rather than forgiveness? On Jan 30, 2008 10:30 PM, Ben Finney [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: MRAB [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: On Jan 31, 12:57 am, Asun Friere [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Ouch!! If on the other hand 'females' is populated by instances of (or merely includes instances of) class 'Human', I suggest you test for female.consent somewhere in your code! The Pythonic approach would be to try the action and catch a NoConsentException. You're making the classic Pythonista mistake: you behave as though EAFP applies everywhere. I assure you, in the above situation, it does not apply. -- \ He may look like an idiot and talk like an idiot but don't let | `\ that fool you. He really is an idiot. —Groucho Marx | _o__) | Ben Finney -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Removing Pubic Hair Methods
(Top-posting corrected.) On Wed, 30 Jan 2008 22:38:30 -0500, Sergio Correia wrote: On Jan 30, 2008 10:30 PM, Ben Finney [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: MRAB [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: On Jan 31, 12:57 am, Asun Friere [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Ouch!! If on the other hand 'females' is populated by instances of (or merely includes instances of) class 'Human', I suggest you test for female.consent somewhere in your code! The Pythonic approach would be to try the action and catch a NoConsentException. You're making the classic Pythonista mistake: you behave as though EAFP applies everywhere. I assure you, in the above situation, it does not apply. So in this case it is REALLY better to ask for permission rather than forgiveness? Oh yes. The NoConsentException has a number of extremely unpleasant side- effects on both the code that raises it and the code that catches it. -- Steven -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Removing Pubic Hair Methods
On Jan 30, 9:27 pm, MRAB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Jan 31, 1:09 am, George Sakkis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Jan 30, 5:03 pm, Marc 'BlackJack' Rintsch [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Wed, 30 Jan 2008 15:29:45 +0100, Wildemar Wildenburger wrote: Gerardo Herzig wrote: I will use genital().extend(), thats for shure ^^ Well, you never go wrong with apply(genital(), females), do you? `apply()` is deprecated. And ``genital(*females)`` looks a bit odd. :-) Well, that use case alone is enough to convince anyone that apply should stay :-) The original had genital(), so that would be genital()(*females). But what is genital() anyway? A factory? It actually implements several design patterns. Factory is just one of them; others include the Bridge and the Object Pool patterns. Some advanced instances of genital() may also implement the Visitor pattern while others less advanced implement primarily the Observer. George -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Removing Pubic Hair Methods
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Shaving is the most common removing pubic hair method. However, it is not the only one. Clearly you haven't done the Python tutorial, otherwise you'd realise there's no distinction between pubic methods and privy methods. Also, there's one, and preferably only one, obvious way to do it:: del foo.hair -- \ A man's only as old as the woman he feels. -- Groucho Marx | `\ | _o__) | Ben Finney -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Removing Pubic Hair Methods
On Jan 30, 9:14 am, Ben Finney [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Shaving is the most common removing pubic hair method. However, it is not the only one. Clearly you haven't done the Python tutorial, otherwise you'd realise there's no distinction between pubic methods and privy methods. Also, there's one, and preferably only one, obvious way to do it:: del foo.hair Brazilians allegedly have some expertise in this area -- the OP could try comp.lang.lua -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
