Press Release
SOURCE: Python Software Foundation
PYCON 2007 - FIFTH ANNUAL PYTHON COMMUNITY CONFERENCE
ADDISON, TX, November 30, 2006 - PyCon 2007, the fifth annual conference of
the Python community, will take place February 23-25 at the Dallas/Addison
Marriott Quorum hotel. The keynote
Hi all,
I am pleased to announce the release of bridge 0.2.0, a general purpose
XML library for Python and IronPython (and ultimately Jython).
bridge is very simple and light. It basically let you load an XML
document via a set of different parsers (xml.dom, Amara, lxml,
System.Xml and
Copyright, Michael P. Soulier, 2006.
About Release 0.3:
==
This release fixes a major RFC 1350 compliance problem with the remote TID.
About Release 0.2:
==
This release adds variable block sizes, and general option support,
implementing RFCs 2347 and 2348. This
Paul Boddie [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Fredrik Lundh wrote:
Paul Boddie wrote:
This is one of the more reliable methods since upon receiving a packet
delimiter the receiver knows that the data is complete.
and for people who want strongRELIABLE/strong and not just at least
not
Steven D'Aprano wrote:
On Fri, 08 Dec 2006 08:50:41 -0800, George Sakkis wrote:
André Thieme wrote:
On the other hand can I see difficulties in adding macros to Python,
or inventing a new object system, or adding new keywords without
changing the sources of Python itself.
Actually, an
I was the one mentioning triple-quotes because it was one of the few
Python features i could think of that was better than Lisps.
For me python is 'strong OOP' scripting language in first place.
Inheritance, generalization and every kind of abstractions togeteher
with clean and simple syntax
This is from the perspective of an aerospace engineer who passed
through python several years ago on the way to lisp. Futhermore, this
is a 2 glass of wine response.
Nota Bene: All references to lisp in this response imply common lisp.
Mark Tarver wrote:
How do you compare Python to Lisp? What
Steven D'Aprano wrote:
On Fri, 08 Dec 2006 14:52:33 -0500, Ken Tilton wrote:
Aahz wrote:
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED],
Mark Tarver [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm looking at Python and I see that the syntax would appeal to a
newbie. Its clearer than ML which is a mess syntactically. But
On Fri, 08 Dec 2006 16:14:44 -0800, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
There is (IMO) some truth to that, but the flavor of Python
programming is not that much like Lisp any more. Especially with
recent Python releases (postdating that Norvig article) using iterator
and generator objects (basically
tmh wrote:
snip
Time for some more wine.
...and then just cut and paste the snipped bit into:
http://wiki.alu.org/The_Road_to_Lisp_Survey
...if you are not there already. The survey questions are optional and
what you wrote is perfect as is. Tough call on what goes in:
Ken Tilton [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Not sure I understand why, unless you mean folks were raving about
Lisp in the 60s. Today's raving is about a much different language,
though the core elegance remains, and is as much about the contrast
with other languages as it is about the pleasure of
Wolfram Fenske [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
with a couple of macros. I. e. if Common Lisp didn't have CLOS, its
object system, I could write my own as a library and it would be just
as powerful and just as easy to use as the system Common Lisp already
provides. Stuff like this is impossible in
Steven D'Aprano wrote:
On Fri, 08 Dec 2006 08:50:41 -0800, George Sakkis wrote:
Why is that a difficulty? Like Guido, I think that's an ADVANTAGE.
Programmable syntax is not in Python's future -- or at least it's not
for Python 3000. The problem IMO is that everybody will abuse it to
tmh [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I've been writing code for engineering solutions for 15 years in
various languages. I've gained more insight into coding in the last 6
months then in the previous 15 years. Since lisp allows you to employ
any and every programming technique, it actually requires
On Sat, 09 Dec 2006 02:29:56 -0500, Ken Tilton wrote:
David Lees wrote:
Those raving about
Lisp are quite accomplished at all those other languages, and know about
what they are talking.
Such a sweeping generalization. Every person who raves about Lisp is also
accomplished with
Paul Rubin http://[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
http://www.math.chalmers.se/~rjmh/Papers/whyfp.html
The examples in it are pretty easy to do in Python or Scheme, but I
think not so easy in CL.
Hmm, well I guess they can be done in CL too, about the same way as in
Scheme, but I'd say you have
(message (Hello 'Kay)
(you :wrote :on '(8 Dec 2006 12:25:09 -0800))
(
KS O.K. I agree with what you said about the generic function vs per
KS object dictionary dispatch.
KS But do the performance differences vanish when only builtin types and
KS functions are used to express Python
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Problem is I don't know that anyone born after Elvis died gets any of
these Monty Python jokes.
But hey - Elvis is not dead! - that is just a conspiracy theory that was
originated by the Cliff Richard's fan club...
- Hendrik
--
On Fri, 08 Dec 2006 23:38:02 -0800, Wolfram Fenske wrote:
if Common Lisp didn't have CLOS, its object system, I could write my own
as a library and it would be just as powerful and just as easy to use as
the system Common Lisp already provides. Stuff like this is impossible
in other
Steven D'Aprano wrote:
It is a good thing that not every
hare-brained idea that some random programmer comes up with can be
implemented as part of the core language.
Well, that's the FUD/strawman, but nothing more. Just a hobgoblin to
keep the Pythonistas from straying. But you have an
Paul Rubin wrote:
Do you know the Paul Graham piece Beating the Averages? It's at:
http://www.paulgraham.com/avg.html
The error in it is that Lisp is really just another Blub.
http://weblog.raganwald.com/2006/10/are-we-blub-programmers.html
There we find: But when our
(message (Hello 'Paul)
(you :wrote :on '(08 Dec 2006 17:15:32 -0800))
(
PR Huh? Are you saying Lisp systems never release new versions? And you
PR can't implement Python generators as Lisp macros in any reasonable
PR way. You could do them in Scheme using call-with-current-continuation
PR
On 08 Dec 2006 19:56:42 -0800, Paul Rubin
http://phr.cx@nospam.invalid wrote:
(...)
Lisp just seems hopelessly old-fashioned to me these days. A
modernized version would be cool, but I think the more serious
Lisp-like language designers have moved on to newer ideas.
Paul, I find most of
Alex Mizrahi wrote:
...
so we can see PyDict access. moreover, it's inlined, since it's very
performance-critical function.
but even inlined PyDict access is not fast at all. ma_lookup is a long and
hairy function containing the loop.
I once had a crazy idea about the lookup speed
On Fri, 08 Dec 2006 22:02:59 +0200, Alex Mizrahi wrote:
you have an expression 3 + 4 which yields 7.
you have an expression 4 * 1 which yields 4.
if you paste 3 + 4 in place of 1, you'll have 4 * 3 + 4 = 16. as we know, *
is commutative, but 3 + 4 * 4 = 19.
so result depends on implicit
Steven D'Aprano wrote:
Anything any language can do is possible in any other language
Not true. Concurrency, for example.
Lisp developers so often gloss over that: Oh,
feature X is *easy*, I could write it in a couple of macros. Two or three.
Maybe thirty. Or forty, max. And they would work
(message (Hello 'Steven)
(you :wrote :on '(Sat, 09 Dec 2006 20:02:06 +1100))
(
SD It is a good thing that when Fred decides to stop contributing to an
SD open source project (or leave the company), other people can read his
SD code without having to learn his Uber-Special Custom Macro
(message (Hello 'Ken)
(you :wrote :on '(Sat, 09 Dec 2006 04:26:02 -0500))
(
KT keep the Pythonistas from straying. But you have an excuse: Lispniks
KT always /talk/ about macros giving us the ability to create a DSL. But
KT no one does. :)
certainly there's no reason to make a new DSL each
Ken Tilton [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
What is up the power continuum from Lisp?
These days I've been fooling with Haskell. Mozart/Oz is also
interesting.
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Mark Tarver wrote:
How do you compare Python to Lisp? What specific advantages do you
think that one has over the other?
Note I'm not a Python person and I have no axes to grind here. This is
just a question for my general education.
From my point of view as neither a Lisp nor Python
Ken Tilton wrote:
What is up the power continuum from Lisp?
3-Lisp. ;)
Pascal
--
My website: http://p-cos.net
Common Lisp Document Repository: http://cdr.eurolisp.org
Closer to MOP ContextL: http://common-lisp.net/project/closer/
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Paul Rubin wrote:
Alex Mizrahi [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
we can implement Scheme's call-with-current-continuation first :)
it's relatively easy -- just a code walker that coverts everyting into CPS.
It's not enough to convert to CPS, you have to be able to actually
save the continuation
(message (Hello 'Andrea)
(you :wrote :on '(Sat, 09 Dec 2006 11:08:34 +0100))
(
?? so we can see PyDict access. moreover, it's inlined, since it's very
?? performance-critical function.
?? but even inlined PyDict access is not fast at all. ma_lookup is a long
?? and hairy function containing the
Ramon Diaz-Uriarte [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
a) old-fashioned? Is that supposed to be an argument? I guess
addition and multiplication are old-fashioned, and so is calculus;so?
I think old-fashioned should only carry a negative connotation in
the fashion world, not in programming.
If someone
Hi all,
After getting bogged down with work for a few months, I'm finally back
to Shed Skin development. I have just released 0.0.15, with the
following changes:
-python2.5 support/compatibility
-any, all, conditional expression support
-moved libs to 'lib' dir; made it easier to add modules
Alex Mizrahi [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
we can implement Scheme's call-with-current-continuation first :)
it's relatively easy -- just a code walker that coverts everyting into CPS.
It's not enough to convert to CPS, you have to be able to actually
save the continuation when you switch to
samantha wrote:
What are you? A pointy haired boss?
What are you? A 12 year old that has just learned to use Google
Groups? 8)
Regards,
Björn
Xpost cll,clp
Fup2 poster
--
BOFH excuse #211:
Lightning strikes.
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Cameron Walsh schrieb:
If it's on linux you can just redirect the screen output to a file:
python initialfile.py 1stdout.txt 2stderr.txt
As for windows, I'll test it now...
It turns out you can at least redirect the output to a file, I'm not
sure what it does with standard error or
Ken Tilton wrote:
Note also that after any amount of dicing I simply hit a magic key
combo and the editor reindents everything. In a sense, Lisp is the
language that handles indentation best.
Erm ... because there's an editor for it that indents automatically?
Or did I miss the point?
Gabriel Genellina wrote:
I think you got in trouble with something and you're trying to avoid it
again - but perhaps this is not the right way. Could you provide some
example?
I have been using scipy for some time now, but in the beginning I made
a few mistakes with copying by reference. The
On Sat, 09 Dec 2006 00:56:35 -0800, Paul Rubin wrote:
The syntax is a pretty superficial thing. The reaction from outsiders
to Lisp's parentheses and Python's indentation-based structure is
about the same. You get used to it either way.
I don't agree. Syntax is significant for human
Paul Rubin http://[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Rob Warnock) writes:
Weird. This is exactly why I use *Lisp* -- because it stays
completely readable even if you don't use it on a daily basis!!!
Hmm. I haven't used Lisp in a while and no longer find it so
readable.
I
Andrea GriffiniIs this worth investigation or it has already been
suggested/tried ?
Recently some people around the net have discussed about similar ideas
as a possible way to speed up Ruby interpreters a lot.
Bye,
bearophile
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Steven D'Aprano [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
+---
| Wolfram Fenske wrote:
| if Common Lisp didn't have CLOS, its object system, I could write my own
| as a library and it would be just as powerful and just as easy to use as
| the system Common Lisp already provides. Stuff like this is
In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Niels L
Ellegaard wrote:
I have been using scipy for some time now, but in the beginning I made
a few mistakes with copying by reference.
But copying by reference is the way Python works. Python never copies
objects unless you explicitly ask for it. So what you want is
Fredrik Lundh schrieb:
you've mixed components compiled with Py_TRACE_REFS with components that
aren't compiled with Py_TRACE_REFS. don't do that.
H'm does this mean I have to write something like
#define Py_TRACE_REFS
befor I include Python.h
(what is it with you C programmers these days,
Steven D'Aprano [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I don't agree. Syntax is significant for human readers, who are the vast
majority of programmers.
Yes, people will get used to most syntax, eventually. But used to
doesn't necessarily mean can read it efficiently. I did a lot of FORTH
coding in my
On Sat, 09 Dec 2006 12:43:34 +0100, Bjoern Schliessmann
[EMAIL PROTECTED] tried to confuse everyone with
this message:
samantha wrote:
What are you? A pointy haired boss?
What are you? A 12 year old that has just learned to use Google
Groups? 8)
Says a person with a 13-line sig.
--
|Don't
Marc 'BlackJack' Rintsch wrote:
In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Niels L
Ellegaard wrote:
I have been using scipy for some time now, but in the beginning I made
a few mistakes with copying by reference.
But copying by reference is the way Python works. Python never copies
objects unless you
On Sat, 09 Dec 2006 20:36:02 +1100, Steven D'Aprano
[EMAIL PROTECTED] tried to confuse everyone with this
message:
On Fri, 08 Dec 2006 23:38:02 -0800, Wolfram Fenske wrote:
if Common Lisp didn't have CLOS, its object system, I could write my own
as a library and it would be just as powerful
Niels L Ellegaard wrote:
I wanted a each object to know whether or not it was being referred to
by a living object, and I wanted to warn the user whenever he tried to
change an object that was being refered to by a living object. As far
as I can see the garbage collector module would allow
Steven D'Aprano [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
[Extensibility of syntax (via Lisp like macros)]
In the real world, programmers aren't lone wolves stalking the
programming landscape doing their own thing. Whether we're talking
open source projects maintained by volunteers, or commercial
software
Paul Rubin http://[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Python is more readable than Lisp because it stays readable even if
you don't use it on a daily basis.
Girls, this is really bullshit!
None programming language is readable. I teach programming to complete
beginners and I tried some languages --
Stefan Nobis [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
So why do you think, Common Lisp or Macros are a bad thing? What's the
difference (from the perspective of understanding) between a function
foo and a macro bar? Both just transform their inputs. It's just
another form of abstraction and from time to time
Stefan Nobis [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Intuitive interfaces (GUI, languages,...) are an urban legend, pure
illusion. You have to do hard work and practice to understand them.
Well if you write enough code in general, the principles stick with
you. What I found with Perl was that after not
(message (Hello 'Paul)
(you :wrote :on '(09 Dec 2006 02:55:49 -0800))
(
PR Alex Mizrahi [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
?? we can implement Scheme's call-with-current-continuation first :)
?? it's relatively easy -- just a code walker that coverts everyting into
?? CPS.
PR It's not enough to
On Sat, 09 Dec 2006 20:36:02 +1100, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
On Fri, 08 Dec 2006 23:38:02 -0800, Wolfram Fenske wrote:
if Common Lisp didn't have CLOS, its object system, I could write my own
as a library and it would be just as powerful and just as easy to use as
the system Common Lisp
Python doesn't annoyingly rip you out of the real world to code in it.
Anyone looking at a python script can get a sense of where it's going.
--Blair
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Hi,
I have problem with my py2exe. When I want to run my compiled exe, then
i get
error information like that:
Trackback (most recent call last):
File mysql_gui.py, line 2 in ?
File gtk\__int__.pyc, line 12, in ?
File gtk\_gtk.pyc, line 12, in ?
File gtk\_gtk.pyc, line 10, in
Hi,
I have problem with my py2exe. When I want to run my compiled exe, then
i get
error information like that:
Trackback (most recent call last):
File mysql_gui.py, line 2 in ?
File gtk\__int__.pyc, line 12, in ?
File gtk\_gtk.pyc, line 12, in ?
File gtk\_gtk.pyc, line 10, in
Steven D'Aprano wrote:
On Fri, 08 Dec 2006 23:38:02 -0800, Wolfram Fenske wrote:
if Common Lisp didn't have CLOS, its object system, I could write my own
as a library and it would be just as powerful and just as easy to use as
the system Common Lisp already provides. Stuff like this is
Michax wrote:
Hi,
I have problem with my py2exe. When I want to run my compiled exe, then
i get error information like that:
Trackback (most recent call last):
File mysql_gui.py, line 2 in ?
File gtk\__int__.pyc, line 12, in ?
File gtk\_gtk.pyc, line 12, in ?
File
Steven D'Aprano wrote:
On Fri, 08 Dec 2006 22:02:59 +0200, Alex Mizrahi wrote:
you have an expression 3 + 4 which yields 7.
you have an expression 4 * 1 which yields 4.
if you paste 3 + 4 in place of 1, you'll have 4 * 3 + 4 = 16. as we know, *
is commutative, but 3 + 4 * 4 = 19.
so result
seen this:
http://www.py2exe.org/index.cgi/Py2exeAndPyGTK
Thanks ,I will check this one .
Sorry for double post.
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
On Fri, 08 Dec 2006 21:35:41 -0800, Gabriel Genellina wrote:
On 9 dic, 00:53, Stuart D. Gathman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Or you can modify the source to from drivermodule import DNSLookup.
What is the friendliest way to make this configurable? Currently, users
are modifying the source to
Steven D'Aprano wrote:
On Fri, 08 Dec 2006 23:38:02 -0800, Wolfram Fenske wrote:
if Common Lisp didn't have CLOS, its object system, I could write my own
as a library and it would be just as powerful and just as easy to use as
the system Common Lisp already provides. Stuff like this is
Giovanni Bajo wrote:
Thomas Guettler wrote:
I have read the FAQ to the len function:
http://www.python.org/doc/faq/general/#why-does-python-use-methods-for-some-functionality-e-g-list-index-but-functions-for-other-e-g-len-list
Outdated. You want to read the new FAQ, here:
Paul Rubin wrote:
Forth was always unreadable to me but I never did much. I thought its
aficionados were silly. Yes if you have a complicated math expression
in Lisp, you have to sit there for a moment rearranging it in infix in
your mind to figure out what it says. The point is that such
On Sat, 09 Dec 2006 05:58:22 -0800, Niels L Ellegaard wrote:
I wanted a each object to know whether or not it was being referred to
by a living object, and I wanted to warn the user whenever he tried to
change an object that was being refered to by a living object. As far
as I can see the
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Okay, since everyone ignored the FAQ, I guess I can too...
Mark Tarver wrote:
How do you compare Python to Lisp? What specific advantages do you
think that one has over the other?
(Common) Lisp is the only industrial strength language with both pure
Steven D'Aprano wrote:
On Sat, 09 Dec 2006 02:29:56 -0500, Ken Tilton wrote:
David Lees wrote:
Those raving about
Lisp are quite accomplished at all those other languages, and know about
what they are talking.
Such a sweeping generalization. Every person who raves about Lisp
Alex Mizrahi wrote:
(message (Hello 'Ken)
(you :wrote :on '(Sat, 09 Dec 2006 04:26:02 -0500))
(
KT keep the Pythonistas from straying. But you have an excuse: Lispniks
KT always /talk/ about macros giving us the ability to create a DSL. But
KT no one does. :)
certainly there's no
Bjoern Schliessmann wrote:
Ken Tilton wrote:
Note also that after any amount of dicing I simply hit a magic key
combo and the editor reindents everything. In a sense, Lisp is the
language that handles indentation best.
Erm ... because there's an editor for it that indents
On Sat, 09 Dec 2006 14:00:10 +, Timofei Shatrov wrote:
On Sat, 09 Dec 2006 20:36:02 +1100, Steven D'Aprano
[EMAIL PROTECTED] tried to confuse everyone with this
message:
On Fri, 08 Dec 2006 23:38:02 -0800, Wolfram Fenske wrote:
if Common Lisp didn't have CLOS, its object system, I
tmh wrote:
This is from the perspective of an aerospace engineer who passed
through python several years ago on the way to lisp. Futhermore, this
is a 2 glass of wine response.
snip
Thanks for the comments. I think it is great that you took a harder
and less travelled way. It may be that
I am trying to structure a Tkinter application with classes instead of
just with simple functions, but I'm not sure how to call methods from my
main class.
My main class is packetstreamApp(). Within that class I call various
methods, including drawGUI() and authorizeDump(). My problem comes when
Salam
If you are a Python programmer, you are fond of python, or you want
to learn and start using Python, please join the new group:
Iranian Python Programmers
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/iranianpythonprogrammers
thanks
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
I have (large) disk files connected with ZODB objects and want the disk files
to be removed when the Python/ZODB object all finalizes.
Is it possible to get a kind of reliable __del__ signal for that?
Robert
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Kevin Walzer wrote:
I am trying to structure a Tkinter application with classes instead of
just with simple functions, but I'm not sure how to call methods from my
main class.
My main class is packetstreamApp(). Within that class I call various
methods, including drawGUI() and
Steven D'Aprano wrote:
But Lisp's syntax is so unlike most written natural languages that that it
is a whole different story. Yes, the human brain is amazingly flexible,
and people can learn extremely complex syntax and grammars (especially if
they start young enough) so I'm not surprised
Carl Banks wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Okay, since everyone ignored the FAQ, I guess I can too...
[snip]
What Python has is stupid slogans
(It fits your brain. Only one way to do things.) and an infinite
community of flies that, for some inexplicable reason, believe these
stupid
Steven D'Aprano wrote:
Some languages are too expressive.
:)
Look, all snarkiness aside, it just isn't true that stuff like this is
impossible in other languages. If Wolfram Fenske had said stuff like
this isn't easy in many other languages he would have been right.
Remember, Lisp macros
Thankfully folks (including me) seem to be starting to cool off, so
perhaps we can disucss this in somewhat calmer register. I think that
Kenny unintentionally sold macros short by implying that they are
merely window-dressing for boilerplate, and you seem to have a
misunderstanding of macros,
Hendrik == Hendrik van Rooyen [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Hendrik [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hendrik - as long as it works, and is fast enough, its not broken, so
Hendrik don't fix it...
That's the rub. It wasn't fast enough. I only realized that had
been a problem once I
Jonathan Curran wrote:
Spur of the moment answer: call setleds program from within your program
better answer (fox X11):
http://python-xlib.sourceforge.net/doc/html/python-xlib_16.html
Take a look at get_keyboard_control() and change_keyboard_control(). As far as
knowing how to properly
Mark Tarver wrote:
How do you compare Python to Lisp? What specific advantages do you
think that one has over the other?
Note I'm not a Python person and I have no axes to grind here. This is
just a question for my general education.
Mark
Advantages of Python:
1). More and better mature
On Sun, 10 Dec 2006 04:24:43 +1100, Steven D'Aprano
[EMAIL PROTECTED] tried to confuse everyone with this
message:
On Sat, 09 Dec 2006 14:00:10 +, Timofei Shatrov wrote:
On Sat, 09 Dec 2006 20:36:02 +1100, Steven D'Aprano
[EMAIL PROTECTED] tried to confuse everyone with this
message:
On
Steven D'Aprano wrote:
With Lisp macros, even that isn't guaranteed. Now, if Lispers would say
Oh yes, macros give you great power, and with great power comes great
responsibility. Be careful. then, no doubt, we'd take you guys more
seriously.
Who are we? I was a heavy Python and Java user
Colin J. Williams:
Why not replace the __len__ method with a len property for strings,
lists, tuples, dictionaries etc. __len__ is not very special and the
property len eliminates the redundant parentheses.
You mean something like:
ab.len, [1, 2, 3].len
(2, 3)
In the given page Guido says:
Steven D'Aprano [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I've read all the arguments against significant indents/whitespace, or
in favour of braces, and while there are a few minor good points they
make, a few edge cases where Python's significant indentation is
sub-optimal, overall I believe that the
Steven D'Aprano [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Fri, 08 Dec 2006 23:38:02 -0800, Wolfram Fenske wrote:
if Common Lisp didn't have CLOS, its object system, I could write my own
as a library and it would be just as powerful and just as easy to use as
the system Common Lisp already provides.
mystilleef [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Mark Tarver wrote:
How do you compare Python to Lisp? What specific advantages do you
think that one has over the other?
Note I'm not a Python person and I have no axes to grind here. This is
just a question for my general education.
Mark
Steven D'Aprano [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Dude. Turing Complete. Don't you Lisp developers know anything about
computer science?
Can you imagine if carpenters were like computer scientists? Some of
them would argue that it's not necessary to own a hammer because the
butt of a screwdriver
__len__ is not very special and the
property len eliminates the redundant parentheses.
One might say the current syntax eliminates the redundant dot.
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
(message (Hello 'Paul)
(you :wrote :on '(09 Dec 2006 01:01:14 -0800))
(
PR If Common Lisp didn't have lexically scoped variables (most Lisp
PR dialects before Scheme didn't have them) then it would be very
PR difficult to add that with macros.
i think there's some way to hack that. for
Paul Rubin http://[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
There is just not that much boilerplate in Python code, so there's
not so much need to hide it.
Well, of course there is. There are always going to be patterns in
the code you write that could be collapsed. Language has nothing to
do with it; Lisp
Chris,
I googled for {xlib caps led} and the first link was to a forum post:
http://forums.whirlpool.net.au/forum-replies-archive.cfm/619126.html
The third post down, the guy made a program to set the LED of his scroll lock
key. The C source is at http://members.optusnet.com.au/foonly/hddled.c
Steven D'Aprano [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
With Lisp macros, even that isn't guaranteed. Now, if Lispers would say
Oh yes, macros give you great power, and with great power comes great
responsibility. Be careful. then, no doubt, we'd take you guys more
seriously. But we don't hear that -- we
tac-tics wrote:
__len__ is not very special and the
property len eliminates the redundant parentheses.
One might say the current syntax eliminates the redundant dot.
touché
On the other hand, one can argue that, since len is intimately
associated with an object, it's better treated as an
Colin J. Williams wrote:
On the other hand, one can argue that, since len is intimately
associated with an object, it's better treated as an attribute/property
than to have an unconnected function out in namespace.
unconnected ???
/F
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
1 - 100 of 226 matches
Mail list logo
