On Mar 11, 1:26 pm, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Alex Martelli) wrote:
> [Long analysis of probable cause of the problem]
Thank you for this. I was suspecting something along these lines,
but I don't yet know my way around the source well enough to figure
out where the problem was coming from.
> In the me
On Mar 11, 1:21 pm, Duncan Booth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Tim Peters wrote inhttp://blog.gmane.org/gmane.comp.python.devel/day=20050409:
>
> > All Python behavior in the presence of a NaN, infinity, or signed zero
> > is a platform-dependent accident. This is because C89 has no such
> > concep
On Mar 11, 12:13 pm, "Terry Reedy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "Dan Bishop" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> | On Mar 11, 9:31 am, "Mark Dickinson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> | > I get the follow
I get the following behaviour on Python 2.5 (OS X 10.4.8 on PowerPC,
in case it's relevant.)
>>> x, y = 0.0, -0.0
>>> x, y
(0.0, 0.0)
>>> x, y = -0.0, 0.0
>>> x, y
(-0.0, -0.0)
I would have expected y to be -0.0 in the first case, and 0.0 in the
second. Should the above be considered a bug, or i
I was a little surprised by the following behaviour:
Python 2.5 (r25, Oct 30 2006, 20:50:32)
[GCC 4.0.1 (Apple Computer, Inc. build 5363)] on darwin
Type "help", "copyright", "credits" or "license" for more information.
>>> from cmath import sqrt
>>> class NumericType1(object):
... def __float
On Jan 16, 10:25 am, "Mark Dickinson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> that is, I was working from the following two assumptions:
>
> (1) *Every* time a Rational is created, __init__ must eventually be
> called, and
> (2) The user of the class expects to call Rational(
On Jan 15, 4:54 pm, Ben Finney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> > Suppose you're writing a class "Rational" for rational numbers. The
> > __init__ function of such a class has two quite different roles to
> > play.
> That should be your first clue to question whether you're
On Jan 14, 10:43 pm, Steven D'Aprano
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sun, 14 Jan 2007 15:32:35 -0800, dickinsm wrote:
> > (You could include the normalization in __init__, but that's wasteful
> Is it really? Have you measured it or are you guessing? Is it more or less
> wasteful than any other so
On Jan 14, 7:49 pm, "Ziga Seilnacht" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Mark wrote:[a lot of valid, but long concerns about types that return
> an object of their own type from some of their methods]
>
> I think that the best solution is to use an alternative constructor
> in your arithmetic methods. Th
Here's a variant of André's brilliant idea that's
119 characters long, and fully printable:
j=''.join;seven_seg=lambda z:j(j(' _ | |_ _|_|'
[ord('^r|=Zm.:v\r'[int(a)])%u*2:][:3]for a in z)
+"\n"for u in(3,7,8))
Mark
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Bill
Mill <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I'm also pretty sure I've caught a bug in his code, though I'm not
> sure how it works exactly. I replaced the 'min' built-in with my own
> min, and he's going to get nondeterministic results from this line:
>
>mm =
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Stelios Xanthakis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In the sudoku solver, there is a min (number, object) which is
> probably what's affected by the extistance of the dummy variable.
> Now, in sudoku puzzles some times the algorithm has to suppose
> that in a box the r
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Bill
Mill <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> One of my own: what in the world made you think "maybe I'll add 29
> dummy global variables to speed things up?"
You mean this isn't a well-known optimization technique? :)
I was refactoring the code, and after making a part
I have a simple 192-line Python script that begins with the line:
dummy0 = 47
The script runs in less than 2.5 seconds. The variable dummy0 is never
referenced again, directly or indirectly, by the rest of the script.
Here's the surprise: if I remove or comment out this first line, the
script t
401 - 414 of 414 matches
Mail list logo
