On 3 Feb 2010, at 11:50 , Jean-Michel Pichavant wrote:
>
>
>>> The reason is that log takes an *int* as first argument that defines the
>>> logging level. You gave a string. So There is definitely a reason for it to
>>> be incorrect.
>>>
>> That's not a reason, that's just what currently ha
On 2 Feb 2010, at 17:52 , Jean-Michel Pichavant wrote:
>
> Masklinn wrote:
>> Jean-Michel Pichavant wrote:
>>
>>> To add a custom level, I would proceed that way:
>>>
>>> logging.ALERT = 45
>>> logging.addLevelName(logging.ALERT, '
Jean-Michel Pichavant wrote:
>To add a custom level, I would proceed that way:
>
>logging.ALERT = 45
>logging.addLevelName(logging.ALERT, 'ALERT !!')
>logging.getLogger().log(logging.ALERT, 'test')
>
>Passing a string to the log method as you did is incorrect.
I know it's currently incorrect. My p
When trying to load the following config file, I get an error
``ConfigParser.NoOptionError: No option 'handlers' in section: 'logger_0'`` (in
both Python 2.6.4 and Python 3.1.1 on OSX, obviously ConfigParser is spelled
configparser in 3.1):
[loggers]
keys=root,0
[handlers]
keys
On 5 Aug 2009, at 19:17 , Bearophile wrote:
Have you tried Hachoir? (I think its name may be changed to Fusil, I
don't know).
Name hasn't been changed (I think fusil is a subproject, something
like that) on the other hand the hachoir.org site is dead.
But apparently Hachoir was moved to bitbu
On 5 Aug 2009, at 16:46 , Martin P. Hellwig wrote:
Hi List,
On several occasions I have needed (and build) a parser that reads a
binary piece of data with custom structure. For example (bogus one):
BE
+-+-+-+-+--++
| Version | Command | Ins
On 4 Aug 2009, at 11:28 , Steven D'Aprano wrote:
So I'd ask, does Smalltalk's message passing model match the way human
beings think?
Yes.
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
On 3 Aug 2009, at 18:57 , John Nagle wrote:
Dave Angel wrote:
sturlamolden wrote:
On 20 Jul, 18:27, Phillip B Oldham wrote:
Tuples are used for passing arguments to and from a function. Common
use of tuples include multiple return values and optional arguments
(*args).
That's from Mesa, th
On 31 Jul 2009, at 22:34 , Emmanuel Surleau wrote:
You have first-grade documentation on the Python website:
http://docs.python.org/library/urllib.html
I'm not really using pydoc, but I'd wager it's more used as a quick
lookup
than anything else.
Another important documentary resource for the
On 31 Jul 2009, at 20:48 , Emmanuel Surleau wrote:
On Friday 31 July 2009 19:49:04 Raymond Hettinger wrote:
On Jul 20, 9:27 am, Phillip B Oldham
wrote:
Specifically the "differences" between lists and tuples have us
confused and have caused many "discussions" in the office. We
understand that
On 31 Jul 2009, at 20:17 , Steven D'Aprano wrote:
On Fri, 31 Jul 2009 18:15:15 +0200, Masklinn wrote:
I know, I know, Ruby people swear by
anonymous code blocks, and I've read Paul Graham too. But I'm really
not so sure that the benefits of anonymous code blocks are great
eno
On 31 Jul 2009, at 18:24 , Terry Reedy wrote:
Masklinn wrote:
#each is simply a method that takes a function (called blocks in
ruby). One could call it a higher-order method I guess.
It's an implementation of the concept of internal iteration:
instead of collections yielding ite
On 31 Jul 2009, at 17:55 , Steven D'Aprano wrote:
But seriously, while I admit that I have very little Ruby
experience, and
so aren't in a great position to judge, it seems to me that Ruby
doesn't
have anything like Python's over-riding design principles (the Zen).
If
there is a design prin
On 31 Jul 2009, at 15:12 , Bruno Desthuilliers wrote:
Masklinn a écrit :
On 31 Jul 2009, at 13:38 , Bruno Desthuilliers wrote:
Steven D'Aprano a écrit :
On Thu, 30 Jul 2009 18:47:04 +0100, Tim Rowe wrote:
That and the fact that I couldn't stop laughing for long enough
to learn
any
On 31 Jul 2009, at 13:38 , Bruno Desthuilliers wrote:
Steven D'Aprano a écrit :
On Thu, 30 Jul 2009 18:47:04 +0100, Tim Rowe wrote:
That and the fact that I couldn't stop laughing for long enough to
learn
any more when I read in the Pragmatic Programmer's Guide that "Ruby,
unlike less flexibl
On 31 Jul 2009, at 11:54 , Iain King wrote:
On Jul 31, 8:28 am, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
On Thu, 30 Jul 2009 18:06:31 -0500, Robert Kern wrote:
On 2009-07-30 16:44, r wrote:
On Jul 30, 4:29 pm, Emmanuel Surleau
wrote:
1.) No need to use "()" to call a function with no arguments.
Python
-->
On 31 Jul 2009, at 10:25 , Chris Rebert wrote:
On Fri, Jul 31, 2009 at 1:21 AM, Xavier Ho
wrote:
On Fri, Jul 31, 2009 at 6:08 PM, Masklinn
wrote:
... but since Python doesn't have anonymous functions that
usage
tends to be a bit too verbose ...
Sorry to interrupt, but wouldn
On 30 Jul 2009, at 23:57 , Luis Zarrabeitia wrote:
I'd like to ask, what "container.each" is, exactly? It looks like a
function
call (as I've learned a few posts ago), but, what are its arguments?
How the
looping "works"? Does it receive a "code" object that it has to
execute?
Is .each some
On 30 Jul 2009, at 23:52 , Jan Kaliszewski wrote:
Dnia 30-07-2009 o 22:41:57 Masklinn
napisał(a):
On 30 Jul 2009, at 22:23 , Jan Kaliszewski wrote:
30-07-2009 o 13:36:49 Masklinn wrote:
On 30 Jul 2009, at 06:04 , alex23 wrote:
On Jul 30, 1:06 pm, r wrote:
2.) the .each method
On 30 Jul 2009, at 22:23 , Jan Kaliszewski wrote:
30-07-2009 o 13:36:49 Masklinn wrote:
On 30 Jul 2009, at 06:04 , alex23 wrote:
On Jul 30, 1:06 pm, r wrote:
2.) the .each method
container.each{|localVar| block}
This method can really cleanup some ugly for loops, although i
really
like
On 30 Jul 2009, at 20:06 , Falcolas wrote:
On Jul 30, 11:56 am, Masklinn wrote:
On 30 Jul 2009, at 19:37 , Jean-Michel Pichavant wrote:
r wrote:
How do I know if foo.value is an attribute or if it is a method that
returns the foo value ?
It cannot be an attribute. Ruby doesn't
On 30 Jul 2009, at 20:05 , superpollo wrote:
r wrote:
On Jul 30, 12:15 pm, Masklinn wrote:
[snip]
Furthermore Ruby has a pretty nice convention (sadly not used
enough I think) taken from Scheme where it's possible to postfix
a method name with "!" (note: the "!&
On 30 Jul 2009, at 19:42 , Carsten Haese wrote:
r wrote:
Of course in python you would do...
vector.reverse --> in-place
vector.reversed --> in-place
You do know that only one of those works in-place, right?
Well mostly because the other one doesn't exist (as python has
`lst.reverse()` bu
On 30 Jul 2009, at 19:37 , Jean-Michel Pichavant wrote:
r wrote:
On Jul 30, 11:31 am, Falcolas wrote:
On Jul 29, 9:06 pm, r wrote:
1.) No need to use "()" to call a function with no arguments.
Python --> "obj.m2().m3()" --ugly
Ruby --> "obj.m1.m2.m3" -- sweeet!
Man, i must admit i reall
On 30 Jul 2009, at 19:01 , Inky 788 wrote:
On Jul 30, 12:04 am, alex23 wrote:
On Jul 30, 1:06 pm, r wrote:
1.) No need to use "()" to call a function with no arguments.
Python --> "obj.m2().m3()" --ugly
Ruby --> "obj.m1.m2.m3" -- sweeet!
Man, i must admit i really like this, and your code
On 30 Jul 2009, at 18:31 , Falcolas wrote:
On Jul 29, 9:06 pm, r wrote:
1.) No need to use "()" to call a function with no arguments.
Python --> "obj.m2().m3()" --ugly
Ruby --> "obj.m1.m2.m3" -- sweeet!
Man, i must admit i really like this, and your code will look so much
cleaner.
I perso
On 30 Jul 2009, at 14:03 , superpollo wrote:
Masklinn wrote:
...
That's an interesting point, but not relevant at the end of the
day: `foo.length` and `length(foo)` have the same "practicality".
On the other hand Ruby can be praised for the coherence:
everything's a
On 30 Jul 2009, at 06:04 , alex23 wrote:
On Jul 30, 1:06 pm, r wrote:
1.) No need to use "()" to call a function with no arguments.
Python --> "obj.m2().m3()" --ugly
Ruby --> "obj.m1.m2.m3" -- sweeet!
Man, i must admit i really like this, and your code will look so much
cleaner.
How do you
On 30 Jul 2009, at 09:30 , Diez B. Roggisch wrote:
xubin.cz schrieb:
hi, everyone
Is there any pakage or module handling html document like beautiful
soup?
why don't you *use* beautiful soup? It is a module...
Or lxml, which works a bit better than BF 3.1 (post parser change)
nowadays.
--
h
29 matches
Mail list logo
