On Tue, Feb 3, 2015 at 5:34 AM, Mark Lawrence breamore...@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
On 02/02/2015 17:25, Chris Angelico wrote:
On Tue, Feb 3, 2015 at 3:52 AM, Mark Lawrence breamore...@yahoo.co.uk
wrote:
I'd like to see anybody define 'a' and 'the' without using 'a' and 'the'.
Would that be
On Friday, January 30, 2015 at 5:51:38 PM UTC-5, Gregory Ewing wrote:
Michael Torrie wrote:
On 01/30/2015 10:31 AM, Rustom Mody wrote:
And what about the grey area between lightweight and heavyweight?
That's what the smart pointers are for.
I'd say it's what higher-level languages
Marko Rauhamaa ma...@pacujo.net writes:
Chris Angelico ros...@gmail.com:
On Mon, Feb 2, 2015 at 12:59 PM, Steven D'Aprano
steve+comp.lang.pyt...@pearwood.info wrote:
And there are underspecified rules too. What is the plural of octopus? No
fair looking it up in the dictionary.
Standard
Paul Rudin paul.nos...@rudin.co.uk:
Marko Rauhamaa ma...@pacujo.net writes:
Your brain's grammar engine will give you the correct answer. It may
not match your English teacher's answer, but the language we are
talking about is not standard English but the dialect you have
acquired in
On 02/02/2015 04:47, Chris Angelico wrote:
On Mon, Feb 2, 2015 at 3:14 PM, Roy Smith r...@panix.com wrote:
In article 54ceda0b$0$12977$c3e8da3$54964...@news.astraweb.com,
Steven D'Aprano steve+comp.lang.pyt...@pearwood.info wrote:
What is the plural of octopus?
It's a trick question.
On Monday, February 2, 2015 at 9:40:35 PM UTC+5:30, Mark Lawrence wrote:
On 02/02/2015 08:52, Marko Rauhamaa wrote:
Chris Angelico :
On Mon, Feb 2, 2015 at 12:59 PM, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
And there are underspecified rules too. What is the plural of octopus? No
fair looking it up in
On 02/02/2015 16:21, Rustom Mody wrote:
On Monday, February 2, 2015 at 9:40:35 PM UTC+5:30, Mark Lawrence wrote:
On 02/02/2015 08:52, Marko Rauhamaa wrote:
Chris Angelico :
On Mon, Feb 2, 2015 at 12:59 PM, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
And there are underspecified rules too. What is the plural of
On 02/02/2015 08:52, Marko Rauhamaa wrote:
Chris Angelico ros...@gmail.com:
On Mon, Feb 2, 2015 at 12:59 PM, Steven D'Aprano
steve+comp.lang.pyt...@pearwood.info wrote:
And there are underspecified rules too. What is the plural of octopus? No
fair looking it up in the dictionary.
Standard
On 02/02/2015 12:39 AM, Marko Rauhamaa wrote:
Michael Torrie torr...@gmail.com:
http://en.cppreference.com/w/cpp/utility/functional/function
Thus if we were to shoehorn your example into C++, the result would be
idiomatically very similar to what you have in your Python code.
I can
On 02/02/2015 10:57 AM, Marko Rauhamaa wrote:
I really don't understand why you are taking all of this so personally.
We are just discussing different aspects of different programming
languages.
Fair enough. You raise good points. I am not taking it personally; your
emails, lacking emotional
On 02/02/2015 17:25, Chris Angelico wrote:
On Tue, Feb 3, 2015 at 3:52 AM, Mark Lawrence breamore...@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
I'd like to see anybody define 'a' and 'the' without using 'a' and 'the'.
Would that be formally rigorous or rigorously formal?
a: Indefinite article, used to represent
Michael Torrie torr...@gmail.com:
Fair enough. You raise good points. I am not taking it personally; your
emails, lacking emotional context, just seemed a bit unnecessarily
argumentative. For example, The cherry on top: _1! The C++ compiler
figures out template types heroically but can't
Michael Torrie torr...@gmail.com:
You have no intention of being impressed with C++, let alone simply
learn about it.
I am fully open to being impressed. I have more than a decade of C++
programming under my belt, although not much for the past few years.
There's no possible way for the
On Tue, Feb 3, 2015 at 3:52 AM, Mark Lawrence breamore...@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
I'd like to see anybody define 'a' and 'the' without using 'a' and 'the'.
Would that be formally rigorous or rigorously formal?
a: Indefinite article, used to represent individual objects not
otherwise identifiable.
Steven D'Aprano steve+comp.lang.pyt...@pearwood.info:
Steven D'Aprano wrote:
Of course people make grammar mistakes that they don't spot.
Ironically, this is one of them. It should of course be grammatical
mistakes.
I don't believe you made a mistake according to your brain's grammar
Chris Angelico ros...@gmail.com:
On Mon, Feb 2, 2015 at 12:59 PM, Steven D'Aprano
steve+comp.lang.pyt...@pearwood.info wrote:
And there are underspecified rules too. What is the plural of octopus? No
fair looking it up in the dictionary.
Standard and well-known piece of trivia, and there
Am 01.02.15 um 08:58 schrieb Marko Rauhamaa:
Paul Rubin no.email@nospam.invalid:
Marko Rauhamaa ma...@pacujo.net writes:
Stroustrup apparently has never had to deal with callbacks; his thick
books never made a mention of them last time I checked.
C++ has function pointers just like C,
Paul Rubin no.email@nospam.invalid:
Marko Rauhamaa ma...@pacujo.net writes:
Stroustrup apparently has never had to deal with callbacks; his thick
books never made a mention of them last time I checked.
C++ has function pointers just like C,
Et tu, Brute!
C's callbacks always use a void
Marko Rauhamaa wrote:
The natural language has a rigorous grammar plus a lexicon that includes
a number of idioms. Nobody has so far been able to codify a natural
language completely because the rigorous grammar consists of maybe
10,000 rules.
If nobody has codified the rigorous grammar, how
Christian Gollwitzer aurio...@gmx.de:
Am 01.02.15 um 08:58 schrieb Marko Rauhamaa:
Qt gave up on C++ when it comes to callbacks (signals) and went for
an apocryphal metacompiler.
Yes, but only because C++ compilers were not good enough when QT came
out, and later is was too late to change
Steven D'Aprano steve+comp.lang.pyt...@pearwood.info:
Marko Rauhamaa wrote:
The natural language has a rigorous grammar plus a lexicon that includes
a number of idioms. Nobody has so far been able to codify a natural
language completely because the rigorous grammar consists of maybe
10,000
On 02/01/2015 12:12 PM, Marko Rauhamaa wrote:
Christian Gollwitzer aurio...@gmx.de:
Am 01.02.15 um 08:58 schrieb Marko Rauhamaa:
Qt gave up on C++ when it comes to callbacks (signals) and went for
an apocryphal metacompiler.
Yes, but only because C++ compilers were not good enough when QT
On 02/01/2015 12:12 PM, Marko Rauhamaa wrote:
So please implement this small piece of Python code in C++ so we can
compare the idioms:
So I though I might just for kicks code up a C++ version. In doing so,
I realized that idomatically, this particular example would not really
use callbacks in
On 02/01/2015 05:50 PM, Michael Torrie wrote:
Honestly with the C++ standard library implementing std::function and
std::bind macros, idiomatically it would look very much similar to the
Python code you showed.
Make that templates, not macros.
--
In article mailman.18388.1422845124.18130.python-l...@python.org,
Chris Angelico ros...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Feb 2, 2015 at 1:35 PM, Matthew Barnett
auxl...@mrabarnett.plus.com wrote:
And the plural of virus is viruses, not viri (that's the plural of
vir) or virii (that would be the
In article 54ceda0b$0$12977$c3e8da3$54964...@news.astraweb.com,
Steven D'Aprano steve+comp.lang.pyt...@pearwood.info wrote:
What is the plural of octopus?
It's a trick question. Octopus is already plural. Monopus is singular.
--
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Marko Rauhamaa wrote:
Steven D'Aprano steve+comp.lang.pyt...@pearwood.info:
Marko Rauhamaa wrote:
The natural language has a rigorous grammar plus a lexicon that includes
a number of idioms. Nobody has so far been able to codify a natural
language completely because the rigorous grammar
On Mon, Feb 2, 2015 at 12:59 PM, Steven D'Aprano
steve+comp.lang.pyt...@pearwood.info wrote:
And there are underspecified rules too. What is the plural of octopus? No
fair looking it up in the dictionary.
Standard and well-known piece of trivia, and there are several
options. Octopodes is one
On 2015-02-02 02:04, Chris Angelico wrote:
On Mon, Feb 2, 2015 at 12:59 PM, Steven D'Aprano
steve+comp.lang.pyt...@pearwood.info wrote:
And there are underspecified rules too. What is the plural of
octopus? No fair looking it up in the dictionary.
Standard and well-known piece of trivia, and
Steven D'Aprano wrote:
Of course people make grammar mistakes that they don't spot.
Ironically, this is one of them. It should of course be grammatical
mistakes.
Seriously, I didn't do that on purpose. I only noticed the error on reading
it back after sending.
--
Steven
--
On Mon, Feb 2, 2015 at 1:35 PM, Matthew Barnett
auxl...@mrabarnett.plus.com wrote:
And the plural of virus is viruses, not viri (that's the plural of
vir) or virii (that would be the plural of virius, if it existed).
Yes indeed.Virii and octopi are as wrong as hice for houses
(paralleling
Michael Torrie torr...@gmail.com:
http://en.cppreference.com/w/cpp/utility/functional/function
Thus if we were to shoehorn your example into C++, the result would be
idiomatically very similar to what you have in your Python code.
I can understand why you wouldn't write out my example in
Chris Angelico wrote:
On Mon, Feb 2, 2015 at 12:59 PM, Steven D'Aprano
steve+comp.lang.pyt...@pearwood.info wrote:
And there are underspecified rules too. What is the plural of octopus? No
fair looking it up in the dictionary.
Standard and well-known piece of trivia, and there are several
On Mon, Feb 2, 2015 at 3:14 PM, Roy Smith r...@panix.com wrote:
In article 54ceda0b$0$12977$c3e8da3$54964...@news.astraweb.com,
Steven D'Aprano steve+comp.lang.pyt...@pearwood.info wrote:
What is the plural of octopus?
It's a trick question. Octopus is already plural. Monopus is singular.
On Saturday, January 31, 2015 at 5:52:58 PM UTC+5:30, Marko Rauhamaa wrote:
Esthetically, I'm most impressed with Scheme. One day it might give
Python a run for its money.
Marko
Aren't you getting this backwards?
On Saturday, January 31, 2015 at 4:34:14 PM UTC+5:30, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
Yesterday, as I wrote that message, my web browser crashed *eight times* in
a matter of half an hour. There are thousands of serious security
vulnerabilities due to mishandled pointers. Anyone who thinks that Linux
Am 30.01.15 um 19:23 schrieb Paul Rubin:
Michael Torrie torr...@gmail.com writes:
Follow basic [C++] rules and 99% of segfaults will never happen and
the majority of leaks will not happen either.
That is a safe and simple approach, but it works by copying data all
over the place instead of
On 31/01/2015 15:50, Rustom Mody wrote:
On Saturday, January 31, 2015 at 5:52:58 PM UTC+5:30, Marko Rauhamaa wrote:
Esthetically, I'm most impressed with Scheme. One day it might give
Python a run for its money.
Marko
Aren't you getting this backwards?
Rustom Mody rustompm...@gmail.com:
On Saturday, January 31, 2015 at 5:52:58 PM UTC+5:30, Marko Rauhamaa wrote:
Esthetically, I'm most impressed with Scheme. One day it might give
Python a run for its money.
Aren't you getting this backwards?
Deep down I'm a minimalist romantic.
Its just
Marko Rauhamaa wrote:
I'm most impressed with Scheme. One day it might give
Python a run for its money.
Scheme is forty years old, having come out in 1975. Python is 24 years old,
having come out in 1991. If Scheme hasn't caught up with Python by now, it
never will.
--
Steven
--
Rustom Mody rustompm...@gmail.com:
There is a real conflict between the logician's goal and the
educator's. The logician wants to minimize the variety of ideas,
and doesn't mind a long, thin path. The educator (rightly) wants
to make the paths short and doesn't mind–in fact,
On Saturday, January 31, 2015 at 11:13:29 PM UTC+5:30, Marko Rauhamaa wrote:
Rustom Mody:
On Saturday, January 31, 2015 at 5:52:58 PM UTC+5:30, Marko Rauhamaa wrote:
Esthetically, I'm most impressed with Scheme. One day it might give
Python a run for its money.
Aren't you getting this
Marko Rauhamaa ma...@pacujo.net writes:
The guiding principle in C++ language development is to take static
type safety to the extreme.
Heh, try Ada.
Stroustrup apparently has never had to deal with callbacks; his thick
books never made a mention of them last time I checked.
C++ has
Michael Torrie wrote:
On 01/30/2015 04:50 PM, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
Oh great. So if the average application creates a hundred thousand
pointers of the course of a session, you'll only have a thousand or so
seg faults and leaks.
Well, that certainly explains this:
Gregory Ewing greg.ew...@canterbury.ac.nz:
I'm completely convinced nowadays that there is *no* use case for C++.
While I wouldn't go quite that far (my most recent creation was written
in C++; why? because the legacy support libraries were written in C++).
However, C++ is like putting
On Friday, January 30, 2015 at 1:03:03 PM UTC+5:30, Christian Gollwitzer wrote:
Am 30.01.15 um 02:40 schrieb Rustom Mody:
FORTRAN
use dictionary
type(dictionary), pointer :: d
d=dict_new()
call set(d//'toto',1)
v = d//'toto'
call dict_free(d)
The corresponding python
On 01/30/2015 09:27 AM, Rustom Mody wrote:
... if I restate that in other words it says that sufficiently
complex data structures will be beyond the reach of the standard
RAII infrastructure.
Of course this only brings up one side of memory-mgmt problems
viz. unreclaimable memory.
What
Michael Torrie torr...@gmail.com wrote:
Yes I can tell you haven't used C++. Compared to C, I've always found
memory management in C++ to be quite a lot easier. The main reason is
that C++ guarantees objects will be destroyed when going out of scope.
So when designing a class, you put any
Michael Torrie wrote:
On 01/30/2015 10:31 AM, Rustom Mody wrote:
And what about the grey area between lightweight and heavyweight?
That's what the smart pointers are for.
I'd say it's what higher-level languages are for. :-)
I'm completely convinced nowadays that there is
*no* use case
On Friday, January 30, 2015 at 10:39:12 PM UTC+5:30, Michael Torrie wrote:
On 01/30/2015 09:27 AM, Rustom Mody wrote:
... if I restate that in other words it says that sufficiently
complex data structures will be beyond the reach of the standard
RAII infrastructure.
Of course this only
On 01/30/2015 10:31 AM, Rustom Mody wrote:
And what about the grey area between lightweight and heavyweight?
That's what the smart pointers are for.
You say just use copy constructors and no pointers.
Can you (ie C++) guarantee that no pointer is ever copied out of
scope of these
Michael Torrie torr...@gmail.com writes:
Follow basic [C++] rules and 99% of segfaults will never happen and
the majority of leaks will not happen either.
That is a safe and simple approach, but it works by copying data all
over the place instead of passing pointers, resulting in performance
Michael Torrie wrote:
If that happened, then it's because you the programmer wanted it to
happen. It's not just going to happen all by itself. Yes anytime
pointers are allowed, things are potentially unsafe in the hands of a
programmer. I'm just saying it's not nearly so bad as you make it
Gregory Ewing wrote:
I'm completely convinced nowadays that there is
no use case for C++.
I can think of one use-case for C++.
You walk up to somebody in the street, say I wrote my own C++ parser!, and
while they are gibbering and shaking in shock, you rifle through their
pockets and steal
On 01/30/2015 04:50 PM, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
Oh great. So if the average application creates a hundred thousand pointers
of the course of a session, you'll only have a thousand or so seg faults
and leaks.
Well, that certainly explains this:
https://access.redhat.com/articles/1332213
I
On 01/30/2015 04:12 PM, Sturla Molden wrote:
Michael Torrie torr...@gmail.com wrote:
Yes I can tell you haven't used C++. Compared to C, I've always found
memory management in C++ to be quite a lot easier. The main reason is
that C++ guarantees objects will be destroyed when going out of
Hi,
I am not sure here is the right place to ask this question, but I want to give
it a shot:)
are there fortran libs providing python like data type, such as set, dict, list?
Thanks,
Yours liuzhenhai
--
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
On Thursday, January 29, 2015 at 10:01:00 AM UTC-5, Liu Zhenhai wrote:
Hi,
I am not sure here is the right place to ask this question, but I want to
give it a shot:)
are there fortran libs providing python like data type, such as set, dict,
list?
Thanks,
Yours liuzhenhai
The Fortran
On Friday, January 30, 2015 at 4:09:19 AM UTC+5:30, beli...@aol.com wrote:
On Thursday, January 29, 2015 at 10:01:00 AM UTC-5, Liu Zhenhai wrote:
Hi,
I am not sure here is the right place to ask this question, but I want to
give it a shot:)
are there fortran libs providing python like
Am 30.01.15 um 02:40 schrieb Rustom Mody:
FORTRAN
use dictionary
type(dictionary), pointer :: d
d=dict_new()
call set(d//'toto',1)
v = d//'toto'
call dict_free(d)
The corresponding python
d = dict()
d['toto'] = 1
v = d['toto']
del(d)
In particular note the del in the
60 matches
Mail list logo
