On Tue, 02 Sep 2008 11:13:27 +1000, Ben Finney wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
For Python 2.7/3.1 I'd now like to write a PEP regarding the
underscores into the number literals, like: 0b_0101_, 268_435_456
etc.
+1 on such a capability.
-1 on underscore as the separator.
When
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ben Finney:
I don't see any good reason (other than your familiarity with the D
language) to use underscores for this purpose, and much more reason
(readability, consistency, fewer arbitrary differences in syntax,
perhaps simpler implementation)
On 02 Sep 2008 06:10:51 GMT, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
At the risk of bike-shedding,
[snip]
(startled noises) It is a delight to find a reference to
that half-century-old essay (High Finance) by the wonderful
C. Northcote Parkinson, but how many readers will catch the
allusion?
--
To email me,
On Sep 2, 6:35 am, Nick Craig-Wood [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It's not just my familiarity, Ada language too uses underscore for
that purpose, I think, so there's a precedent, and Ada is a language
designed to always minimize programming errors,
On Mon, Sep 1, 2008 at 6:02 PM, Mensanator [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sep 1, 6:55�pm, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Steven D'Aprano:
productory() -- I don't know that function, and googling mostly comes up
with retail product searches. Do you mean product(),
Darn my English, you are right,
I have just re-read the list of changes in Python 2.6, it's huge,
there are tons of changes and improvements, I'm really impressed:
http://docs.python.org/dev/whatsnew/2.6.html
I'll need many days to learn all those changes! I can see it fixes
several of the missing things/problems I have found
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I presume it's better for me to not hold my breath while I wait
CPython to be written in C99 :-)
First you have to convince Microsoft to release C99 compiler ... good luck!
Christian
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Now math has factorial:
http://docs.python.org/dev/library/math.html#math.factorial
That's rather underdocumented.
Does it really attempt exact calculation
for arbitrary integers?? Is there any
way to request a nice fast approximation
for large integers (e.g., with
On Mon, 01 Sep 2008 12:15:53 -0700, bearophileHUGS wrote:
Now math has factorial:
http://docs.python.org/dev/library/math.html#math.factorial Seen how
reduce() is removed from Python 3 (I know it's in itertools), and seeing
that for me to write a productory() function was the first usage I
Steven D'Aprano:
productory() -- I don't know that function, and googling mostly comes up
with retail product searches. Do you mean product(),
Darn my English, you are right, sorry, I meant a product() of
course :-)
Bye,
bearophile
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
On Sep 1, 6:55�pm, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Steven D'Aprano:
productory() -- I don't know that function, and googling mostly comes up
with retail product searches. Do you mean product(),
Darn my English, you are right, sorry, I meant a product() of
course :-)
But the name product() has
On Sep 1, 2:15�pm, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I have just re-read the list of changes in Python 2.6, it's huge,
there are tons of changes and improvements, I'm really
impressed:http://docs.python.org/dev/whatsnew/2.6.html
I'll need many days to learn all those changes! I can see it fixes
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
For Python 2.7/3.1 I'd now like to write a PEP regarding the
underscores into the number literals, like: 0b_0101_, 268_435_456
etc.
+1 on such a capability.
-1 on underscore as the separator.
When you proposed this last year, the counter-proposal was made
Ben Finney:
I don't see any good reason (other than your familiarity with the D
language) to use underscores for this purpose, and much more reason
(readability, consistency, fewer arbitrary differences in syntax,
perhaps simpler implementation) to use whitespace just as with string
literals.
14 matches
Mail list logo
