On 4 June 2013 14:35, Mark Lawrence breamore...@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
On 04/06/2013 14:29, rusi wrote:
The Clash of the Titans
Lé jmf chârgeth with mightƴ might
And le Mond underneath trembleth
Now RR mounts his sturdy steed
And the windmill yonder turneth
+1 funniest poem of the week :)
On Wed, Jun 5, 2013 at 10:25 PM, Russ P. russ.paie...@gmail.com wrote:
I recall reading a few years ago that Guido was thinking about adding
optional type annotations. I don't know if that went anywhere or not, but I
thought it was a good idea. Eventually I got tired of waiting, and I
On Thu, 06 Jun 2013 12:29:44 +1000, Chris Angelico wrote:
On Thu, Jun 6, 2013 at 11:56 AM, Steven D'Aprano
steve+comp.lang.pyt...@pearwood.info wrote:
On Wed, 05 Jun 2013 14:59:31 -0700, Russ P. wrote:
As for Python, my experience with it is that, as your application
grows, you start getting
On Thu, Jun 6, 2013 at 7:29 PM, Steven D'Aprano
steve+comp.lang.pyt...@pearwood.info wrote:
Whatever benefit there is in declaring the type of a function is lost due
to the inability to duck-type or program to an interface. There's no type
that says any object with a 'next' method, for example.
06.06.13 12:45, Chris Angelico написав(ла):
For the accept any object that has a next() method sorts of rules, I
don't know of any really viable system that does that usefully. The
concept of implementing interfaces in Java comes close, but the class
author has to declare that it's implementing
On Jun 6, 6:45 am, Chris Angelico ros...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Jun 6, 2013 at 11:37 AM, Steven D'Aprano
steve+comp.lang.pyt...@pearwood.info wrote:
What prevents bugs is the skill of the people writing the code, not the
compiler.
+1 QOTW.
In many Indian languages there is a saying: A
On Fri, Jun 7, 2013 at 12:09 AM, rusi rustompm...@gmail.com wrote:
When we switched from to python (via Scheme and a haskell-
predecessor), I dont remember ever getting a segmentation fault.
Oh, it's easy to segfault Python.
import sys
sys.setrecursionlimit(9)
def foo(): foo()
foo()
On 2013-06-06 10:45, Chris Angelico wrote:
For the accept any object that has a next() method sorts of rules, I
don't know of any really viable system that does that usefully. The
concept of implementing interfaces in Java comes close, but the class
author has to declare that it's implementing
On Jun 6, 8:26 pm, Chris Angelico ros...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Jun 7, 2013 at 12:09 AM, rusi rustompm...@gmail.com wrote:
When we switched from to python (via Scheme and a haskell-
predecessor), I dont remember ever getting a segmentation fault.
Oh, it's easy to segfault Python.
import
On Fri, Jun 7, 2013 at 1:36 AM, rusi rustompm...@gmail.com wrote:
On Jun 6, 8:26 pm, Chris Angelico ros...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Jun 7, 2013 at 12:09 AM, rusi rustompm...@gmail.com wrote:
When we switched from to python (via Scheme and a haskell-
predecessor), I dont remember ever getting
On Fri, Jun 7, 2013 at 1:35 AM, Robert Kern robert.k...@gmail.com wrote:
On 2013-06-06 10:45, Chris Angelico wrote:
For the accept any object that has a next() method sorts of rules, I
don't know of any really viable system that does that usefully. The
concept of implementing interfaces in
On Wednesday, June 5, 2013 11:59:07 AM UTC-5, Chris Angelico wrote:
Frankly, I don't think the language much matters. It's all
down to the skill of the programmers and testers. Ada
wasn't the source of the problem unless Ada has a bug in
it... which is going to be true of pretty much any
On Fri, Jun 7, 2013 at 1:49 AM, Rick Johnson
rantingrickjohn...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wednesday, June 5, 2013 11:59:07 AM UTC-5, Chris Angelico wrote:
Frankly, I don't think the language much matters. It's all
down to the skill of the programmers and testers. Ada
wasn't the source of the
On 2013-06-06 16:41, Chris Angelico wrote:
Anyway, regardless of your language, there's always some criteria that
can't be coded. Suppose the valid input for a function were integers
whose square roots are integers but whose cube roots are not. You
won't easily get compile-time checking of
On Wednesday, June 5, 2013 6:18:13 PM UTC-5, Michael Torrie wrote:
On 06/05/2013 12:11 AM, Russ P. wrote:
But then, what would you expect of a language that allows you to
write
x = 1
x = Hello
It's all loosey goosey -- which is fine for many applications but
certainly not for
On Thu, Jun 6, 2013 at 12:24 PM, Rick Johnson
rantingrickjohn...@gmail.com wrote:
In Python, if you fail to use the return statement, then Python will return
None, NOT some some value that just happens to be the last line executed in
the function -- Ruby breaks the law of least astonishment.
On Wednesday, June 5, 2013 2:15:57 AM UTC-5, Chris Angelico wrote:
[...]
I cannot name a single modern programming language that does NOT have
some kind of implicit boolification.
Congrats: Again you join the ranks of most children who make excuses for their
foolish actions along the lines
On Fri, Jun 7, 2013 at 2:49 AM, Rick Johnson
rantingrickjohn...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wednesday, June 5, 2013 2:15:57 AM UTC-5, Chris Angelico wrote:
[...]
I cannot name a single modern programming language that does NOT have
some kind of implicit boolification.
Congrats: Again you join the
On Jun 6, 9:08 pm, Robert Kern robert.k...@gmail.com wrote:
On 2013-06-06 16:41, Chris Angelico wrote:
Anyway, regardless of your language, there's always some criteria that
can't be coded. Suppose the valid input for a function were integers
whose square roots are integers but whose cube
On 2013-06-06, Chris Angelico ros...@gmail.com wrote:
Would you say that doubling the testing period is a good thing or a
bad thing?
It could be a neutral thing (ignoring the costs involved).
I once read read an article claiming that as you test (and fix) any
large, complex piece of software,
Whatever benefit there is in declaring the type of a function is lost due
to the inability to duck-type or program to an interface. There's no type
that says any object with a 'next' method, for example. And having to
declare local variables is a PITA with little benefit.
Give me a language
On Wednesday, June 5, 2013 8:37:20 PM UTC-5, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
On Wed, 05 Jun 2013 09:15:01 -0700, Russ P. wrote:
On Wednesday, June 5, 2013 1:59:01 AM UTC-7, Mark Lawrence wrote:
On 05/06/2013 07:11, Russ P. wrote:
What prevents bugs is the skill of the people writing the code, not
On Thursday, June 6, 2013 2:29:02 AM UTC-7, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
On Thu, 06 Jun 2013 12:29:44 +1000, Chris Angelico wrote:
On Thu, Jun 6, 2013 at 11:56 AM, Steven D'Aprano
steve+comp.lang.pyt...@pearwood.info wrote:
On Wed, 05 Jun 2013 14:59:31 -0700, Russ P. wrote:
As for
On Thursday, June 6, 2013 1:03:24 PM UTC-5, Rick Johnson wrote:
The second covers type checking objects that enter into new
namespaces. That would cover all functions/methods arguments
(at a minimum).
Yeah, before anyone starts complaining about this, i meant to say scope. Now
you can
Super OT divergence because I am a loser nerd:
On Thu, Jun 6, 2013 at 1:27 PM, rusi rustompm...@gmail.com wrote:
Yes, all programming communities have blind-spots. The Haskell
community's is that Haskell is safe and safe means that errors are
caught at compile-time.
I don't think Haskell
On Jun 7, 3:59 am, Mark Janssen dreamingforw...@gmail.com wrote:
Okay, I'm going straighten out you foo(l)s once and for all.
Gosh, really?! THANKS.
Python has seduced us all into lazy typing. That's what it is.
Bulshytt. If you have no idea what polymorphism is, you shouldn't even
be
On Jun 7, 2:39 am, Devin Jeanpierre jeanpierr...@gmail.com wrote:
Languages do not exist in a vacuum.
They do if all you use them for is academic point scoring over
practical purposes.
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
On Thu, Jun 6, 2013 at 9:49 AM, Rick Johnson
rantingrickjohn...@gmail.comwrote:
Congrats: Again you join the ranks of most children who make excuses for
their foolish actions along the lines of:
Hey, they did it first!
Well, the lemmings get what they deserve i suppose.
Lemmings don't
Python has seduced us all into lazy typing. That's what it is.
Bulshytt. If you have no idea what polymorphism is, you shouldn't even
be participating in this conversation.
I am aware of what it means, but Python doesn't really have it
(although it may evolve to it with annotations). But
On Jun 7, 11:44 am, Mark Janssen dreamingforw...@gmail.com wrote:
Bulshytt. If you have no idea what polymorphism is, you shouldn't even
be participating in this conversation.
I am aware of what it means, but Python doesn't really have it
You really need to stop commenting when you clearly
On Thu, 06 Jun 2013 18:44:49 -0700, Mark Janssen wrote:
Python has seduced us all into lazy typing. That's what it is.
Bulshytt. If you have no idea what polymorphism is, you shouldn't even
be participating in this conversation.
I am aware of what it means, but Python doesn't really have
On Jun 6, 11:44 pm, Devin Jeanpierre jeanpierr...@gmail.com wrote:
Unfortunately* the halting problem stands. When generalized to Rice
theorem it says that only trivial properties of programs are
algorithmically decidable:
http://mathworld.wolfram.com/RicesTheorem.html
And so the
I am aware of what it means, but Python doesn't really have it (although
it may evolve to it with annotations).
No polymorphism huh?
py len([1, 2, 3]) # len works on lists
3
py len((1, 2)) # and on tuples
2
py len({}) # and on dicts
0
py len('I pity the fool') # and on strings
15
On Jun 7, 8:14 am, Mark Janssen dreamingforw...@gmail.com wrote:
I am aware of what it means, but Python doesn't really have it (although
it may evolve to it with annotations).
No polymorphism huh?
py len([1, 2, 3]) # len works on lists
3
py len((1, 2)) # and on tuples
2
py
Fairly definitive terms have existed since 1985:
http://lucacardelli.name/Papers/OnUnderstanding.A4.pdf
You are making an outside view of a function (until a better term is
found). So that give you one possible view of polymorphism. However,
*within* a class that I would write, you would
On Jun 7, 8:24 am, rusi rustompm...@gmail.com wrote:
On Jun 7, 8:14 am, Mark Janssen dreamingforw...@gmail.com wrote:
I am aware of what it means, but Python doesn't really have it (although
it may evolve to it with annotations).
No polymorphism huh?
py len([1, 2, 3]) #
On 6/6/13, alex23 wuwe...@gmail.com wrote:
On Jun 7, 11:44 am, Mark Janssen dreamingforw...@gmail.com wrote:
Bulshytt. If you have no idea what polymorphism is, you shouldn't even
be participating in this conversation.
I am aware of what it means, but Python doesn't really have it
You
On Tuesday, June 4, 2013 8:44:11 AM UTC-7, Rick Johnson wrote:
Yes, but the problem is not my approach, rather the lack
of proper language design (my apologizes to the anointed
one. ;-)
If you don't like implicit conversion to Boolean, then maybe you should be
using another language --
On Wed, Jun 5, 2013 at 4:11 PM, Russ P. russ.paie...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tuesday, June 4, 2013 8:44:11 AM UTC-7, Rick Johnson wrote:
Yes, but the problem is not my approach, rather the lack
of proper language design (my apologizes to the anointed
one. ;-)
If you don't like implicit
On Wednesday, June 5, 2013 12:15:57 AM UTC-7, Chris Angelico wrote:
On Wed, Jun 5, 2013 at 4:11 PM, Russ P. wrote:
On Tuesday, June 4, 2013 8:44:11 AM UTC-7, Rick Johnson wrote:
Yes, but the problem is not my approach, rather the lack
of proper language design (my apologizes
On 05/06/2013 07:11, Russ P. wrote:
But then, what would you expect of a language that allows you to write
x = 1
x = Hello
It's all loosey goosey -- which is fine for many applications but certainly not
for critical ones.
I want to launch this rocket with an expensive satellite on top. I
On 6/5/2013 2:11 AM, Russ P. wrote:
But then, what would you expect of a language that allows you to
write
x = 1
x = Hello
It's all loosey goosey -- which is fine for many applications but
certainly not for critical ones.
I believe Shedskin, a Python *subset* compiler*, will reject that,
On Wednesday, June 5, 2013 1:59:01 AM UTC-7, Mark Lawrence wrote:
On 05/06/2013 07:11, Russ P. wrote:
But then, what would you expect of a language that allows you to write
x = 1
x = Hello
It's all loosey goosey -- which is fine for many applications but certainly
On Thu, Jun 6, 2013 at 2:15 AM, Russ P. russ.paie...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wednesday, June 5, 2013 1:59:01 AM UTC-7, Mark Lawrence wrote:
I want to launch this rocket with an expensive satellite on top. I know
it's safe as the code is written in ADA. Whoops :(
So Python would have been a
On Wednesday, June 5, 2013 9:59:07 AM UTC-7, Chris Angelico wrote:
On Thu, Jun 6, 2013 at 2:15 AM, Russ P. wrote:
On Wednesday, June 5, 2013 1:59:01 AM UTC-7, Mark Lawrence wrote:
I want to launch this rocket with an expensive satellite on top. I know
it's safe as the code is
On 06/05/2013 12:11 AM, Russ P. wrote:
But then, what would you expect of a language that allows you to
write
x = 1
x = Hello
It's all loosey goosey -- which is fine for many applications but
certainly not for critical ones.
This comment shows me that you don't understand the
On Wednesday, June 5, 2013 4:18:13 PM UTC-7, Michael Torrie wrote:
On 06/05/2013 12:11 AM, Russ P. wrote:
But then, what would you expect of a language that allows you to
write
x = 1
x = Hello
It's all loosey goosey -- which is fine for many applications but
On 06/05/2013 05:52 PM, Russ P. wrote:
My comment shows you nothing about what I understand about names,
objects, and variables.
Yes that probably is true.
You have chosen to question my understanding apparently because my
point bothered you but you don't have a good reply. Then you link me
On Wed, 05 Jun 2013 09:15:01 -0700, Russ P. wrote:
On Wednesday, June 5, 2013 1:59:01 AM UTC-7, Mark Lawrence wrote:
On 05/06/2013 07:11, Russ P. wrote:
But then, what would you expect of a language that allows you to
write
x = 1
x = Hello
It's all loosey goosey -- which is fine
On Thu, Jun 6, 2013 at 11:37 AM, Steven D'Aprano
steve+comp.lang.pyt...@pearwood.info wrote:
What prevents bugs is the skill of the people writing the code, not the
compiler.
+1 QOTW.
ChrisA
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
On Wed, 05 Jun 2013 14:59:31 -0700, Russ P. wrote:
I'm not an Ada guy, but Ada advocates claim that it reduces development
time by half in the long run compared to C and C++ due to reduced
debugging time and simpler maintenance.
They may be right. Far too many people think that C and C++
On Thu, Jun 6, 2013 at 11:56 AM, Steven D'Aprano
steve+comp.lang.pyt...@pearwood.info wrote:
On Wed, 05 Jun 2013 14:59:31 -0700, Russ P. wrote:
As for Python, my experience with it is that, as
your application grows, you start getting confused about what the
argument types are or are supposed
On Wednesday, June 5, 2013 7:29:44 PM UTC-7, Chris Angelico wrote:
On Thu, Jun 6, 2013 at 11:56 AM, Steven D'Aprano
steve+comp.lang.pyt...@pearwood.info wrote:
On Wed, 05 Jun 2013 14:59:31 -0700, Russ P. wrote:
As for Python, my experience with it is that, as
your application
On Tue, Jun 4, 2013 at 11:37 AM, Rick Johnson
rantingrickjohn...@gmail.com wrote:
The print function is the very definition of a syntactic sugar.
For example:
print(some sting)
is much more readable than:
sys.stdout.write(some string+\n)
...
Again, the removal of a print function
On 2 juin, 20:09, Rick Johnson rantingrickjohn...@gmail.com wrote:
I never purposely inject ANY superfluous cycles in my code except in
the case of testing or development. To me it's about professionalism.
Let's consider a thought exercise shall we?
The flexible string
On Jun 4, 5:23 pm, jmfauth wxjmfa...@gmail.com wrote:
On 2 juin, 20:09, Rick Johnson rantingrickjohn...@gmail.com wrote:
I never purposely inject ANY superfluous cycles in my code except in
the case of testing or development. To me it's about professionalism.
Let's consider a thought
On 04/06/2013 14:29, rusi wrote:
On Jun 4, 5:23 pm, jmfauth wxjmfa...@gmail.com wrote:
On 2 juin, 20:09, Rick Johnson rantingrickjohn...@gmail.com wrote:
I never purposely inject ANY superfluous cycles in my code except in
the case of testing or development. To me it's about
On Tuesday, June 4, 2013 12:39:59 AM UTC-5, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
On Mon, 03 Jun 2013 18:37:24 -0700, Rick Johnson wrote:
Consider a simple thought experiment. Suppose we start with a sequence of
if statements that begin simple and get more complicated:
if a == 1: ...
if a == 1 and b 2*c:
On Wed, Jun 5, 2013 at 1:44 AM, Rick Johnson
rantingrickjohn...@gmail.com wrote:
But we are really ignoring the elephant in the room. Implict
conversion to Boolean is just a drop in the bucket compared
to the constant shell game we are subjected to when
reading source code. We so naively
On 4 Jun 2013 17:04, Chris Angelico ros...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Jun 5, 2013 at 1:44 AM, Rick Johnson
rantingrickjohn...@gmail.com wrote:
But we are really ignoring the elephant in the room. Implict
conversion to Boolean is just a drop in the bucket compared
to the constant shell game
On Jun 4, 10:44 am, Rick Johnson rantingrickjohn...@gmail.com wrote:
What we need is a method by which we can validate a symbol
and simultaneously do the vaidation in a manner that will
cast light on the type that is expected. In order for this
to work, you would need validators with unique
On Jun 4, 11:00 am, Chris Angelico ros...@gmail.com wrote:
You know, if you want a language with strict type declarations and
extreme run-time efficiency, there are some around.
I don't like declaring types everywhere, i hate it. I prefer duck
typed languages, HOWEVER, in order for duck typing
On Wed, Jun 5, 2013 at 2:19 AM, Rick Johnson
rantingrickjohn...@gmail.com wrote:
On Jun 4, 11:00 am, Chris Angelico ros...@gmail.com wrote:
You know, if you want a language with strict type declarations and
extreme run-time efficiency, there are some around.
I don't like declaring types
On 6/4/2013 12:19 PM, Rick Johnson wrote:
On Jun 4, 11:00 am, Chris Angelico ros...@gmail.com wrote:
You know, if you want a language with strict type declarations and
extreme run-time efficiency, there are some around.
I don't like declaring types everywhere, i hate it. I prefer duck
typed
On Tue, Jun 4, 2013 at 11:44 AM, Rick Johnson
rantingrickjohn...@gmail.comwrote:
This implicit conversion seems like a good idea at first,
and i was caught up in the hype myself for some time: Hey,
i can save a few keystrokes, AWESOME!. However, i can tell
you with certainty that this
On Tue, Jun 4, 2013 at 9:44 AM, Rick Johnson
rantingrickjohn...@gmail.com wrote:
It is my firm belief that truth testing a value that is not
a Boolean should raise an exception. If you want to convert
a type to Boolean then pass it to the bool function:
lst = [1,2,3]
if bool(lst):
On Jun 4, 12:42 pm, Ian Kelly ian.g.ke...@gmail.com wrote:
By this manner, we can roll three common tests into one
method:
* Boolean conversion
* member truthiness for iterables
* type checking
How exactly does this is_valid method perform the first two? Are you
On 05/06/2013 00:21, Rick Johnson wrote:
[snip]
Would you be kind enough not to smoke too much wacky baccy before
posting, thanks.
--
Steve is going for the pink ball - and for those of you who are
watching in black and white, the pink is next to the green. Snooker
commentator 'Whispering'
On Jun 5, 2:09 am, Rick Johnson rantingrickjohn...@gmail.com wrote:
This is how you design a language for consistency and readability.
Great! Now you can shut up and get back to work on RickPython4000.
Come back and let us know all about it when it's done.
--
On Tue, 04 Jun 2013 05:23:19 -0700, jmfauth wrote:
How is is possible to arrive to such a situation ? The answer if far
beyond my understanding
Truer words have never been spoken.
(although I have my opinion on the subject).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning–Kruger_effect
--
Steven
On 06/04/2013 05:21 PM, Rick Johnson wrote:
If you still feel that this idea is garbage, then, keep on writing
your sloppy code. My proposal is the best method to handle the
problems that arise with duck typed languages in a manner that is not
restrictive or laborious -- it's actually quite
On Wed, 05 Jun 2013 02:27:26 +1000, Chris Angelico wrote:
On Wed, Jun 5, 2013 at 2:19 AM, Rick Johnson
rantingrickjohn...@gmail.com wrote:
On Jun 4, 11:00 am, Chris Angelico ros...@gmail.com wrote:
You know, if you want a language with strict type declarations and
extreme run-time
On Jun 5, 3:28 pm, Steven D'Aprano steve
+comp.lang.pyt...@pearwood.info wrote:
How many years has Rick been coming here, proclaiming loudly x [a]nd yet,
he still has no clue what
x actually means.
It's not just duck typing.
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 12:34 AM, Dan Sommers d...@tombstonezero.net wrote:
On Mon, 03 Jun 2013 13:37:27 +1000, Tim Delaney wrote:
With the increase in use of higher-level languages, these days
Heisenbugs most often appear with multithreaded code that doesn't
properly protect critical
On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 3:49 PM, Michael Torrie torr...@gmail.com wrote:
On 06/02/2013 12:18 PM, Rick Johnson wrote:
On Sunday, June 2, 2013 12:49:02 PM UTC-5, Dan Sommers wrote:
On Mon, 03 Jun 2013 03:20:52 +1000, Chris Angelico wrote:
On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 3:04 AM, Rick Johnson
[...] Or use
On Mon, 03 Jun 2013 17:17:12 +1000, Chris Angelico wrote:
On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 3:49 PM, Michael Torrie torr...@gmail.com
wrote:
On 06/02/2013 12:18 PM, Rick Johnson wrote:
On Sunday, June 2, 2013 12:49:02 PM UTC-5, Dan Sommers wrote:
On Mon, 03 Jun 2013 03:20:52 +1000, Chris Angelico
On 03/06/2013 04:10, Dan Sommers wrote:
On Sun, 02 Jun 2013 20:16:21 -0400, Jason Swails wrote:
... If you don't believe me, you've never hit a bug that 'magically'
disappears when you add a debugging print statement ;-).
Ah, yes. The Heisenbug. ;-)
We used to run into those back in the
On 2013-06-03 05:20, Dan Sommers wrote:
On Sun, 02 Jun 2013 23:23:42 -0400, Jason Swails wrote:
... (And yes, a good portion of our code is -still- in Fortran -- but
at least it's F90+ :).
I am a huge proponent of using the right tool for the job. There is
nothing wrong with some
On 06/03/2013 04:49 AM, Mark Lawrence wrote:
On 03/06/2013 04:10, Dan Sommers wrote:
On Sun, 02 Jun 2013 20:16:21 -0400, Jason Swails wrote:
... If you don't believe me, you've never hit a bug that 'magically'
disappears when you add a debugging print statement ;-).
Ah, yes. The Heisenbug.
On Sun, Jun 2, 2013 at 6:16 PM, Jason Swails jason.swa...@gmail.com wrote:
I'm actually with RR in terms of eliminating the overhead involved with
'dead' function calls, since there are instances when optimizing in Python
is desirable. I actually recently adjusted one of my own scripts to
On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 1:12 PM, Ian Kelly ian.g.ke...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Jun 2, 2013 at 6:16 PM, Jason Swails jason.swa...@gmail.com
wrote:
I'm actually with RR in terms of eliminating the overhead involved with
'dead' function calls, since there are instances when optimizing in
On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 1:12 PM, Ian Kelly ian.g.ke...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Jun 2, 2013 at 6:16 PM, Jason Swails jason.swa...@gmail.com
wrote:
I'm actually with RR in terms of eliminating the overhead involved with
'dead' function calls, since there are instances when optimizing in
ack, sorry for the double-post.
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
On Mon, 03 Jun 2013 15:09:48 -0400, Jason Swails wrote:
But unlike RR, who suggests some elaborate interpreter-wide, ambiguous
ignore-rule to squash out all of these functions, I'm simply suggesting
that sometimes it's worth commenting-out debug print calls instead of
'just leaving them there
On Tue, Jun 4, 2013 at 6:31 AM, Steven D'Aprano
steve+comp.lang.pyt...@pearwood.info wrote:
... quite frankly I have no sympathy for
the view that CPU cycles are so precious that we mustn't waste them. If
that were the case, Python is the wrong language.
CPU cycles *are* valuable still,
On Sunday, June 2, 2013 1:58:30 PM UTC-5, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
On Sun, 02 Jun 2013 10:04:00 -0700, Rick Johnson wrote:
Oh Steven, you've really outdone yourself this time with the
theatrics. I hope you scored some cool points with your
minions. Heck, you almost had me convinced until i slapped
Rick Johnson wrote:
Take your
standard yes/no/cancel dialog, i would expect it to return
True|False|None respectively,
you clearly mean True / False / FileNotFound.
( http://thedailywtf.com/Articles/What_Is_Truth_0x3f_.aspx )
--
ZeD
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
On Monday, June 3, 2013 10:16:13 PM UTC-5, Vito De Tullio wrote:
Rick Johnson wrote:
Take your
standard yes/no/cancel dialog, i would expect it to return
True|False|None respectively,
you clearly mean True / False / FileNotFound.
No, i clearly meant what i said :-). FileDialogs only
On Tue, 04 Jun 2013 05:16:13 +0200, Vito De Tullio wrote:
Rick Johnson wrote:
Take your
standard yes/no/cancel dialog, i would expect it to return
True|False|None respectively,
you clearly mean True / False / FileNotFound.
( http://thedailywtf.com/Articles/What_Is_Truth_0x3f_.aspx )
On Mon, 03 Jun 2013 18:37:24 -0700, Rick Johnson wrote:
On Sunday, June 2, 2013 1:58:30 PM UTC-5, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
On Sun, 02 Jun 2013 10:04:00 -0700, Rick Johnson wrote:
A wise programmer may think he's solved the problem by writing a
function called debugprint that looks like this:
Note to those of you who may be new to Python: I will refer to print as a
function -- just be aware that print was a statement before Python3000 was
introduced.
Introduction:
On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 3:04 AM, Rick Johnson
rantingrickjohn...@gmail.com wrote:
* Woefully inadequate because: Switching on or off the debug
messages is only valid in the current module that the
function was imported. What if you want to kill all
debugprint messages EVERYWHERE? Do
I don't think you go far enough. Obviously we need way more flexibility. A
simple on/off is okay for some things, but a finer granularity
would be really helpful because some things are more important than others. And
why stop at stdout/stderr? We need to add a consistent way
to output these
On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 3:30 AM, Andrew Berg robotsondr...@gmail.com wrote:
I don't think you go far enough. Obviously we need way more flexibility. A
simple on/off is okay for some things, but a finer granularity
would be really helpful because some things are more important than others.
And
On Mon, 03 Jun 2013 03:20:52 +1000, Chris Angelico wrote:
On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 3:04 AM, Rick Johnson
rantingrickjohn...@gmail.com wrote:
* Woefully inadequate because: Switching on or off the debug
messages is only valid in the current module that the function was
imported. What if
On Jun 2, 12:20 pm, Chris Angelico ros...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 3:04 AM, Rick Johnson
* Woefully inadequate because: Switching on or off the debug
messages is only valid in the current module that the
function was imported. What if you want to kill all
On Sunday, June 2, 2013 12:49:02 PM UTC-5, Dan Sommers wrote:
On Mon, 03 Jun 2013 03:20:52 +1000, Chris Angelico wrote:
On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 3:04 AM, Rick Johnson
[...]
Or use the logging module. It's easy to get going quickly
(just call logging.basicConfig at startup time), and with
a
On Sun, 02 Jun 2013 10:04:00 -0700, Rick Johnson wrote:
Many
languages provide a function, method, or statement by which users can
write easily to stdout, and Python is no exception with it's own print
function. However, whilst writing to stdout via print is slightly less
verbose than
On Sun, 02 Jun 2013 11:09:12 -0700, Rick Johnson wrote:
Maybe you don't care about destroying someone's CPU, however, i do!
And yet here you are, destroying millions of people's CPUs by sending
them email or usenet messages filled with garbage.
--
Steven
--
On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 4:09 AM, Rick Johnson
rantingrickjohn...@gmail.com wrote:
On Jun 2, 12:20 pm, Chris Angelico ros...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 3:04 AM, Rick Johnson
* Woefully inadequate because: Switching on or off the debug
messages is only valid in the current
1 - 100 of 111 matches
Mail list logo
