On Monday 11 May 2015 11:46, zipher wrote:
By having methods like len() in your built-in namespace when it's really
only relevant to objects that are types of containers, you blur one
primary component of OOP: encapsulation.
Gosh, one would almost think that Python's concept of OOP wasn't
On 11/05/2015 07:15, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
On Monday 11 May 2015 11:46, zipher wrote:
By having methods like len() in your built-in namespace when it's really
only relevant to objects that are types of containers, you blur one
primary component of OOP: encapsulation.
Gosh, one would almost
3.) true OOP
Now before you go and get all huffy over this statement, hear me
out. Python is the best language in the world. But it damn sure has
some warts! len(this) instead of obj.length max(that) instead of
[1,2,3,4,5].max().
As the Zen says: '[P]racticality beats purity'.
On Sunday, May 10, 2015 at 9:18:55 PM UTC-5, Chris Angelico wrote:
On Mon, May 11, 2015 at 12:11 PM, zipher dreamingforw...@gmail.com wrote:
Please take care of your quoting. You just quoted two other posts, and
I have no idea who said things without going and digging in the
archive.
zipher dreamingforw...@gmail.com writes:
On Sunday, May 10, 2015 at 9:18:55 PM UTC-5, Chris Angelico wrote:
That actually has nothing to do with it. You're still quoting
without citation.
Well, I replied right at the point of my correspondent (Alex23).
That's not the issue :-)
The
Please take care of your quoting. You just quoted two other posts, and
I have no idea who said things without going and digging in the
archive.
I'm sorry. I've been sleeping on the beach, away from civilization, a little
too long, and didn't see that this was a post from 6 years ago.
Feel
On Mon, May 11, 2015 at 11:46 AM, zipher dreamingforw...@gmail.com wrote:
3.) true OOP
Now before you go and get all huffy over this statement, hear me
out. Python is the best language in the world. But it damn sure has
some warts! len(this) instead of obj.length max(that) instead of
On Mon, May 11, 2015 at 12:11 PM, zipher dreamingforw...@gmail.com wrote:
Please take care of your quoting. You just quoted two other posts, and
I have no idea who said things without going and digging in the
archive.
I'm sorry. I've been sleeping on the beach, away from civilization, a
On Friday 31 July 2009 04:08:33 am Masklinn wrote:
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
Steven D'Aprano ste...@remove.this.cybersource.com.au wrote in message
news:pan.2009.08.04.09.28...@remove.this.cybersource.com.au...
On Tue, 04 Aug 2009 10:03:53 +0200, Bruno Desthuilliers wrote:
Disadvantages: your code is filled with line noise. It's an arbitrary
choice between @@ meaning
Steven D'Aprano a écrit :
On Fri, 31 Jul 2009 13:38:56 +0200, Bruno Desthuilliers wrote:
On the other hand, we don't have to prefix names with @ and @@,
Nope, we have to prefix them with 'self' or 'cls' (or even
'self.__class__').
Incorrect.
Correct for all relevant cases, except this
On Tue, 04 Aug 2009 10:03:53 +0200, Bruno Desthuilliers wrote:
Disadvantages: your code is filled with line noise. It's an arbitrary
choice between @@ meaning instance attribute and @@ meaning class
attribute -- there's no logical reason for choosing one over the other,
so you have to
Steven D'Aprano a écrit :
On Tue, 04 Aug 2009 10:03:53 +0200, Bruno Desthuilliers wrote:
Disadvantages: your code is filled with line noise. It's an arbitrary
choice between @@ meaning instance attribute and @@ meaning class
attribute -- there's no logical reason for choosing one over the
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 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 Surleauemmanuel.surl...@gmail.com 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
On 30 Jul 2009, at 23:52 , Jan Kaliszewski wrote:
Dnia 30-07-2009 o 22:41:57 Masklinn maskl...@masklinn.net
napisał(a):
On 30 Jul 2009, at 22:23 , Jan Kaliszewski wrote:
30-07-2009 o 13:36:49 Masklinn maskl...@masklinn.net wrote:
On 30 Jul 2009, at 06:04 , alex23 wrote:
On Jul 30, 1:06 pm,
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 kind
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 flexible languages, lets you alter the value of a constant.
Yep, as they say Bug =
On Fri, Jul 31, 2009 at 6:08 PM, Masklinn maskl...@masklinn.net wrote:
snip... but since Python doesn't have anonymous functions that usage
tends to be a bit too verbose ... snip
Sorry to interrupt, but wouldn't lambda in Python be considered as
'anonymous functions'?
--
On Fri, Jul 31, 2009 at 1:21 AM, Xavier Hocont...@xavierho.com wrote:
On Fri, Jul 31, 2009 at 6:08 PM, Masklinn maskl...@masklinn.net wrote:
snip... but since Python doesn't have anonymous functions that usage
tends to be a bit too verbose ... snip
Sorry to interrupt, but wouldn't lambda in
On Fri, Jul 31, 2009 at 6:25 PM, Chris Rebert c...@rebertia.com wrote:
I believe full anonymous functions was intended by the author.
lambdas are limited to a single expression. Full anonymous functions
would be allowed to contain multiple statements.
Cheers, but what about this:
def
On Fri, Jul 31, 2009 at 1:31 AM, Xavier Hocont...@xavierho.com wrote:
On Fri, Jul 31, 2009 at 6:25 PM, Chris Rebert c...@rebertia.com wrote:
I believe full anonymous functions was intended by the author.
lambdas are limited to a single expression. Full anonymous functions
would be allowed to
On Fri, Jul 31, 2009 at 6:38 PM, Chris Rebert c...@rebertia.com wrote:
No, because it has a name, namely goBig; this obviously prevents it
from being anonymous.
For comparison, note how the function in the following example is
never given a name, and is thus anonymous:
(lambda x: x+5)(6)
r wrote:
The purpose of his thread was to get feedback on how Python
and Ruby ideas could be cumulated into the best high level language.
And being that i am the BDFL of the Confessions of a Python Fanboy
thread, you have my personal permission to continue on with this
subject matter...,
On 31 Jul 2009, at 10:25 , Chris Rebert wrote:
On Fri, Jul 31, 2009 at 1:21 AM, Xavier Hocont...@xavierho.com
wrote:
On Fri, Jul 31, 2009 at 6:08 PM, Masklinn maskl...@masklinn.net
wrote:
snip... but since Python doesn't have anonymous functions that
usage
tends to be a bit too verbose
On Jul 31, 8:28 am, Steven D'Aprano st...@remove-this-
cybersource.com.au 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 Surleauemmanuel.surl...@gmail.com wrote:
1.) No need to use () to call a function with no
On 31 Jul 2009, at 11:54 , Iain King wrote:
On Jul 31, 8:28 am, Steven D'Aprano st...@remove-this-
cybersource.com.au 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 Surleauemmanuel.surl...@gmail.com
wrote:
1.) No need
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 flexible languages, lets you alter the value of a constant.
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
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 more when I read in the Pragmatic Programmer's Guide that Ruby,
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 more when
Steven D'Aprano wrote:
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 flexible languages, lets you alter the value of a constant.
Yep,
On Jul 31, 4:08 pm, Ethan Furman et...@stoneleaf.us wrote:
Steven D'Aprano wrote:
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
On Fri, Jul 31, 2009 at 11:35 AM, Iain Kingiaink...@gmail.com wrote:
On Jul 31, 4:08 pm, Ethan Furman et...@stoneleaf.us wrote:
Steven D'Aprano wrote:
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
On Fri, 31 Jul 2009 13:38:56 +0200, Bruno Desthuilliers wrote:
On the other hand, we don't have to prefix names with @ and @@,
Nope, we have to prefix them with 'self' or 'cls' (or even
'self.__class__').
Incorrect.
class K:
... class_attribute = 'No @@ required.'
...
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
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 iterator objects, and programmers using those
through
2009/7/31 Steven D'Aprano st...@remove-this-cybersource.com.au:
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 flexible languages, lets
On Jul 31, 3:49 am, Masklinn maskl...@masklinn.net wrote:
On 31 Jul 2009, at 10:25 , Chris Rebert wrote: On Fri, Jul 31, 2009 at 1:21
AM, Xavier Hocont...@xavierho.com
wrote:
On Fri, Jul 31, 2009 at 6:08 PM, Masklinn maskl...@masklinn.net
wrote:
snip... but since Python doesn't
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 iterator
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
enough to overcome the disadvantages of anonymous code blocks.
On Friday 31 July 2009 18:54:23 Tim Rowe wrote:
2009/7/31 Steven D'Aprano st...@remove-this-cybersource.com.au:
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
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
enough to overcome
On Fri, 31 Jul 2009 20:41:12 +0200, Emmanuel Surleau wrote:
We don't actually *declare* that something is constant and then have
that declaration ignored. Python doesn't lie to us, although (as in any
language) a programmer might.
You could say that Ruby doesn't either,
Well you could say
On Saturday 01 August 2009 03:46:12 Steven D'Aprano wrote:
On Fri, 31 Jul 2009 20:41:12 +0200, Emmanuel Surleau wrote:
We don't actually *declare* that something is constant and then have
that declaration ignored. Python doesn't lie to us, although (as in any
language) a programmer might.
r wrote:
My adventures in Ruby.
Oh, it's you.
Good boy.
Now, why don't you have a look at javascript and come back in six months?
Or better yet, haskell and twelve months.
thanks
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
On 30 Jul 2009, at 06:04 , alex23 wrote:
On Jul 30, 1:06 pm, r rt8...@gmail.com 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.
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 method
period end of the story; while Python does have a dichotomy
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
method period end of the story; while Python does
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 method period end of
Some have treated this as a troll. I don't.
r wrote:
[snip]
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.
+1
2.) the .each method
On Jul 29, 9:06 pm, r rt8...@gmail.com 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 personally would not prefer this, and
On Jul 30, 12:04 am, alex23 wuwe...@gmail.com wrote:
On Jul 30, 1:06 pm, r rt8...@gmail.com 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
On Jul 30, 11:31 am, Falcolas garri...@gmail.com wrote:
On Jul 29, 9:06 pm, r rt8...@gmail.com 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
On 30 Jul 2009, at 18:31 , Falcolas wrote:
On Jul 29, 9:06 pm, r rt8...@gmail.com 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.
On 30 Jul 2009, at 19:01 , Inky 788 wrote:
On Jul 30, 12:04 am, alex23 wuwe...@gmail.com wrote:
On Jul 30, 1:06 pm, r rt8...@gmail.com 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
On Jul 30, 12:15 pm, Masklinn maskl...@masklinn.net 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 ! is part of the name, there's no magic) to
indicate that this
Traceback (most recent post last):
File Confessions of a Python Fanboy, lines (13,14), in post
vector.reverse -- in-place
vector.reversed -- in-place
DumbMistakeError:
Of course in python you would do...
vector.reverse -- in-place
vector.reversed -- new vector
--
r wrote:
On Jul 30, 11:31 am, Falcolas garri...@gmail.com wrote:
On Jul 29, 9:06 pm, r rt8...@gmail.com 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
On Jul 30, 12:37 pm, Jean-Michel Pichavant jeanmic...@sequans.com
wrote:
r wrote:
On Jul 30, 11:31 am, Falcolas garri...@gmail.com wrote:
On Jul 29, 9:06 pm, r rt8...@gmail.com wrote:
1.) No need to use () to call a function with no arguments.
Python -- obj.m2().m3() --ugly
Ruby --
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?
The above example works pretty good, but this doesn't always sound
good. Take for example this...
point3d.offset -- return a
2009/7/30 r rt8...@gmail.com:
Like your
first lay, your first programing language can leave an indelible mark
on you
That's true. FOCAL scarred me for life.
but i now realize Ruby has some good
things going for it.
Any language that gets any sort of real use has to have. For instance,
I
On 30 Jul 2009, at 19:37 , Jean-Michel Pichavant wrote:
r wrote:
On Jul 30, 11:31 am, Falcolas garri...@gmail.com wrote:
On Jul 29, 9:06 pm, r rt8...@gmail.com wrote:
1.) No need to use () to call a function with no arguments.
Python -- obj.m2().m3() --ugly
Ruby -- obj.m1.m2.m3 --
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()` but
r wrote:
On Jul 30, 12:15 pm, Masklinn maskl...@masklinn.net 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 ! is part of the name, there's no magic) to
indicate
On Jul 30, 11:56 am, Masklinn maskl...@masklinn.net 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 give access to attributes,
Tim Rowe wrote:
2009/7/30 r rt8...@gmail.com:
Like your
first lay, your first programing language can leave an indelible mark
on you
That's true. FOCAL scarred me for life.
but i now realize Ruby has some good
things going for it.
Any language that gets any sort of real use has to
On 30 Jul 2009, at 20:05 , superpollo wrote:
r wrote:
On Jul 30, 12:15 pm, Masklinn maskl...@masklinn.net 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 ! is part
On 30 Jul 2009, at 20:06 , Falcolas wrote:
On Jul 30, 11:56 am, Masklinn maskl...@masklinn.net 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.
MRAB wrote:
superpollo wrote:
...
how to reverse a string in python? must i usa a temp? like:
s = ciccio
l = list(s)
l.reverse()
s = .join(l)
s
'oiccic'
???
Use slicing with a step of -1:
s = ciccio
s[::-1]
'oiccic'
lol
bye
--
30-07-2009 o 13:36:49 Masklinn maskl...@masklinn.net wrote:
On 30 Jul 2009, at 06:04 , alex23 wrote:
On Jul 30, 1:06 pm, r rt8...@gmail.com wrote:
2.) the .each method
container.each{|localVar| block}
This method can really cleanup some ugly for loops, although i really
like the readability
On 30 Jul 2009, at 22:23 , Jan Kaliszewski wrote:
30-07-2009 o 13:36:49 Masklinn maskl...@masklinn.net wrote:
On 30 Jul 2009, at 06:04 , alex23 wrote:
On Jul 30, 1:06 pm, r rt8...@gmail.com wrote:
2.) the .each method
container.each{|localVar| block}
This method can really cleanup some ugly
superpollo wrote:
r wrote:
how to reverse a string in python? must i usa a temp? like:
s = ciccio
l = list(s)
l.reverse()
s = .join(l)
s
'oiccic'
???
No.
''.join(list(reversed('abc')))
'cba'
'abc'[2::-1]
'cba'
'abc'[10::-1]
'cba'
Any int = len(string)-1 will do, so
On Jul 30, 3:55 pm, Terry Reedy tjre...@udel.edu wrote:
superpollo wrote:
r wrote:
how to reverse a string in python? must i usa a temp? like:
[snip]
Terry Jan Reedy
No r never wrote anything like that. reversing a string is RTFM
material, this is basic stuff here! Stop quoting me as saying
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.
It has benefits - code does look better. It has also significant cons - it is
On Thursday 30 July 2009 04:41:57 pm Masklinn wrote:
On 30 Jul 2009, at 22:23 , Jan Kaliszewski wrote:
30-07-2009 o 13:36:49 Masklinn maskl...@masklinn.net wrote:
I don't see any real limitation. What's wrong in:
for localVar in container:
block
Well what's wrong with using that
On Jul 30, 4:57 pm, Luis Zarrabeitia ky...@uh.cu wrote:
[snip]
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
On 2009-07-30 16:44, r wrote:
On Jul 30, 4:29 pm, Emmanuel Surleauemmanuel.surl...@gmail.com
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
2009/7/30 superpollo u...@example.net:
Tim Rowe wrote:
Any language that gets any sort of real use has to have. For instance,
I love Ada's numeric types (you can specify either the minimum number
of significant figures or the maximum delta for a real type, and it
will give you a type that
r wrote:
On Jul 30, 3:55 pm, Terry Reedy tjre...@udel.edu wrote:
superpollo wrote:
r wrote:
how to reverse a string in python? must i usa a temp? like:
[snip]
Terry Jan Reedy
No r never wrote anything like that. reversing a string is RTFM
material, this is basic stuff here! Stop quoting me
On Thu, 30 Jul 2009 17:57:48 -0400, Luis Zarrabeitia wrote:
As I understood the question, it was was wrong in 'for var in
container' in comparison with ruby's container.each?
What's the (semantic) difference between
for localVar in container:
block
and
container.each{|localVar|
On Friday 31 July 2009 01:06:31 Robert Kern wrote:
On 2009-07-30 16:44, r wrote:
On Jul 30, 4:29 pm, Emmanuel Surleauemmanuel.surl...@gmail.com
wrote:
1.) No need to use () to call a function with no arguments.
Python -- obj.m2().m3() --ugly
Ruby -- obj.m1.m2.m3 -- sweeet!
On Jul 30, 1:06 pm, r rt8...@gmail.com 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 distinguish between calling a
On Wed, Jul 29, 2009 at 9:04 PM, alex23wuwe...@gmail.com wrote:
On Jul 30, 1:06 pm, r rt8...@gmail.com 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
On Jul 29, 9:04 pm, alex23 wuwe...@gmail.com wrote:
On Jul 30, 1:06 pm, r rt8...@gmail.com 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
85 matches
Mail list logo
