Funny, you got to the last line of import this but apparently
skipped the second line:
Explicit is better than implicit.
And you didn't even post your message on April 1 so no, I can't laugh
even though I'd like to.
Can you be less condescending?
Of course! :)
Anyway, the point I was
On Thu, May 24, 2012 at 9:04 AM, Daniel Fetchinson
fetchin...@googlemail.com wrote:
Funny, you got to the last line of import this but apparently
skipped the second line:
Explicit is better than implicit.
And you didn't even post your message on April 1 so no, I can't laugh
even though I'd
From the Zen of Python (import this):
Namespaces are one honking great idea -- let's do more of those!
Inspired by this, I have a decorator that abuses function closures to
create a namespace type with the following properties:
- all methods are static methods that do not take a self
Pardon me for breaking threading, but Daniel's response is not available
on my ISP's news server, and I only discovered it by accident.
On Thu May 24 15:04:34 CEST 2012, Daniel Fetchinson fetchinson at
googlemail.com wrote:
On Thu, 24 May 2012 08:50:59 +, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
From
[Default] On 25 May 2012 02:47:11 GMT, Steven D'Aprano
steve+comp.lang.pyt...@pearwood.info wrote:
Do you object to the ability to write standard Python modules?
# module.py
def spam(obj, n):
return len(obj) + n
def ham(obj):
return spam(obj, 23)
By your apparent misunderstanding of
On Fri, May 25, 2012 at 1:02 PM, Temia Eszteri lamial...@cleverpun.com wrote:
But then we've got Simple is better than complex, and Complex is
better than complicated. Of course if we decided to start iterating
through the zen of Python's verses and continually modifying the
example code to
