On Sunday, August 9, 2015 at 2:57:20 AM UTC+5:30, Marko Rauhamaa wrote:
Marko Rauhamaa :
Steven D'Aprano :
The contemporary standard approach is from Zermelo-Fraenkel set
theory: define 0 as the empty set, and the successor to n as the
union of n and the set containing n:
0 = {}
Marko Rauhamaa ma...@pacujo.net:
Steven D'Aprano steve+comp.lang.pyt...@pearwood.info:
The contemporary standard approach is from Zermelo-Fraenkel set
theory: define 0 as the empty set, and the successor to n as the
union of n and the set containing n:
0 = {} (the empty set)
n + 1 = n ∪
On 2015-07-24, Paul Rubin no.email@nospam.invalid wrote:
Grant Edwards invalid@invalid.invalid writes:
You can always pick out the topologist at a conference: he's the one
trying to dunk his coffee cup in his doughnut.
Did you hear about the idiot topologist? He couldn't tell his butt
from
On 24/07/2015 15:13, Grant Edwards wrote:
On 2015-07-24, Paul Rubin no.email@nospam.invalid wrote:
Grant Edwards invalid@invalid.invalid writes:
You can always pick out the topologist at a conference: he's the one
trying to dunk his coffee cup in his doughnut.
Did you hear about the idiot
Grant Edwards invalid@invalid.invalid writes:
Did you hear about the idiot topologist? He couldn't tell his butt
from a hole in the ground, but he *could* tell his butt from two
holes in the ground.
Wow. Now I know _two_ topologist jokes. The girls are going to be
impressed!
I got it
Chris Angelico ros...@gmail.com:
Fortunately, we don't need to completely understand it. New Horizons
reached Pluto right on time after a decade of flight that involved
taking a left turn at Jupiter... we can predict exactly what angle to
fire the rockets at in order to get where we want to
On 2015-07-23, Marko Rauhamaa ma...@pacujo.net wrote:
Chris Angelico ros...@gmail.com:
Fortunately, we don't need to completely understand it. New Horizons
reached Pluto right on time after a decade of flight that involved
taking a left turn at Jupiter... we can predict exactly what angle to
On Fri, Jul 24, 2015 at 7:59 AM, Marko Rauhamaa ma...@pacujo.net wrote:
Laura Creighton l...@openend.se:
In a message of Fri, 24 Jul 2015 00:29:28 +0300, Marko Rauhamaa writes:
At the time I was in college I heard topology was very fashionable
among mathematicians. That was because it was one
On 2015-07-23 22:50, Mark Lawrence wrote:
On 23/07/2015 22:29, Marko Rauhamaa wrote:
Chris Angelico ros...@gmail.com:
Fortunately, we don't need to completely understand it. New Horizons
reached Pluto right on time after a decade of flight that involved
taking a left turn at Jupiter... we can
In a message of Thu, 23 Jul 2015 23:01:51 +0100, MRAB writes:
And an Apple engineer would suggest buying a new car that runs only on
its manufacturer's brand of fuel. :-)
Before you do that, read this:
http://teslaclubsweden.se/test-drive-of-a-petrol-car/
(ps, if you can read Swedish, the
On 23/07/2015 22:29, Marko Rauhamaa wrote:
Chris Angelico ros...@gmail.com:
Fortunately, we don't need to completely understand it. New Horizons
reached Pluto right on time after a decade of flight that involved
taking a left turn at Jupiter... we can predict exactly what angle to
fire the
Ian Kelly ian.g.ke...@gmail.com:
Gravity existed before Newton, but the *theory* of gravity did not, so
he composed the theory?
Ironically, gravity is maybe the least well understood phenomenon in
modern physics.
Marko
--
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
On 23/07/2015 23:01, MRAB wrote:
On 2015-07-23 22:50, Mark Lawrence wrote:
On 23/07/2015 22:29, Marko Rauhamaa wrote:
Chris Angelico ros...@gmail.com:
Fortunately, we don't need to completely understand it. New Horizons
reached Pluto right on time after a decade of flight that involved
In a message of Fri, 24 Jul 2015 00:29:28 +0300, Marko Rauhamaa writes:
Chris Angelico ros...@gmail.com:
Fortunately, we don't need to completely understand it. New Horizons
reached Pluto right on time after a decade of flight that involved
taking a left turn at Jupiter... we can predict
Laura Creighton l...@openend.se:
In a message of Fri, 24 Jul 2015 00:29:28 +0300, Marko Rauhamaa writes:
At the time I was in college I heard topology was very fashionable
among mathematicians. That was because it was one of the last
remaining research topics that didn't yet have an application.
On Fri, Jul 24, 2015 at 7:50 AM, Mark Lawrence breamore...@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
Heard the one about the three engineers in the car that breaks down?
The chemical engineer suggests that they could have contaminated fuel. They
should try and get a sample and get someone to take it to a lab for
On Thursday, July 23, 2015 at 12:28:19 PM UTC+5:30, Gregory Ewing wrote:
Rustom Mody wrote:
Ive known good ones) most practicing-mathematicians proceed on the
assumption
that they *discover* math and not that they *invent* it.
For something purely abstract like mathematics, I don't
On Friday, July 24, 2015 at 2:59:41 AM UTC+5:30, Marko Rauhamaa wrote:
Chris :
Fortunately, we don't need to completely understand it. New Horizons
reached Pluto right on time after a decade of flight that involved
taking a left turn at Jupiter... we can predict exactly what angle to
On Thursday, July 23, 2015 at 7:08:10 PM UTC-5, Grant Edwards wrote:
You can always pick out the topologist at a conference:
he's the one trying to dunk his coffee cup in his
doughnut.
[Hey, how often do you get to use a topology joke.]
Don't sale yourself short Grant. You get extra bonus
Grant Edwards invalid@invalid.invalid writes:
You can always pick out the topologist at a conference: he's the one
trying to dunk his coffee cup in his doughnut.
[Hey, how often do you get to use a topology joke.]
Did you hear about the idiot topologist? He couldn't tell his butt from
a hole
On Thursday, July 23, 2015 at 9:03:15 PM UTC-5, Paul Rubin wrote:
Did you hear about the idiot topologist? He couldn't tell his butt from
a hole in the ground, but he *could* tell his butt from two holes in the
ground.
This sounds more like a riddle than a joke. So in other
words: the message
On Jul 22, 2015 9:46 PM, Steven D'Aprano
steve+comp.lang.pyt...@pearwood.info wrote:
On Thursday 23 July 2015 04:09, Rustom Mody wrote:
tl;dr To me (as unprofessional a musician as mathematician) I find it
arbitrary that Newton *discovered* gravity whereas Beethoven *composed*
the 9th
On Fri, Jul 24, 2015 at 6:59 AM, Marko Rauhamaa ma...@pacujo.net wrote:
Ian Kelly ian.g.ke...@gmail.com:
Gravity existed before Newton, but the *theory* of gravity did not, so
he composed the theory?
Ironically, gravity is maybe the least well understood phenomenon in
modern physics.
On Wednesday, July 22, 2015 at 11:26:50 PM UTC-5, Jason Swails wrote:
I know my experiences don't hold true for everybody, but I
also don't think they are uncommon (I know several
colleagues that share many aspects of them). And for me,
the *better* Python 2.7 becomes, and the longer it's
Rustom Mody wrote:
Ive known good ones) most practicing-mathematicians proceed on the assumption
that they *discover* math and not that they *invent* it.
For something purely abstract like mathematics, I don't
see how there's any distinction between discovering and
inventing. They're two words
On Thursday, July 23, 2015 at 12:28:19 PM UTC+5:30, Gregory Ewing wrote:
Rustom Mody wrote:
Ive known good ones) most practicing-mathematicians proceed on the
assumption
that they *discover* math and not that they *invent* it.
For something purely abstract like mathematics, I don't
Steven D'Aprano st...@pearwood.info:
I think that we can equally choose the natural numbers to be
axiomatic, or sets to be axiomatic and derive natural numbers from
them. Neither is more correct than the other.
Mathematicians quit trying to define what natural numbers mean and just
chose a
One way to look at this is to see that arithmetic is _behaviour_.
Like all behaviours, it is subject to reification:
see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reification
and especially as it is done in the German language, reification has
this nasty habit of turning behaviours (i.e. things that are
On Thu, 23 Jul 2015 02:58 am, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
1. We have reason to expect that the natural numbers are absolutely
fundamental and irreducible
That's wrong. If we had such a reason, we could state it: the reason we
expect natural numbers are irreducible is ... and fill in the blank.
On Wednesday, July 22, 2015 at 11:22:57 PM UTC+5:30, Oscar Benjamin wrote:
On Wed, 22 Jul 2015 at 18:01 Steven D'Aprano st...@pearwood.info wrote:
I think that the critical factor there is that it is all in the past tense.
Today, I believe, the vast majority of mathematicians fall into
Nice Thanks for that Laura!
I am reminded of
| The toughest job Indians ever had was explaining to the whiteman who their
| noun-god is. Repeat. That's because God isn't a noun in Native America.
| God is a verb!
From http://hilgart.org/enformy/dma-god.htm
On Wednesday, July 22, 2015 at
In a message of Wed, 22 Jul 2015 10:49:13 -0700, Rustom Mody writes:
Nice Thanks for that Laura!
I am reminded of
| The toughest job Indians ever had was explaining to the whiteman who their
| noun-god is. Repeat. That's because God isn't a noun in Native America.
| God is a verb!
From
On Wed, 22 Jul 2015 11:34 pm, Rustom Mody wrote:
On Tuesday, July 21, 2015 at 4:09:56 PM UTC+5:30, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
We have no reason to expect that the natural numbers are anything less
than absolutely fundamental and irreducible (as the Wikipedia article
above puts it). It's
Steven D'Aprano st...@pearwood.info writes:
That's wrong. If we had such a reason, we could state it: the reason
we expect natural numbers are irreducible is ... and fill in the
blank. But I don't believe that such a reason exists (or at least, as
far as we know).
However, neither do we have
On Wed, 22 Jul 2015 at 18:01 Steven D'Aprano st...@pearwood.info wrote:
I think that the critical factor there is that it is all in the past tense.
Today, I believe, the vast majority of mathematicians fall into two camps:
(1) Those who just use numbers without worrying about defining them
On Wednesday, July 22, 2015 at 11:18:23 PM UTC+5:30, Paul Rubin wrote:
Remember also that in ultrafinitism, Peano Arithmetic goes from 1 to
88 (due to Shachaf on irc #haskell). ;-)
No No No
Its 42; Dont you know?
--
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
On 7/21/2015 10:07 PM, Rick Johnson wrote:
two possibilities exist:
(a) Mark is a core dev who has committed patches and is a
bully.
(b) Mark is not a core dev, and therefor can not commit
anything, therefor he's a bully *AND* a hypocrite!
Which is it?
Mark is not a core dev,
On Tuesday, July 21, 2015 at 4:09:56 PM UTC+5:30, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
We have no reason to expect that the natural numbers are anything less than
absolutely fundamental and irreducible (as the Wikipedia article above
puts it). It's remarkable that we can reduce all of mathematics to
On Thu, Jul 23, 2015 at 11:44 AM, Dennis Lee Bieber
wlfr...@ix.netcom.com wrote:
On Thu, 23 Jul 2015 03:21:24 +1000, Steven D'Aprano st...@pearwood.info
declaimed the following:
Are tomatoes red?
In answer I offer a novel: /Fried Green Tomatoes at the Whistle Stop
Cafe/ (and lots of
On Thursday 23 July 2015 03:48, Paul Rubin wrote:
Steven D'Aprano st...@pearwood.info writes:
That's wrong. If we had such a reason, we could state it: the reason
we expect natural numbers are irreducible is ... and fill in the
blank. But I don't believe that such a reason exists (or at
On Thursday 23 July 2015 04:09, Rustom Mody wrote:
tl;dr To me (as unprofessional a musician as mathematician) I find it
arbitrary that Newton *discovered* gravity whereas Beethoven *composed*
the 9th symphony.
Newton didn't precisely *discover* gravity. I'm pretty sure that people
before
I am a little late to the party, but I feel that I have something to
contribute to this discussion. Apologies for the top-post, but it's really
in response to any particular question; more of a this is my story with
Python 2.7. I still use primarily Python 2.7, although I write code using
six to
On 22/07/2015 19:14, Laura Creighton wrote:
I don't suppose anybody could spare a bit of time for something that is
slightly more important IMHO, like getting the core workflow going?
I'm fairly well convinced that the vast majority of people here aren't
in the slightest bit interested in
On Wednesday, July 22, 2015 at 1:51:57 AM UTC-5, Terry Reedy wrote:
Which is it?
Mark is not a core dev [...] However His user name is
BreamoreBoy and his tracker email is the same breamore@
address that recently upset you.
Thank you for confirming my suspicion. You have always been
On Tuesday, July 21, 2015 at 4:22:50 PM UTC-5, bream...@gmail.com wrote:
It was actually Rustom who posted inaccurate data as only
core-devs have commit rights.
Well-well. We now find ourselves before the royal court of
logic: If we are to take your statement as fact, then only
two
On Tuesday, July 21, 2015 at 4:04:30 AM UTC+1, Rick Johnson wrote:
On Sunday, July 19, 2015 at 9:17:11 PM UTC-5, Rustom Mody wrote:
List of python committers:
-
11081 Guido van Rossum
[snip: long list]
Thanks for posting this list of names. I had put in a
On 20/07/2015 03:36, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
On Mon, 20 Jul 2015 06:21 am, breamore...@gmail.com wrote:
All in all though I have to admit that overall it's a really onerous task.
Once you've produced the patch you have to go to all the trouble of
logging on to the issue tracker, finding the
Chris Angelico ros...@gmail.com:
On Tue, Jul 21, 2015 at 7:10 PM, Marko Rauhamaa ma...@pacujo.net wrote:
This is getting deep. It is an embarrassing metamathematical fact
that numbers cannot be defined. At least, mathematicians gave up
trying a century ago.
In mathematics, the essence of
On 21/07/2015 10:10, Marko Rauhamaa wrote:
Laura Creighton l...@openend.se:
In a message of Mon, 20 Jul 2015 20:30:48 -0700, Rustom Mody writes:
Can some unicode/Chinese literate person inform me whether that
ideograph is equivalent to roman '9' or roman 'nine'?
Ah, I don't understand you.
On Tuesday 21 July 2015 19:10, Marko Rauhamaa wrote:
This is getting deep.
When things get too deep, stop digging.
It is an embarrassing metamathematical fact that
numbers cannot be defined. At least, mathematicians gave up trying a
century ago.
That's not the case. It's not so much that
Steven D'Aprano steve+comp.lang.pyt...@pearwood.info:
That's not the case. It's not so much that they stopped trying (implying
failure), but that they succeeded, for some definition of success (see
below).
The contemporary standard approach is from Zermelo-Fraenkel set theory:
define 0
On Tuesday 21 July 2015 13:58, Rick Johnson wrote:
But even if i am wrong, the worse thing i did was mis-
interpret his and another post. But since he still owes me
an apology for insulting my integrity,
Someone insulted your integrity? Poor integrity, I hope it wasn't too upset.
i'd say
On Tuesday 21 July 2015 13:30, Rustom Mody wrote:
BTW my boys have just mailed me their latest:
九.九九
9.99
Can some unicode/Chinese literate person inform me whether
that ideograph is equivalent to roman '9' or roman 'nine'?
I don't speak or read Chinese, so I could be completely
Laura Creighton l...@openend.se:
In a message of Mon, 20 Jul 2015 20:30:48 -0700, Rustom Mody writes:
Can some unicode/Chinese literate person inform me whether that
ideograph is equivalent to roman '9' or roman 'nine'?
Ah, I don't understand you. What do you mean roman 'nine'? a phonetic
On Tue, Jul 21, 2015 at 7:10 PM, Marko Rauhamaa ma...@pacujo.net wrote:
This is getting deep. It is an embarrassing metamathematical fact that
numbers cannot be defined. At least, mathematicians gave up trying a
century ago.
In mathematics, the essence of counting a set and finding a
On Tuesday, July 21, 2015 at 9:13:49 AM UTC+5:30, Chris Angelico wrote:
On Tue, Jul 21, 2015 at 1:30 PM, Rustom Mody wrote:
BTW my boys have just mailed me their latest:
九.九九
9.99
Can some unicode/Chinese literate person inform me whether
that ideograph is equivalent to roman '9'
In a message of Mon, 20 Jul 2015 20:30:48 -0700, Rustom Mody writes:
BTW my boys have just mailed me their latest:
九.九九
9.99
Can some unicode/Chinese literate person inform me whether
that ideograph is equivalent to
On Monday 20 July 2015 13:30, Ian Kelly wrote:
On Sun, Jul 19, 2015 at 9:12 PM, Steven D'Aprano st...@pearwood.info
wrote:
On Mon, 20 Jul 2015 11:35 am, Rick Johnson wrote:
I figured that was you *MARK LAWRENCE*. I shall add sock-puppeting
to your many egregious offenses! And poorly
On 07/19/2015 11:33 PM, Michael Torrie wrote:
For the most part,
it's been good to hear from Cecil (there have been a few snarky posts)
as he has learned python and really run with it. I don't understand
where your apparent frustration with Cecil is coming from.
Come to think of it, I can't
Mark Lawrence breamore...@yahoo.co.uk writes:
...
So I most humbly suggest, as I may have hinted at once or twice
earlier in this thread, that people either put up or shut up.
In another of your contributions to this thread, you spoke of another
alternative: do a bit of begging. That is what
Ian Kelly ian.g.ke...@gmail.com writes:
On Sun, Jul 19, 2015 at 10:10 AM, Cecil Westerhof ce...@decebal.nl wrote:
On Sunday 19 Jul 2015 15:42 CEST, Mark Lawrence wrote:
On 19/07/2015 03:13, Terry Reedy wrote:
On 7/18/2015 7:50 PM, Devin Jeanpierre wrote:
to 2.7, surely bug fixes are also
Mark Lawrence breamore...@yahoo.co.uk writes:
On 19/07/2015 18:14, Cecil Westerhof wrote:
On Sunday 19 Jul 2015 18:38 CEST, Mark Lawrence wrote:
...
You think so? I think that a lot of people who are using 2.7 would
like to have the fixes. They know how to use Python, but they would
not now
Mark Lawrence breamore...@yahoo.co.uk writes:
On 19/07/2015 17:10, Cecil Westerhof wrote:
On Sunday 19 Jul 2015 15:42 CEST, Mark Lawrence wrote:
...
Babies want clean diapers. So babies have to change diapers
themselves?
That has to be the worst analogy I've ever read. We are discussing
On 7/19/2015 9:20 PM, Devin Jeanpierre wrote:
Search your logs for https://bugs.python.org/issue17094
http://bugs.python.org/issue5315
I was most frustrated by the first case --
the patch was (informally) rejected
By 'the patch', I presume you mean current-frames-cleanup.patch
by Stefan
Rick Johnson rantingrickjohn...@gmail.com writes:
On Sunday, July 19, 2015 at 1:44:25 PM UTC-5, bream...@gmail.com wrote:
No, it's simply that nobody can force volunteers to back
port something when they're just not interested in doing
the work, for whatever reason. Hence my statement above,
Rick Johnson rantingrickjohn...@gmail.com writes:
On Sunday, July 19, 2015 at 12:54:34 AM UTC-5, dieter wrote:
From my point of view: if you want help with fixing bugs,
you must ensure that there is a high probability that
those contributions really find their way into the main
development
I think you're missing the line where I said all the relevant
conversation happened in IRC, and that you should refer to logs.
On Sun, Jul 19, 2015 at 11:25 PM, Terry Reedy tjre...@udel.edu wrote:
On 7/19/2015 9:20 PM, Devin Jeanpierre wrote:
Search your logs for
On 20/07/2015 03:16, Rustom Mody wrote:
On Monday, July 20, 2015 at 7:16:50 AM UTC+5:30, Mark Lawrence wrote:
On 20/07/2015 02:20, Devin Jeanpierre wrote:
I don't like how this is being redirected to surely you
misunderstood or I don't believe you. The fact that some core devs
are hostile to
On Sunday, July 19, 2015 at 9:17:11 PM UTC-5, Rustom Mody wrote:
List of python committers:
-
11081 Guido van Rossum
[snip: long list]
Thanks for posting this list of names. I had put in a pyFOIA
request for this data a few years ago, but to my surprise, was
flat
On Tuesday, July 21, 2015 at 8:34:30 AM UTC+5:30, Rick Johnson wrote:
On Sunday, July 19, 2015 at 9:17:11 PM UTC-5, Rustom Mody wrote:
List of python committers:
-
11081 Guido van Rossum
[snip: long list]
Thanks for posting this list of names. I had put in
On Tue, Jul 21, 2015 at 1:15 PM, Rustom Mody rustompm...@gmail.com wrote:
[Chris already showed that this list is inaccurate -- probably related
to hg not having sighoff distinct from commit like git]
It's also the manner of workflow. If you want to accept patches and
have them acknowledged to
On Sunday, July 19, 2015 at 10:15:37 AM UTC+5:30, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
JFTR: My kids (um... students) have just managed to add devanagari
numerals to python.
ie we can now do
१ + २
3
That is actually quite awesome, and I would support a new feature that set
the numeric
On Tue, Jul 21, 2015 at 1:30 PM, Rustom Mody rustompm...@gmail.com wrote:
BTW my boys have just mailed me their latest:
九.九九
9.99
Can some unicode/Chinese literate person inform me whether
that ideograph is equivalent to roman '9' or roman 'nine'?
I'm not Chinese-literate, but I know how
On Monday, July 20, 2015 at 12:59:53 AM UTC-5, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
Not quite; one is @yahoo.co.uk, and the other is @gmail.com.
Ah, so they are. You're right, I was wrong, they're not
the same email address. But still, accusations of sock-
puppetry from a change in email provider is
On Monday, July 20, 2015 at 1:30:03 AM UTC-5, dieter wrote:
Experience like this (in another project) causes me to be
very reluctant to become a core contributor (in the sense
of actively fixing things in the core). You need a lot of
knowledge (coding conventions, test setup, change
On 7/20/2015 11:33 PM, Chris Angelico wrote:
It's also the manner of workflow. If you want to accept patches and
have them acknowledged to their original authors, the patches need to
carry metadata identifying the authors. Notice how the patch files start
straight in with content. There's no
On Monday, July 20, 2015 at 1:47:00 AM UTC-5, dieter wrote:
Thinking of myself, I am not sure. Ensuring the quality of
a distribution goes far beyond a single bug fix. While I
usually are ready to share a bug fix I have found, I am
reluctant to get involved in the complete quality
ensurance
On 7/19/2015 6:19 PM, Terry Reedy wrote:
I, and others, have already made some changes to eliminate differences
that are unnecessary, at least for 2.7 versus 3.3+ or now 3.4+.
I just got smacked in the face by a difference I had not run into
before. I added about 10 lines to a test file is
On 7/18/2015 11:52 PM, Rustom Mody wrote:
among other things, a complaint about rejection of his desire for a
mechanism for subsetting Python for teaching purposes.
Response 2: Core python is the most conservatively maintained part of
Python. Trying to change it radically, as distributed by
In a message of Sat, 18 Jul 2015 19:36:33 -0400, Terry Reedy writes:
If the vast majority of Python programmers are focused on 2.7, why are
volunteers to help fix 2.7 bugs so scarce?
Because volunteers to fix any bugs are scarce? Because most people really
only think of bug fixing when they
On Sunday, July 19, 2015 at 12:46:26 PM UTC+5:30, Marko Rauhamaa wrote:
Chris Angelico:
On Sun, Jul 19, 2015 at 2:45 PM, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
sys.setdigits('Devanagari')
Easiest way to play with this would be a sys.displayhook, I think;
I think the numeral selection is analogous
Rustom Mody rustompm...@gmail.com:
On Sunday, July 19, 2015 at 12:46:26 PM UTC+5:30, Marko Rauhamaa wrote:
IOW, don't make it global.
But it is willy-nilly global.
Python:
4+5
9
The interactive mode is not all that interesting, but ok, make that
configurable as well.
Marko
--
On 7/19/2015 12:45 AM, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
On Sun, 19 Jul 2015 01:52 pm, Rustom Mody wrote:
JFTR: My kids (um... students) have just managed to add devanagari
numerals to python.
ie we can now do
१ + २
3
That is actually quite awesome, and I would support a new feature that set
the
On 7/18/2015 8:03 PM, Gary Herron wrote:
On 07/18/2015 04:36 PM, Terry Reedy wrote:
I would like more viewpoints from 2.7 users.
I read that (incorrectly of course) and just had to ask:
How do you intend to extract a viewpoint from that last 7/10 of a user?
With apologies,
Some humor
On 07/18/2015 04:36 PM, Terry Reedy wrote:
I would like more viewpoints from 2.7 users.
I read that (incorrectly of course) and just had to ask:
How do you intend to extract a viewpoint from that last 7/10 of a user?
With apologies,
Gary Herron
--
Dr. Gary Herron
Department of
On Sunday, July 19, 2015 at 10:15:37 AM UTC+5:30, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
On Sun, 19 Jul 2015 01:52 pm, Rustom Mody wrote:
Not to mention actively hostile attitude to discussions that could at the
moment be tangential to current CPython. See (and whole thread)
On 7/18/2015 11:52 PM, Rustom Mody wrote:
Not to mention actively hostile attitude to discussions that could at the
moment be tangential to current CPython. See (and whole thread)
https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-ideas/2015-May/033708.html
Rustom, I think this is grossly unfair.
Chris Angelico ros...@gmail.com:
On Sun, Jul 19, 2015 at 2:45 PM, Steven D'Aprano st...@pearwood.info wrote:
sys.setdigits('Devanagari')
Easiest way to play with this would be a sys.displayhook, I think;
I think the numeral selection is analogous to the number base:
0o10
8
On 19/07/2015 03:13, Terry Reedy wrote:
On 7/18/2015 7:50 PM, Devin Jeanpierre wrote:
to 2.7, surely bug fixes are also allowed?
Of course, allowed. But should they be made, and if so, by who?
The people who want the fixes.
I have contributed both performance improvements and bug fixes
On 19/07/2015 04:45, Paul Rubin wrote:
Terry Reedy tjre...@udel.edu writes:
I am suggesting that if there are 10x as many 2.7only programmers as
3.xonly programmers, and none of the 2.7 programmers is willing to do
the backport *of an already accepted patch*, then maybe it should not
be done at
On 19/07/2015 04:52, Rustom Mody wrote:
Not to mention actively hostile attitude to discussions that could at the
moment be tangential to current CPython. See (and whole thread)
https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-ideas/2015-May/033708.html
This
On Sun, 19 Jul 2015 07:27 pm, Laura Creighton wrote:
In the tiny corner of industrial automation where I do a lot of work,
nobody is using 3.0.
I should hope not, because 3.0 was rubbish and is unsupported :-)
I expect you mean 3.x in general.
It is not clear that this is ever going to
On 19/07/2015 06:53, dieter wrote:
Mark Lawrence breamore...@yahoo.co.uk writes:
...
If the vast majority of Python programmers are focused on 2.7, why are
volunteers to help fix 2.7 bugs so scarce?
I have not done much work related to Python bug fixing. But, I had
bad experience with other
On Sunday, July 19, 2015 at 2:42:41 PM UTC+5:30, Terry Reedy wrote:
On 7/18/2015 11:52 PM, Rustom Mody wrote:
among other things, a complaint about rejection of his desire for a
mechanism for subsetting Python for teaching purposes.
Sorry Terry if the compliant sounded louder than the answer.
On Sunday, July 19, 2015 at 12:54:34 AM UTC-5, dieter wrote:
From my point of view: if you want help with fixing bugs,
you must ensure that there is a high probability that
those contributions really find their way into the main
development lines. As I understand from other messages in
this
In a message of Sun, 19 Jul 2015 09:29:11 -0600, Ian Kelly writes:
I think this is an unrealistic and unattainable goal. Even if you stop
patching your Python 2.7 version altogether, what about the
environment that it runs in? Are you going to stop patching the OS
forever? Are you going to fix the
On 19/07/2015 23:10, Cecil Westerhof wrote:
On Sunday 19 Jul 2015 22:28 CEST, Mark Lawrence wrote:
On 19/07/2015 21:05, Cecil Westerhof wrote:
On Sunday 19 Jul 2015 21:01 CEST, Ian Kelly wrote:
On Sun, Jul 19, 2015 at 10:10 AM, Cecil Westerhof ce...@decebal.nl wrote:
On Sunday 19 Jul 2015
On 20/07/2015 02:20, Devin Jeanpierre wrote:
I don't like how this is being redirected to surely you
misunderstood or I don't believe you. The fact that some core devs
are hostile to 2.x development is really bleedingly obvious, you
shouldn't need quotes or context thrown at you. The rhetoric
On Mon, 20 Jul 2015 08:51 am, Mark Lawrence wrote:
You are now suggesting that people shouldn't even bother reading the
develoment guide, just great. Do they have to do anything themselves to
get patches through? Presumably the core devs give up their paid work,
holidays, families, other
On Sunday, July 19, 2015 at 10:27:58 PM UTC+1, Rick Johnson wrote:
On Sunday, July 19, 2015 at 3:36:21 PM UTC-5, bream...@gmail.com wrote:
Wrong, not all programmers need the patches as a lot of
people couldn't care two hoots about 2.7.
Well you should. Because apparently, you're
1 - 100 of 166 matches
Mail list logo
