On 6 Jan 2005 20:07:19 -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Aahz) wrote:
Nope. That is not what I'm arguing. Really, I think you have
jumped to conclusion about that: I merely pointed out that
I don't like what I perceive as end effect of what GPL license
writers are attempting to achieve: vendor lock-in.
Paul Rubin http://[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Alex Martelli) writes:
Yes, apart from libraries and similar cases (frameworks etc), it's no
doubt rare for closed-source end-user packages to be sold with
licenses that include source and allow you to do anything with it.
Bulba! [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Suppose they want to ensure no forking or that bugfixes
and enhancements of original software are given back.
OK, LGPL is fine for this goal. When you say they see it
Neither LGPL nor GPL can ``ensure no forking'', nor can any other
open-source license.
Jeff Shannon [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Note that the so-called 'viral' nature of GPL code only applies to
*modifications you make* to the GPL software. The *only* way in which
your code can be 'infected' by the GPL is if you copy GPL source.
...
(Problems may come if someone licenses a
Bulba! [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
From the viewpoint of looking at availability of source code A,
it's completely irrelevant if those guys are fishmongers or
make derived work A' and redistribute only binary of A'. Not
a single line of publicly available source code appeared or
disappeared
On 6 Jan 2005 19:01:46 -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Aahz) wrote:
Note that the so-called 'viral' nature of GPL code only applies to
*modifications you make* to the GPL software. The *only* way in which
your code can be 'infected' by the GPL is if you copy GPL source.
That's not true -- consider
Paul Rubin wrote:
Jeff Shannon [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Note that the so-called 'viral' nature of GPL code only applies to
*modifications you make* to the GPL software.
Well, only under an unusually broad notion of modification.
True enough. It can be difficult, in software development, to
Bulba! wrote:
On 6 Jan 2005 19:01:46 -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Aahz) wrote:
Note that the so-called 'viral' nature of GPL code only applies to
*modifications you make* to the GPL software. The *only* way in which
your code can be 'infected' by the GPL is if you copy GPL source.
That's not
Alex Martelli wrote:
Jeff Shannon [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Note that the so-called 'viral' nature of GPL code only applies to
*modifications you make* to the GPL software. The *only* way in which
your code can be 'infected' by the GPL is if you copy GPL source.
...
(Problems may come if
On Fri, 07 Jan 2005 12:06:42 -0800, Jeff Shannon [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Bulba! wrote:
On 6 Jan 2005 19:01:46 -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Aahz) wrote:
Note that the so-called 'viral' nature of GPL code only applies to
*modifications you make* to the GPL software. The *only* way in which
Bulba! wrote:
Oh, and by the way - since Python bytecode can be relatively
easily decompiled to source, could it interpreted to really
count as source code and not binary? What are the consequences
of releasing code _written in Python_ as GPLed?
Well, to your first question, in a word 'no', it
Bulba! wrote:
Nope. IMHO, GPL attempts to achieve the vendor lock-in. For different
purposes than another well-known vendor, but it still does.
It's actually even worse: the only thing you can't share on a
well-known vendor's platform is the software written by that
well-known vendor -- you can
Bulba! wrote:
On 04 Jan 2005 19:25:12 -0800, Paul Rubin
http://[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Rob Emmons [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Me personally, I believe in free software, but always talk about open
source. My answer regarding forcing people to share -- I like the GPL
-- and I am perfectly happy to
Bulba! wrote:
On Wed, 5 Jan 2005 11:19:56 +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Alex Martelli)
wrote:
[...]
You see, I'm not disagreeing with you that your model applies
_where it applies_. I only disagree that it applies in face of
stronger forces. Now what kind of forces is dominant in
most frequent
Roel Schroeven [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Can you point to closed-source licenses that allow using the code *at
all*?
As I recall, for example, Microsoft Visual C++ came with sources for
various libraries; all that the (closed-source) license for those
libraries forbade you from doing was to
Alex Martelli wrote:
Roel Schroeven [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Can you point to closed-source licenses that allow using the code *at
all*?
As I recall, for example, Microsoft Visual C++ came with sources for
various libraries; all that the (closed-source) license for those
libraries forbade you
Roel Schroeven [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
...
Can you point to closed-source licenses that allow using the code *at
all*?
...
Is this what you mean by allow using the code *at all*? I think it's
a pretty common arrangement when the code being sold under closed-source
terms is a set of
Steve Holden wrote:
Bulba! wrote:
I was utterly shocked. Having grown up in Soviet times I have
been used to seeing precious resources wasted by organizations
as if resources were growing on trees, but smth like this?! In a
shining ideal country of Germany?! Unthinkable.
Indeed not. Quite often
On Thu, 06 Jan 2005 15:44:03 GMT, Roel Schroeven
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I was thinking more of end-user packages: if you somehow could lay your
hands on the source code of Visual Studio itself, you're still not
allowed to do anything with it.
And why would anybody want to waste their time
Bulba! [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
[...]
That's remarkable, first time I see smth like this -
out of curiosity, could you say a word where was that?
Are you the same Bulba I know from alt.pl.comp.os.hacking?
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Alex Martelli) writes:
Yes, apart from libraries and similar cases (frameworks etc), it's no
doubt rare for closed-source end-user packages to be sold with
licenses that include source and allow you to do anything with it.
However, allowing customization (at least for
Bulba! wrote:
On Thu, 06 Jan 2005 08:39:11 GMT, Roel Schroeven
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
That's generally the goal of the Free Software Foundation: they think
all users should have the freedom to modify and/or distribute your code.
You have the freedom of having to wash my car then. ;-)
A more
On Thu, 06 Jan 2005 12:20:35 +0100, Stefan Axelsson
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If GPL folks had their way, it would not be possible not to share
_anything_ you create. It is widely acknowledged that GPL
license has the viral aspect of extending itself on your
software - can you point to
Jeff Shannon [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Note that the so-called 'viral' nature of GPL code only applies to
*modifications you make* to the GPL software.
Well, only under an unusually broad notion of modification. The GPL
applies to any program incorporating GPL'd components, e.g. if I
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED],
Alex Martelli [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
.
.
.
One last reflection -- I believe there are or used to be some programs
written by people no doubt of very good will, distributed with all
sources and
On Thu, 06 Jan 2005 09:27:49 -0500, Steve Holden [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
I'd go further. It's not possible to force anyone to share, but the
GPL aims to remove software from a system that instead aims to force
people NOT to share.
Nope. IMHO, GPL attempts to achieve the vendor lock-in. For
On Thu, 06 Jan 2005 09:42:42 -0500, Steve Holden [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
You see, I'm not disagreeing with you that your model applies
_where it applies_. I only disagree that it applies in face of
stronger forces. Now what kind of forces is dominant in
most frequent scenarios would have to
Bulba! [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Making derived work proprietary in no way implies that the base
work is publicly unavailable anymore.
Since you want to be able to incorporate GPL code in your proprietary
products, and say there's no problem since the base work is still
available from the same
On Thu, 06 Jan 2005 10:38:53 -0800, Jeff Shannon [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
It's also noteworthy to consider that many times, waste happens not
because of corruption or self-interest, but simply because of errors
of judgement.
Precisely.
That is one of the main points I was trying to get
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED],
Jeff Shannon [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Note that the so-called 'viral' nature of GPL code only applies to
*modifications you make* to the GPL software. The *only* way in which
your code can be 'infected' by the GPL is if you copy GPL source.
That's not true --
On 06 Jan 2005 14:16:13 -0800, Paul Rubin
http://[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Yes, apart from libraries and similar cases (frameworks etc), it's no
doubt rare for closed-source end-user packages to be sold with
licenses that include source and allow you to do anything with it.
However, allowing
On 06 Jan 2005 15:38:53 -0800, Paul Rubin
http://[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Making derived work proprietary in no way implies that the base
work is publicly unavailable anymore.
Since you want to be able to incorporate GPL code in your proprietary
products,
Nope. That is not what I'm arguing.
Steve Holden [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Absolutely not. Some people want to share under very specific conditions,
hence the proliferation of licenses in the open source world.
Indeed, Prof. Lessig at Standford University, I believe, recently designed
the
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED],
Bulba! [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Nope. That is not what I'm arguing. Really, I think you have
jumped to conclusion about that: I merely pointed out that
I don't like what I perceive as end effect of what GPL license
writers are attempting to achieve: vendor lock-in.
On Thu, 06 Jan 2005 14:27:55 -0800, Jeff Shannon [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
That's generally the goal of the Free Software Foundation: they think
all users should have the freedom to modify and/or distribute your code.
You have the freedom of having to wash my car then. ;-)
A more accurate
On Thu, 06 Jan 2005 22:42:01 +0100, Peter Dembinski [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
[...]
That's remarkable, first time I see smth like this -
out of curiosity, could you say a word where was that?
Are you the same Bulba I know from alt.pl.comp.os.hacking?
No, but I like to see I have an evil twin
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Aahz) writes:
I don't like what I perceive as end effect of what GPL license
writers are attempting to achieve: vendor lock-in.
And my counter-argument is that I believe your perception is wrong. If
I agreed with your focus on lock-in, I'd say that what the GPL is trying
Bulba! wrote:
And note that it
was definitely not in his personal interest, whoever that
was, a person or group of persons, as he/they risked getting
fired for that.
This doesn't necessarily follow. The decision-maker in question may
have received a fat bonus for having found such a
Bulba! wrote:
On Thu, 06 Jan 2005 09:42:42 -0500, Steve Holden [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
You see, I'm not disagreeing with you that your model applies
_where it applies_. I only disagree that it applies in face of
stronger forces. Now what kind of forces is dominant in
most frequent scenarios
Bulba! wrote:
I've read Novell license of internal development tools it provides
(which I reviewed for some purpose). This is I think relevant
part:
I'm not saying licenses like you claim don't exist. Sure,
they may exist and they suck.
The point is, they have _limited impact_ and by
the very
Bulba! [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Frankly, I find such models to be built on over-stretched analogies
to physics - how _exactly_ is gravity supposed to be an analogy
equivalent to economic forces? Sure such model can be built - but
is it adequate in explaining real-world phenomenons? Analogy
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Alex Martelli) writes:
...but each still gets ONE free copy...!-)
Who gets Luther Blissett's copy ? :-)
And are all the Luther Blissetts the same Luther Blisset ?
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Bulba! [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
...
First, even though I disagree with you in places, thanks for
this reply - it enhanced my knowledge of the topic in some
You're welcome!
What you wrote regards especially strong the industries you pointed
at: fashion, jewellery, esp. I think in those
Jacek Generowicz ha scritto:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Alex Martelli) writes:
...but each still gets ONE free copy...!-)
Who gets Luther Blissett's copy ? :-)
And are all the Luther Blissetts the same Luther Blisset ?
no, some of them are Wu Ming
http://www.wumingfoundation.com/
(from
Wow I didn't realize that I made that significant of a contribution :-)
3: 9 u'John Nielsen'
Well, I guess I did and I didn't. I worked hard to put postings up
before I started taking classes again at a university last fall (with
little kids and working full time, classes are a frustrating
Alex Martelli wrote:
[...]
If you wished to count only _authored_ recipes (but that's a bit
misleading, since in several recipes-as-published there is a merge of
two or three separately submitted and accepted recipes, and here I'm
counting only the first-listed-author per published-recipe...):
1:
On Wed, 5 Jan 2005 11:19:56 +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Alex Martelli)
wrote:
Say that the city has ten hat shops of the same quality. One is in
Piazza dell'Unita`, all the way to the Northern border of the city. One
is in Piazza Saragozza, all the way to the Southern border. The other
eight are
On 04 Jan 2005 19:25:12 -0800, Paul Rubin
http://[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Rob Emmons [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Me personally, I believe in free software, but always talk about open
source. My answer regarding forcing people to share -- I like the GPL
-- and I am perfectly happy to have
I'd go further. It's not possible to force anyone to share, but the
GPL aims to remove software from a system that instead aims to force
people NOT to share.
Well said.
I do think the point is -- no one liscence fits all. The GPL
is a great tool for those that write software for the
Alex Martelli commented:
It's not just _foreign_ companies -- regional clustering of all kinds
of
business activities is a much more widespread phenomenon. Although I'm
not sure he was the first to research the subject, Tjalling Koopmans,
as
part of his lifework on normative economics
But then I have THREE published recipes!!
Does that mean that I get three free copies of the cookbook ? ;-)
Michele
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Alex Martelli wrote:
Roy Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Stefan Axelsson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Yes, ignoring most of the debate about static vs. dynamic typing, I've
also longed for 'use strict'.
You can use __slots__ to get the effect you're after. Well, sort of; it
only works for instance
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
But then I have THREE published recipes!!
Does that mean that I get three free copies of the cookbook ? ;-)
...ti piacerebbe eh...?-) Sorry, one each, even though you have
_five_ credits. For the curious, here's the roster of most credited
contributors (remember,
Do contributors of less than 5 recipes get a copy too? :-?
Btw, is there a comprehensive list of ALL contributors put up anywhere?
On Tue, 4 Jan 2005 17:15:53 +0100, Alex Martelli [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
But then I have THREE published recipes!!
Does that mean
On Mon, 3 Jan 2005 00:08:25 +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Alex Martelli)
wrote:
True. I have a bit of interest in economics, so I've seen e.g.
this example - why is it that foreign branches of companies
tend to cluster themselves in one city or country (e.g.
It's not just _foreign_ companies --
On Sun, 02 Jan 2005 17:18:43 -0600, Mike Meyer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This free software (not so much OSS) notion but you can
hire programmers to fix it doesn't really happen in practice,
at least not frequently: because this company/guy remains
ALONE with this technology, the costs are
On Sun, 2 Jan 2005 23:59:53 -0800, Eric Pederson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
I'm decades behind on economics research, but I remember
modeling clustering based on mass and distance (the gravity model).
On a decision making basis there seems to be an aspect of it that is
binary: (0) either give
On Mon, 03 Jan 2005 20:16:35 -0600, Rob Emmons
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This free software (not so much OSS) notion but you can
hire programmers to fix it doesn't really happen in practice,
at least not frequently: because this company/guy remains
ALONE with this technology, the costs are
Alex Martelli said unto the world upon 2005-01-04 11:15:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
But then I have THREE published recipes!!
Does that mean that I get three free copies of the cookbook ? ;-)
...ti piacerebbe eh...?-) Sorry, one each, even though you have
_five_ credits. For the curious, here's
Bulba! wrote:
The Americans show the French engineers a working prototype.
The French engineers scratch their heads and ask warily:
OK, it works in practice; but will it work in theory?
I once worked with a computer built by two graduate students who formed
a company. The scuttlebutt was
But the vision of what? Do we have clear, detailed, unambigous vision
_of the process_ or just big ideological axes to grind? I'm afraid
we're close to the latter situation - even though Python is remarkably
different in this area than the free software: clean, pragmatic,
effective, free to
Rob Emmons [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Me personally, I believe in free software, but always talk about open
source. My answer regarding forcing people to share -- I like the GPL
-- and I am perfectly happy to have anyone who does not like the GPL
not to use any GPLed software. I don't feel
Paul Rubin schreef:
The AOL web server also uses tcl as a built-in dynamic content
generation language (i.e. sort of like mod_python), or at least it
used to.
It still does:
AOLserver is America Online's Open-Source web server. AOLserver is the
backbone of the largest and busiest production
Peter Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Roy Smith wrote:
Terry Reedy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
None has been reserved because there is no known good use for
overriding it.
Should I infer from the above that there's a known bad use?
Yes: making None equal to the integer 3. That's one of
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED],
Alex Martelli [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Bulba! [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
True. I have a bit of interest in economics, so I've seen e.g.
this example - why is it that foreign branches of companies
tend to cluster themselves in one city or country (e.g.
It's not just
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED],
Terry Reedy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Steve Holden [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Well clearly there's a spectrum. However, I have previously written that
the number of open source projects that appear to get stuck somewhere
between
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED],
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Roy Smith wrote:
I think you've hit the nail on the head. In awk (and perl, and most
shells, and IIRC, FORTRAN), using an undefined variable silently gets
you a default value (empty string or zero). This tends to propagate
errors and make
Title: RE: Compiler benefits (was: The Industry choice)
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
#- I think your point was that the checking present in modern Fortran
#- compilers, or PyCheckers, but absent from core Python, is a net
#- benefit. That I grant. I'm reluctant to argue for a change in
#- Python. I
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED],
Mark Carter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
.
.
.
Don't start me! Dammit, too late ...
I've noticed that they have an overwhelming obsession with GUIs, too.
They design wizards for everything. Damn
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED],
Mark Carter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
.
.
.
Don't start me! Dammit, too late ...
...
Honestly, I thought (real) engineers were supposed to be clever.
You might want to read this:
Terry Reedy wrote:
Steve Holden [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Well clearly there's a spectrum. However, I have previously written that
the number of open source projects that appear to get stuck somewhere
between release 0.1 and release 0.9 is amazingly large, and
Aahz wrote:
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED],
Steve Holden [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Aahz wrote:
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED],
Paul Rubin http://[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I was pretty skeptical of Java's checked exceptions when I first used
them but have been coming around about them. There's just
Steve Holden wrote:
Aahz wrote:
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED],
Steve Holden [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Aahz wrote:
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED],
Paul Rubin http://[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I was pretty skeptical of Java's checked exceptions when I first used
them but have been coming around about
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED],
Steve Holden [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Aahz wrote:
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED],
Steve Holden [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Aahz wrote:
That's funny -- Bruce Eckel talks about how he used to love checked
exceptions but has come to regard them as the horror that they
Steve Holden wrote:
Whereas the bleached bones of the failed open source projects are
visible for all to see on the SourceForge beach.
It occurs to me that the value of those projects can be judged
in a number of ways. One of them is in how much those involved
in the projects have learned from
Theoretically. Because even though the source code is available
and free (like in beer as well as in speech) the work of
programmers isn't cheap.
This free software (not so much OSS) notion but you can
hire programmers to fix it doesn't really happen in practice,
at least not frequently:
Cameron Laird wrote:
Let me add a cautionary note, though: Big Companies,
including Oracle, Software AG, IBM, Cisco, and so on, have
adopted Tcl over and over. All of them still rely on Tcl
for crucial products. All of them also have employees who
sincerely wonder, Tcl? Isn't that
Paul Rubin http://[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
[...]
I don't understand that. If I see str x = str(3), then I know
that x is a string.
def foo(x):
return str(x)
str = foo(x)
And now, let's say that foo()'s definition is in another module.
It is hard for a programmer to quickly determine
Paul Rubin wrote:
I do believe that it's a horrible deficiency in Python that it has no
declarations at all, even optional ones, like perl -w or use
strict. Python's scoping hacks that result from the lack of
declarations just seem to me like pure insanity.
Yes, ignoring most of the debate about
Donn Cave [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
[...]
For me, the effect is striking. I pound out a little program,
couple hundred lines maybe, and think hm, guess that's it and save
it to disk. Run the compiler, it says no, that's not it - look
at line 49, where this expression has type string but
It might be nice if it was widely understood (in IT) that Python was
a language any competent
programmer could pick up in an afternoon
I am a programmer who works for a firm of engineers, where they program
in VBA, badly. I've often mentioned Python, whereupon I'm usually
dismissed as a
Paul Rubin http://[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Peter Dembinski [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
If it has to be both reliable and secure, I suggest you used more
redundant language such as Ada 95.
That's something to think about and it's come up in discussions,
but probably complicates stuff since
Mark Carter [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
We might be doing a project which involves web-type stuff. I pointed
out that if they did, they wouldn't be able to use VB/VBA, and may
need to use something like Python.
They'll probably use vb.net.
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Stefan Axelsson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Yes, ignoring most of the debate about static vs. dynamic typing, I've
also longed for 'use strict'.
You can use __slots__ to get the effect you're after. Well, sort of; it
only works for instance variables, not locals. And the gurus will argue
that
Paul Rubin wrote:
Steve Holden [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
It seems to me
that IDLE and a lot of the rest of Python are examples of someone
having a cool idea and writing a demo, then releasing it with a lot of
missing components and rough edges, without realizing that it can't
reasonably be called
Aahz wrote:
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED],
Paul Rubin http://[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I was pretty skeptical of Java's checked exceptions when I first used
them but have been coming around about them. There's just been too
many times when I wrote something in Python that crashed because some
Mark Carter wrote:
It might be nice if it was widely understood (in IT) that Python was
a language any competent
programmer could pick up in an afternoon
I am a programmer who works for a firm of engineers, where they program
in VBA, badly. I've often mentioned Python, whereupon I'm usually
Roy Smith wrote:
In perl, I always use use strict, but in Python, I just don't feel the
need. Between the exception mechanism and unit tests, the odds of a
typo going unnoticed for very long are pretty slim. I'll admit I don't
use Pychecker, but if I was doing production code, I would
On Fri, 31 Dec 2004 21:08:02 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Cameron Laird)
wrote:
Let me add a cautionary note, though: Big Companies,
including Oracle, Software AG, IBM, Cisco, and so on, have
adopted Tcl over and over. All of them still rely on Tcl
for crucial products. All of them also have
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Aahz)
wrote:
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED],
Steve Holden [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Aahz wrote:
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED],
Paul Rubin http://[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I was pretty skeptical of Java's checked exceptions when I first
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED],
Mark Carter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
.
[tale of *very*
typical experience
with non-software
engineers]
.
.
use something like
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Cameron Laird) wrote:
Let me add a cautionary note, though: Big Companies,
including Oracle, Software AG, IBM, Cisco, and so on, have
adopted Tcl over and over. All of them still rely on Tcl
for crucial products. All of them also have employees who
sincerely wonder,
Roy Smith wrote:
I think you've hit the nail on the head. In awk (and perl, and most
shells, and IIRC, FORTRAN), using an undefined variable silently gets
you a default value (empty string or zero). This tends to propagate
errors and make them very difficult to track down.
You may recall
Cameron Laird wrote:
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED],
Mark Carter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
.
[tale of *very*
typical experience
with non-software
engineers]
.
.
Don't start me! Dammit, too
Quoth Paul Rubin http://[EMAIL PROTECTED]:
| Donn Cave [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
| Yes, it would be really weird if Python went that way, and the
| sort of idle speculations we were reading recently from Guido
| sure sounded like he knows better. But it's not like there aren't
| some interesting
Bulba! [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
[...]
The point is obviously cover your ass attitude of managers:
Managers get paid for taking risk :)
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Peter Dembinski [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Besides, shouldn't str be a reserved word or something?
It is a name in the builtins module which is automatically searched after
globals. Many experienced Pythoneers strongly advise against rebinding
builtin names
Roy Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Stefan Axelsson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Yes, ignoring most of the debate about static vs. dynamic typing, I've
also longed for 'use strict'.
You can use __slots__ to get the effect you're after. Well, sort of; it
only works for instance variables, not
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
2004-I: xundef.f, line 2: 'y' is set but never used.
2005-W: xundef.f, line 4: 'x' is used but never set.
2153-W: xundef.f, line 5, column 1: Subscript out of range.
None of these are syntax errors. The first two of these would be
Bulba! [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Sat, 01 Jan 2005 15:08:01 -0500, Steve Holden
whereas when a company goes
bust there's no guarantee the software IP will ever be extricated from
the resulting mess.
There is a good _chance_ here: money. Somebody has poured a
1 - 100 of 153 matches
Mail list logo
