In article ,
Roy Smith wrote:
>In article , a...@pythoncraft.com (Aahz)
>wrote:
>>
>> --
>> Looking back over the years, after I learned Python I realized that I
>> never really had enjoyed programming before.
>
>That's a sad commentary. Python is fun to use, but surely there are other
>ways
In article , a...@pythoncraft.com (Aahz)
wrote:
> Looking back over the years, after I learned Python I realized that I
> never really had enjoyed programming before.
That's a sad commentary. Python is fun to use, but surely there are other
ways you can enjoy programming?
The first thing I le
In article ,
Ned Deily wrote:
>In article <4b20ac0a$0$1596$742ec...@news.sonic.net>,
> John Nagle wrote:
>>
>> I'd argue against using Python 2.6 for production work. Either use
>> Python 2.5, which is stable, or 3.x, which is bleeding-edge. 2.6
>> has some of the features of Python 3.x, but n
> In addition to Ned Deily's previous comments, I'd like to note that 2to3
> assumes the source is valid 2.6 code - you have to ensure the code runs
> fine with Python 2.6 before using 2to3 to convert to 3.x
That's wrong - 2to3 works just fine on, say, 2.3 code that has never
been run on 2.6.
Reg
"Gabriel Genellina" writes:
> In addition to Ned Deily's previous comments, I'd like to note that
> 2to3 assumes the source is valid 2.6 code - you have to ensure the
> code runs fine with Python 2.6 before using 2to3 to convert to 3.x
To achieve that, you're strongly encouraged to follow Step 0
En Thu, 10 Dec 2009 05:18:13 -0300, John Nagle
escribió:
Luis M. González wrote:
On Dec 6, 3:21 pm, vsoler wrote:
I'd argue against using Python 2.6 for production work. Either use
Python 2.5, which is stable, or 3.x, which is bleeding-edge. 2.6 has
some of the
features of Python
In article <4b20ac0a$0$1596$742ec...@news.sonic.net>,
John Nagle wrote:
> I'd argue against using Python 2.6 for production work. Either use
> Python
> 2.5, which is stable, or 3.x, which is bleeding-edge. 2.6 has some of the
> features of Python 3.x, but not all of them, and is neither fish
Luis M. González wrote:
On Dec 6, 3:21 pm, vsoler wrote:
I recently read that many libraries, including Numpy have not been
ported to Python 3.
When do you think that Python 3 will be fully deployed?
Should I stick, so far, to Python 2.6?
Regards
Vicente Soler
You'll have some answers her
On Wed, Dec 9, 2009 at 11:25, Nobody wrote:
> On Wed, 09 Dec 2009 10:28:40 -0800, Rami Chowdhury wrote:
>
>>> But on Unix, it's a square-peg-round-hole situation.
>>
>> I dunno, I find it rather useful not to have to faff about with
>> encoding to/from when working with non-ASCII files (with non-A
On Wed, 09 Dec 2009 10:28:40 -0800, Rami Chowdhury wrote:
>> But on Unix, it's a square-peg-round-hole situation.
>
> I dunno, I find it rather useful not to have to faff about with
> encoding to/from when working with non-ASCII files (with non-ASCII
> filenames) on Linux.
For the kind of task I
On Wed, Dec 9, 2009 at 09:53, Nobody wrote:
>
> I'm sure that the Unicode approach works great on Windows, where wchar_t
> is so pervasive that Microsoft may as well have just redefined "char"
> (even to the point of preferring UTF-16-LE for text files over UTF-8,
> ASCII-compatibility be damned).
On Sun, 06 Dec 2009 22:10:15 +, Edward A. Falk wrote:
>>I recently read that many libraries, including Numpy have not been
>>ported to Python 3.
>>
>>When do you think that Python 3 will be fully deployed?
>
> It will never be fully deployed. There will always be people out there who
> haven
"Martin P. Hellwig" writes:
> If the fear of customers disatification prevents you from using a
> certain version of X, you should consider a deployment strategy that
> cuts out dependencies as much as possible. Although this will result
> in a larger end package and possible high amount of dupli
On Dec 6, 11:53 pm, "Martin P. Hellwig"
wrote:
> Edward A. Falk wrote:
>
>
>
> > For development purposes, you should stick with the oldest version that will
> > actually run your code. Every time you move to a more modern version,
> > you're
> > leaving potential users/customers out in the col
Edward A. Falk wrote:
For development purposes, you should stick with the oldest version that will
actually run your code. Every time you move to a more modern version, you're
leaving potential users/customers out in the cold.
If the fear of customers disatification prevents you from using a
On 06-Dec-09 13:25 PM, Luis M. González wrote:
On Dec 6, 3:21 pm, vsoler wrote:
I recently read that many libraries, including Numpy have not been
ported to Python 3.
When do you think that Python 3 will be fully deployed?
Should I stick, so far, to Python 2.6?
Regards
Vicente Soler
You'l
In article ,
vsoler wrote:
>I recently read that many libraries, including Numpy have not been
>ported to Python 3.
>
>When do you think that Python 3 will be fully deployed?
It will never be fully deployed. There will always be people out there who
haven't felt it necessary to upgrade their sy
On Dec 6, 3:21 pm, vsoler wrote:
> I recently read that many libraries, including Numpy have not been
> ported to Python 3.
>
> When do you think that Python 3 will be fully deployed?
>
> Should I stick, so far, to Python 2.6?
>
> Regards
>
> Vicente Soler
You'll have some answers here:
http://j
18 matches
Mail list logo
