Am 11.05.2011 23:02 schrieb Ian:
On 11/05/2011 20:13, Hans Georg Schaathun wrote:
Lists do not have truth values in the
application domain, and therefore truth values in the
implementation domain is complicated.
Exactly. Its just a convention. If it exists, its true, if if doesn't
its false.
On 12/05/2011 04:51, Chris Angelico wrote:
On Thu, May 12, 2011 at 7:02 AM, Ian wrote:
In the "real world" lists of zero items do not exist.
You don't go shopping with a shopping list of zero items.
Actually, yes you do. You maintain your shopping list between trips;
whenever you need somethi
On Sun, May 22, 2011 at 2:32 PM, rusi wrote:
> Recently on the emacs list there was a big flame-fest because the
> behavior (aka interface) of return/newline changed.
> The argument for change: Can we have emacs behave a little more like a
> 21st century application?
> Against: Somebody's scriptin
On May 22, 8:52 am, Chris Angelico wrote:
> On Sun, May 22, 2011 at 1:02 PM, rusi wrote:
> > Why is the C library in linux called libc6 and not just libc?
>
> I assume you mean this?http://www.linux-m68k.org/faq/glibcinfo.html
Ha Ha! Thanks for that link! I quote:
> You should not be using libc
On Sun, May 22, 2011 at 1:02 PM, rusi wrote:
> Why is the C library in linux called libc6 and not just libc?
I assume you mean this? http://www.linux-m68k.org/faq/glibcinfo.html
When you dynamically link against a shared object, you save on
executable size, but you have to have that shared objec
On May 22, 1:11 am, Terry Reedy wrote:
> I agree that the domain of a function should be defined from the start
> (and only expanded in the future).
I dont understand...
I dont always write correct code -- otherwise called 'a bug' -- though
I never let the damn bug lose intentionally.
And when I
On Sun, May 22, 2011 at 11:02 AM, Steven D'Aprano
wrote:
> On Sat, 21 May 2011 15:46:01 +0100, John J Lee wrote:
>
> Er, yes? But in any realistic example (your trivial function xyzzyx below
> is not very realistic) you'll almost certainly get additional hints in
> the function body.
True, but so
On Sat, 21 May 2011 15:46:01 +0100, John J Lee wrote:
> In the absence of an explicit interface declaration (have any standards
> emerged for that in Python 3, BTW?), the use of len() does give you some
> information about the interface, which sometimes makes it easier to
> change the function.
E
On 5/21/2011 10:46 AM, John J Lee wrote:
In the absence of an explicit interface declaration (have any standards
emerged for that in Python 3, BTW?), the use of len() does give you some
information about the interface, which sometimes makes it easier to
change the function.
I'm sure you fully u
On 5/21/2011 7:46 AM John J Lee said...
Gregory Ewing writes:
Hans Georg Schaathun wrote:
0 is a number as real and existent as any other,
one would think that the empty list is also as real and existent as
any other list.
0 does have some special properties, though, such as
being the add
Gregory Ewing writes:
> Hans Georg Schaathun wrote:
>> 0 is a number as real and existent as any other,
>> one would think that the empty list is also as real and existent as
>> any other list.
>
> 0 does have some special properties, though, such as
> being the additive identity and not having
On May 16, 2:36 am, Terry Reedy wrote:
> On 5/15/2011 1:33 PM, rusi wrote:
>
> > On May 15, 10:07 am, Steven D'Aprano > +comp.lang.pyt...@pearwood.info> wrote:
>
> >> I'm afraid I don't understand what you mean. Can you explain please, what
> >> properties of "first class booleans" do you think a
I have been scolded off-list for pursuing a discussion that has
nothing to do with python.
So I continue a bit gingerly :-) and will stop when others feel this
is useless/irrelevant/whatever.
Steven wrote:
> I'm afraid I didn't find your discussion about reification, Platonism and
> linguistics
On Friday 13 May 2011 18:47:50 Hans Georg Schaathun wrote:
> On Thu, 12 May 2011 23:20:20 +1000, Chris Angelico
>
>wrote:
> : Writing a program requires expertise both in programming
snip...
>
> And the main difference here, is that the civil engineers
> have a much better language to share
Steven D'Aprano wrote:
I'm afraid I don't understand what you mean. Can you explain please,
http://www.informatik.uni-bremen.de/agbkb/lehre/ws06-07/casl/slides/Datatypes-II.pdf
Geeze, I wonder if software is mathematics
kind regards,
m harris
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/li
On 5/15/2011 5:36 PM, Terry Reedy wrote:
On 5/15/2011 1:33 PM, rusi wrote:
Dijkstra's writings I alluded to,
at
http://www.cs.utexas.edu/users/EWD/transcriptions/EWD10xx/EWD1070.html
"Acquiring that familiarity requires what in these financial times is
known as "intellectual investment"; y
rusi wrote:
But on further examination (with Leibniz law above) Dijkstra's 2<3 =
True will work consistently in all contexts but [1,2,3] = True will
work sometimes and fail sometimes.
It would have to be written 2<3 == True; [1,2,3] == True; otherwise,
...
+1 QOTW
--
http://mail.python.org/
On Sun, 15 May 2011 10:33:38 -0700, rusi wrote:
> On May 15, 10:07 am, Steven D'Aprano +comp.lang.pyt...@pearwood.info> wrote:
>>
>> I'm afraid I don't understand what you mean. Can you explain please,
>> what properties of "first class booleans" do you think are missing from
>> Python?
[snip]
On 5/15/2011 1:33 PM, rusi wrote:
On May 15, 10:07 am, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
I'm afraid I don't understand what you mean. Can you explain please, what
properties of "first class booleans" do you think are missing from Python?
Given the usual CS definition of 'first class object', all Python
On May 15, 10:07 am, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
>
> I'm afraid I don't understand what you mean. Can you explain please, what
> properties of "first class booleans" do you think are missing from Python?
Dijkstra's writings I alluded to, take a logic/math line to this. Let
me try to rephrase Dijkstr
On Sat, 14 May 2011 19:41:32 -0700, rusi wrote:
> The python entities: {True, False} are not an exact (isomorphic) model
> for the semantic boolean domain {true, false} (which is needed for
> example to explicate the semantics of if while etc) Which is to say the
> boolean type in python is not f
On Sat, 14 May 2011 00:45:29 -0700, rusi wrote:
> On May 14, 12:39 pm, Steven D'Aprano +comp.lang.pyt...@pearwood.info> wrote:
>> On Thu, 12 May 2011 23:46:12 -0700, rusi wrote:
>> > Mathematics has existed for millenia. Hindu-arabic numerals (base-10
>> > numbers) have been known for about one m
On May 15, 4:26 am, Ben Finney wrote:
> rusi writes:
> > [Steven quote]
> > In Python, [1, 2, 3] is another way of writing true, and [] is another
> > way of writing false. Similarly with any other arbitrary objects. The
> > only things that bools True and False are good for are:
> >
> > [end St
rusi writes:
> [Steven quote]
> In Python, [1, 2, 3] is another way of writing true, and [] is another
> way of writing false. Similarly with any other arbitrary objects. The
> only things that bools True and False are good for are:
>
> [end Steven quote]
>
>
> So since
On 5/14/2011 1:43 PM, rusi wrote:
But it seems you did not get the moral? Spelt out: "Beware of lossy
compression!"
[Which is also the moral of my 'proof']
I get it now. As I suggested in response to Stephen, [] and [1] spell
False and True only in boolean contexts (if/while headers) where th
On 5/14/2011 3:45 AM, rusi wrote:
(True = True) is False
is a syntax error ;-)
and 'True = True' is a (useless) statement,
and statements do not have boolean values,
and 'True == True' *is* True, which is to say,
((True == True) is False) is False.
--
Terry Jan Reedy
--
http://mail.python.o
On 5/14/2011 3:39 AM, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
Th money-quote as regards using arbitrary objects in truth tests:
[quote]
All this changed with the introduction of the two-element
boolean domain {true, false} which provides the vocabulary
needed to assign values to boolean expr
On May 14, 8:55 pm, Chris Angelico wrote:
> On Sun, May 15, 2011 at 1:47 AM, rusi wrote:
> > So since
> > [1,2,3] is one way of writing True (lets call it True3)
> > and [1,2] is another (call it True2)
> > then we have True3 == True2 is False
>
> > But since according to Steven (according to Pyt
On Sun, May 15, 2011 at 1:47 AM, rusi wrote:
> So since
> [1,2,3] is one way of writing True (lets call it True3)
> and [1,2] is another (call it True2)
> then we have True3 == True2 is False
>
> But since according to Steven (according to Python?) True3 *is the
> same* as True2
> we get
> False
On May 14, 6:42 pm, Chris Angelico wrote:
> On Sat, May 14, 2011 at 5:45 PM, rusi wrote:
> > And then we get the interesting result that
> > (True = True) is False
>
> How does this work? In Python, the = sign is illegal there, and if you
> mean True == True, then it's True (obviously), which is
In article ,
David Robinow wrote:
> On Fri, May 13, 2011 at 10:34 PM, Gregory Ewing
> wrote:
> > rusi wrote:
> >
> >> Dijkstra's problem (paraphrased) is that python, by choosing the
> >> FORTRAN alternative of having a non-first-class boolean type, hinders
> >> scientific/mathematical thinking
On Fri, May 13, 2011 at 10:34 PM, Gregory Ewing
wrote:
> rusi wrote:
>
>> Dijkstra's problem (paraphrased) is that python, by choosing the
>> FORTRAN alternative of having a non-first-class boolean type, hinders
>> scientific/mathematical thinking/progress.
>
> Python doesn't have the flaw that Di
On Sat, May 14, 2011 at 5:45 PM, rusi wrote:
> And then we get the interesting result that
> (True = True) is False
How does this work? In Python, the = sign is illegal there, and if you
mean True == True, then it's True (obviously), which is not False.
Chris Angelico
--
http://mail.python.org/
On 07/05/2011 02:43, Jon Clements wrote:
On May 7, 12:51 am, Ian Kelly wrote:
On Fri, May 6, 2011 at 4:21 PM, Philip Semanchuk wrote:
What if it's not a list but a tuple or a numpy array? Often I just want to
iterate through an element's items and I don't care if it's a list, set, etc.
For
On May 14, 12:39 pm, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
> On Thu, 12 May 2011 23:46:12 -0700, rusi wrote:
> > Mathematics has existed for millenia. Hindu-arabic numerals (base-10
> > numbers) have been known for about one millennium
> > The boolean domain is only a 100 years old. Unsurprisingly it is not
> >
On Thu, 12 May 2011 23:46:12 -0700, rusi wrote:
> Mathematics has existed for millenia. Hindu-arabic numerals (base-10
> numbers) have been known for about one millennium
> The boolean domain is only a 100 years old. Unsurprisingly it is not
> quite 'first-class' yet: See
> http://www.cs.utexas.ed
On Fri, May 13, 2011 at 10:47 PM, harrismh777 wrote:
> http://www.inf.ed.ac.uk/teaching/courses/inf1/fp/
>
> http://www.cs.ou.edu/~rlpage/fpclassSpring97/
>
>
> There are lots of these... the two above afaik are still doing this at the
> entry level... ... supposedly, these kids are 'mostly'
Ian Kelly wrote:
>> Well, at least Haskell is probably better as an introductory language
>> than Lisp or Scheme. But what schools actually do this?
http://www.inf.ed.ac.uk/teaching/courses/inf1/fp/
http://www.cs.ou.edu/~rlpage/fpclassSpring97/
There are lots of these... the two above
rusi wrote:
Dijkstra's problem (paraphrased) is that python, by choosing the
FORTRAN alternative of having a non-first-class boolean type, hinders
scientific/mathematical thinking/progress.
Python doesn't have the flaw that Dijkstra was talking about.
Fortran's flaw wasn't so much the lack of
harrismh777 wrote:
... and I'm also lumping two other languages into this 'category'...
namely, Scheme, and Erlang.
Scheme isn't really a functional language, though. You can
use a subset of it in a functional way, but it doesn't have
the sort of built-in support for pattern matching and cas
Ian Kelly wrote:
If a math major comes to you wanting to learn some
programming for theorem-proving, bearing in mind that they probably
aren't interested in learning more than a single language,
I would question whether theorem-proving is the *only*
thing they will ever want to do with a progra
On Fri, May 13, 2011 at 6:48 PM, harrismh777 wrote:
> Ian Kelly wrote:
>>
>> Well, at least Haskell is probably better as an introductory language
>> than Lisp or Scheme. But what schools actually do this?
>
> http://www.cs.kent.ac.uk/teaching/resources/haskell/HugsResources.html
> http://researc
Ian Kelly wrote:
Well, at least Haskell is probably better as an introductory language
than Lisp or Scheme. But what schools actually do this?
http://www.cs.kent.ac.uk/teaching/resources/haskell/HugsResources.html
http://research.cs.queensu.ca/home/cisc260/2010w/haskell.html
These are just
On Fri, May 13, 2011 at 1:41 PM, harrismh777 wrote:
> On the other hand, kids today are dumped into a first comp sci course in
> programming and plopped in-front of a Hugs interactive shell and then are
> expected to learn programming and be successful by trying to grasp pure
> functional programm
ru...@yahoo.com wrote:
http://www.codinghorror.com/blog/2006/07/separating-programming-sheep-from-non-programming-goats.html
A later paper by the same authors...
(http://www.eis.mdx.ac.uk/research/PhDArea/saeed/paper3.pdf)
These papers are fascinating reading, not only for philosophy sake i
On May 13, 1:02 pm, Chris Rebert wrote:
> On Thu, May 12, 2011 at 11:46 PM, rusi wrote:
>
> > The boolean domain is only a 100 years old.
> > Unsurprisingly it is not quite 'first-class' yet: See
>
> It is nowadays. Every halfway-mainstream language I can think of has
> an explicit boolean dataty
On Thu, 12 May 2011 23:20:20 +1000, Chris Angelico
wrote:
: Writing a program requires expertise both in programming and in the
: purpose for which it's being written. Ultimately, a programmer is a
: translator; without proper comprehension of the material he's
: translating, he can't make a
On Thu, May 12, 2011 at 11:46 PM, rusi wrote:
> The boolean domain is only a 100 years old.
> Unsurprisingly it is not quite 'first-class' yet: See
It is nowadays. Every halfway-mainstream language I can think of has
an explicit boolean datatype. Heck, as of C99, even C has one now. I
conjecture
Mathematics has existed for millenia.
Hindu-arabic numerals (base-10 numbers) have been known for about one
millennium
The boolean domain is only a 100 years old.
Unsurprisingly it is not quite 'first-class' yet: See
http://www.cs.utexas.edu/users/EWD/transcriptions/EWD10xx/EWD1070.html
[Lifted fro
On Thu, 12 May 2011 07:36:27 -0400, Roy Smith wrote:
> In article <931adaf9g...@mid.individual.net>,
> Gregory Ewing wrote:
>
>> Roy Smith wrote:
>> >>If both are numbers, they are converted to a common type. Otherwise,
>> >>objects of different types always compare unequal
>>
>> That's just t
On 5/12/2011 3:37 PM, Terry Reedy wrote:
On 5/11/2011 8:26 AM, Roy Smith wrote:
I conclude that li == [] should have returned False. Either I'm not
understanding things correctly, or this is a bug.
The doc is wrong (and not only on this). I am working on a report with
suggested fixes. Will po
On 5/11/2011 8:26 AM, Roy Smith wrote:
I conclude that li == [] should have returned False. Either I'm not
understanding things correctly, or this is a bug.
The doc is wrong (and not only on this). I am working on a report with
suggested fixes. Will post number when finish.
--
Terry Jan Re
On 05/12/2011 12:13 AM, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
>[snip]
> http://www.codinghorror.com/blog/2006/07/separating-programming-sheep-from-non-programming-goats.html
>
> Shorter version: it seems that programming aptitude is a bimodal
> distribution, with very little migration from the "can't program" hum
On Fri, May 13, 2011 at 12:02 AM, Ethan Furman wrote:
> Chris Angelico wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, May 12, 2011 at 7:02 AM, Ian wrote:
>>>
>>> In the "real world" lists of zero items do not exist.
>>> You don't go shopping with a shopping list of zero items.
>>
>> Actually, yes you do. You maintain you
Chris Angelico wrote:
On Thu, May 12, 2011 at 7:02 AM, Ian wrote:
In the "real world" lists of zero items do not exist.
You don't go shopping with a shopping list of zero items.
Actually, yes you do. You maintain your shopping list between trips;
whenever you need something, you put it on th
On Thu, May 12, 2011 at 10:43 PM, Hans Georg Schaathun
wrote:
> On Thu, 12 May 2011 22:16:10 +1000, Chris Angelico
> wrote:
> : Anyone can join. Not everyone wants to join. Me, I'm happy here as a
> : priest of the software industry, and I have no desire to become a
> : priest of, say, autom
On Thu, 12 May 2011 22:16:10 +1000, Chris Angelico
wrote:
: Anyone can join. Not everyone wants to join. Me, I'm happy here as a
: priest of the software industry, and I have no desire to become a
: priest of, say, automotive engineering or concrete pouring. Would an
: expert concreter be ex
On Thu, May 12, 2011 at 4:21 PM, Hans Georg Schaathun
wrote:
> On Thu, 12 May 2011 01:49:05 -0400, D'Arcy J.M. Cain
> wrote:
> : That's not programming. That's using a canned app that a programmer
> : wrote that takes your unstructured input and does something useful with
> : it. Spreadshe
In article <931adaf9g...@mid.individual.net>,
Gregory Ewing wrote:
> Roy Smith wrote:
> >>If both are numbers, they are converted to a common type. Otherwise,
> >>objects of different types always compare unequal
>
> That's just the default treatment for unrelated types that don't
> know anyth
Hans Georg Schaathun writes:
> On Thu, 12 May 2011 16:46:38 +1000, Ben Finney
>wrote:
> : Hans Georg Schaathun writes:
> :
> : > On Wed, 11 May 2011 20:31:45 -0700 (PDT), alex23
> : >wrote:
> : > : On May 12, 7:24 am, harrismh777 wrote:
> : > : > We need to move away from 'canned app
On Thu, 12 May 2011 16:46:38 +1000, Ben Finney
wrote:
: Hans Georg Schaathun writes:
:
: > On Wed, 11 May 2011 20:31:45 -0700 (PDT), alex23
: >wrote:
: > : On May 12, 7:24 am, harrismh777 wrote:
: > : > We need to move away from 'canned apps' to a new day where
: > : > the masses can si
Hans Georg Schaathun writes:
> On Wed, 11 May 2011 20:31:45 -0700 (PDT), alex23
>wrote:
> : On May 12, 7:24 am, harrismh777 wrote:
> : > We need to move away from 'canned apps' to a new day where
> : > the masses can sit down to their computer and solve new problems with it
> : > through in
On Wed, 11 May 2011 20:31:45 -0700 (PDT), alex23
wrote:
: On May 12, 7:24 am, harrismh777 wrote:
: > We need to move away from 'canned apps' to a new day where
: > the masses can sit down to their computer and solve new problems with it
: > through intuitive language skills. Why not?
:
: Be
On 11 May 2011 21:42:10 GMT, Steven D'Aprano
wrote:
: *Potentially* different tests. Which is exactly the point. Given an
: arbitrary object, the developer doesn't know what test is appropriate.
: Should I write len(x) == 0 or list(x) == [] or x.next is None or
: something else? How can I
On Thu, 12 May 2011 01:49:05 -0400, D'Arcy J.M. Cain
wrote:
: That's not programming. That's using a canned app that a programmer
: wrote that takes your unstructured input and does something useful with
: it. Spreadsheets are a primitive example of that. Google is a more
: advanced examp
On Wed, 11 May 2011 22:53:45 -0500, harrismh777 wrote:
> alex23 wrote:
>>> through intuitive language skills. Why not?
>> Because the vast majority of them don't seem to want to be bothered?
>>
>>
> That could very well be... but I have a hope for them. I honestly think
> its not because they don
On Thu, 12 May 2011 17:44:07 +1200, Gregory Ewing
wrote:
: Roy Smith wrote:
: > Hans Georg Schaathun wrote:
: >>If both are numbers, they are converted to a common type. Otherwise,
: >>objects of different types always compare unequal
Actually, I did not.
:-- hg
--
http://mail.python.org/ma
On Wed, 11 May 2011 20:16:01 -0700 (PDT), alex23
wrote:
: Hans Georg Schaathun wrote:
: > Revolutionary indeed, so why don't we exploit the revolution
: > and write the programs to be as accessible as possible?
:
: Where do you draw the line, though?
I said that, "as possible". You draw it
On 11 May 2011 21:47:27 GMT, Steven D'Aprano
wrote:
: On Wed, 11 May 2011 20:13:35 +0100, Hans Georg Schaathun wrote:
: > One principle of object oriented programming is to bestow the objects
: > with properties reflecting known properties from the domain being
: > modelled. Lists do not have
On Wed, 11 May 2011 16:24:47 -0500
harrismh777 wrote:
> D'Arcy J.M. Cain wrote:
> Non-programmers should not be expected to program in 'C' nor in lisp...
>
> ... but non-programmers were able to program in BASIC jes fine...
They still had to learn the language.
> I contend that non-prog
Roy Smith wrote:
Hans Georg Schaathun wrote:
If both are numbers, they are converted to a common type. Otherwise,
objects of different types always compare unequal
That's just the default treatment for unrelated types that don't
know anything about each other.
I would guess that the list's =
alex23 wrote:
through intuitive language skills. Why not?
Because the vast majority of them don't seem to want to be bothered?
That could very well be... but I have a hope for them. I honestly think
its not because they don't want to be bothered, rather they just think
its too far past the
On Thu, May 12, 2011 at 7:02 AM, Ian wrote:
> In the "real world" lists of zero items do not exist.
> You don't go shopping with a shopping list of zero items.
Actually, yes you do. You maintain your shopping list between trips;
whenever you need something, you put it on the list immediately. Th
In article <4dc6a39a$0$29991$c3e8da3$54964...@news.astraweb.com>
Steven D'Aprano wrote:
>In English, [the word "not"] negates a word or statement:
>
>"the cat is not on the mat" --> "the cat is on the mat" is false.
As a mostly off topic aside, English is considerably more complicated
than that.
* 2011-05-11T20:26:48+01:00 * Hans Georg Schaathun wrote:
> On Wed, 11 May 2011 14:44:37 -0400, Prasad, Ramit
>wrote:
>> I claim to be able to program (Java/Python), but would be absolutely
>> lost programming in Lisp. It is more than just "learning the syntax",
>> it includes a thought paradi
On May 12, 7:24 am, harrismh777 wrote:
> We need to move away from 'canned apps' to a new day where
> the masses can sit down to their computer and solve new problems with it
> through intuitive language skills. Why not?
Because the vast majority of them don't seem to want to be bothered?
--
h
Hans Georg Schaathun wrote:
> Revolutionary indeed, so why don't we exploit the revolution
> and write the programs to be as accessible as possible?
Where do you draw the line, though?
No decorators, as they're not intuitively obvious? No custom
descriptors, as that requires a deeper knowledge o
On Wed, 11 May 2011 17:38:58 -0500, harrismh777 wrote:
> Steven D'Aprano wrote:
>>> modelled. Lists do not have truth values in the application domain
>> Yes they do. Empty lists are nothing, ergo false, and non-empty lists
>> are something, ergo true.
>>
>>
> No they don't. Empty lists are empt
harrismh777 wrote:
Lists by themselves, empty or not, cannot have a 'truth' in an of
themselves.
... forgot.,
Based on Ian's comment a couple of days ago...
if alist:
... is actually :
if bool(alist):
I think this is more than just semantics or silly argumentation.
Hans Georg Schaathun wrote:
0 is a number as real and existent as any other,
one would think that the empty list is also as real and existent as
any other list.
0 does have some special properties, though, such as
being the additive identity and not having a multiplicative
inverse. Adding fals
Steven D'Aprano wrote:
modelled. Lists do not have truth values in the application domain
Yes they do. Empty lists are nothing, ergo false, and non-empty lists are
something, ergo true.
No they don't. Empty lists are empty lists... which just happen to
become False when type cast bool(lis
On 05/11/2011 02:47 PM, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
On Wed, 11 May 2011 20:13:35 +0100, Hans Georg Schaathun wrote:
One principle of object oriented programming is to bestow the objects
with properties reflecting known properties from the domain being
modelled. Lists do not have truth values in the
On Wed, 11 May 2011 20:13:35 +0100, Hans Georg Schaathun wrote:
> One principle of object oriented programming is to bestow the objects
> with properties reflecting known properties from the domain being
> modelled. Lists do not have truth values in the application domain
Yes they do. Empty list
On Wed, 11 May 2011 19:05:03 +, Chris Torek wrote:
> In article <4dcab8bf$0$29980$c3e8da3$54964...@news.astraweb.com> Steven
> D'Aprano wrote:
>>When you call len(x) you don't care about the details of how to
>>calculate the length of x. The object itself knows so that you don't
>>have to. T
D'Arcy J.M. Cain wrote:
Non-programmers should be able to program?
Should non-doctors be able to doctor? Should cars be built so that
anyone can intuitively fix them without a mechanic?
Non-programmers should not be expected to program in 'C' nor in lisp...
... but non-programmers were
Hans Georg Schaathun wrote:
Code is quite often published to document algorithms, methods and
formulæ for the purpose of scientific research. Since there is no
universal language which suits everything and everyone, this
is exactly what happens. One has to have the rudimentary knowledge
to read
On 11/05/2011 20:13, Hans Georg Schaathun wrote:
On Wed, 11 May 2011 12:17:33 -0700, Ethan Furman
wrote:
: 'if li' *is* KISS.
It /might/ be in some contexts, but a priori it is not, as it
superimposes a truth value on a data type which is otherwise
a pretty accurate model of real objects (
On Wed, 11 May 2011 14:44:37 -0400, Prasad, Ramit
wrote:
: > Someone who knows how to program is never clueless starting a new
: >language. Newbie, may be, but he knows most of the constructions
: >and semantic principles to look for; most of it is learning the syntax.
:
: I claim to be able
On Wed, 11 May 2011 12:17:33 -0700, Ethan Furman
wrote:
: 'if li' *is* KISS.
It /might/ be in some contexts, but a priori it is not, as it
superimposes a truth value on a data type which is otherwise
a pretty accurate model of real objects (outside python).
One principle of object oriented pr
On Wed, 11 May 2011 14:59:34 -0400, Prasad, Ramit
wrote:
: Fair enough. I am a sheep, so I do what other (more knowledgeable)
: people do. It is a fair assumption (for my specific code writing
: environments) that everyone who is going to read my code understands
: "if x:" notation or is expe
hun
Sent: Wednesday, May 11, 2011 1:06 PM
To: python-list@python.org
Subject: Re: checking if a list is empty
On 11 May 2011 16:26:40 GMT, Steven D'Aprano
wrote:
: > 1. My concern was not about clueless newbies. They need to
: > learn. My concern is about experienced scientists and
In article <4dcab8bf$0$29980$c3e8da3$54964...@news.astraweb.com>
Steven D'Aprano wrote:
>When you call len(x) you don't care about the details of how to calculate
>the length of x. The object itself knows so that you don't have to. The
>same applies to truth testing.
>
>I have a data type that
Hans Georg Schaathun wrote:
On Wed, 11 May 2011 13:50:54 -0400, Prasad, Ramit
wrote:
: I find this argument to be flawed. Should I stop using built-in
: generators instead of range/xrange for looping through lists?
: Certainly for loops with loop counting are understood more widely
: than g
rom: python-list-bounces+ramit.prasad=jpmchase@python.org
[mailto:python-list-bounces+ramit.prasad=jpmchase@python.org] On Behalf Of
Hans Georg Schaathun
Sent: Wednesday, May 11, 2011 1:16 PM
To: python-list@python.org
Subject: Re: checking if a list is empty
On Wed, 11 May 2011 13:50:54 -0400
On Wed, 11 May 2011 13:50:54 -0400, Prasad, Ramit
wrote:
: I find this argument to be flawed. Should I stop using built-in
: generators instead of range/xrange for looping through lists?
: Certainly for loops with loop counting are understood more widely
: than generators. Should I stop using
On Wed, 11 May 2011 10:31:59 -0600, Ian Kelly
wrote:
: (x + 3 for x in xs if x % 2 == 1)
Interesting. Thanks. That might come in handy some time.
--
:-- Hans Georg
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
On Wed, 11 May 2011 10:27:49 -0400, D'Arcy J.M. Cain
wrote:
: When did we come to the idea that people should be able to program in a
: language without actually learning it? The fact that Python comes so
: close to that possibility is nothing short of revolutionary.
Revolutionary indeed, s
On Thu, 12 May 2011 02:05:21 +1000, Chris Angelico
wrote:
: In a Bourne shell script, if ends with fi... case ends with esac... so
: file would end with... hmm. Yeah, I think it's best to know the
: language you're trying to comprehend, and/or actually look at context
: instead of shoving a
On 11 May 2011 16:26:40 GMT, Steven D'Aprano
wrote:
: > 1. My concern was not about clueless newbies. They need to
: > learn. My concern is about experienced scientists and engineers who
: > are simply new to python.
:
: Which makes them clueless newbies *about Python*. I don't care how
On Wed, 11 May 2011 10:33:51 -0400, D'Arcy J.M. Cain
wrote:
: Non-programmers should be able to program?
That was not really what I suggested; I was primarily talking
about reading programs and commenting on formulæ and algorithms.
: Should non-doctors be able to doctor?
If I were God, I mi
1 - 100 of 160 matches
Mail list logo
