On Wed, Apr 13, 2016 at 10:15 AM, alister wrote:
> On Wed, 13 Apr 2016 06:18:22 -0700, durgadevi1 wrote:
>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> I have a doubt regarding a problem.
>>
> No, you have a question doubt means you don't believe something
> (sorry I know this is not
So you have a string of text, either a Unicode string in Python 3, or
a byte string that's meant to be UTF-8. Most of the way through,
you're working with the native string type, for compatibility with
other sections of code. But then you want to be certain you're working
with a Unicode string...
On Wed, 2012-06-06 at 16:56 -0400, Jerry Hill wrote:
> For what it's worth, I've never seen either of those constructs ("see
> overleaf" and "see over"). Are they perhaps more common in a
> particular academic context, or possibly more common in places
On 6/6/2012 4:56 PM, Jerry Hill wrote:
On Wed, Jun 6, 2012 at 4:10 PM, Alec Ross wrote:
FWIW, English idiomatic usage includes "see overleaf", and "see over", for
the obverse side of a page/sheet, i.e, the following page; and "see facing
page", w/ the obvious
On Wed, Jun 6, 2012 at 4:10 PM, Alec Ross wrote:
> FWIW, English idiomatic usage includes "see overleaf", and "see over", for
> the obverse side of a page/sheet, i.e, the following page; and "see facing
> page", w/ the obvious meaning.
For what it&#
er side" in french - from
latin).
FWIW, English idiomatic usage includes "see overleaf", and "see over",
for the obverse side of a page/sheet, i.e, the following page; and "see
facing page", w/ the obvious meaning.
Alec
--
Alec Ross
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
On 06/06/2012 07:45 PM, MRAB wrote:
On 06/06/2012 18:23, Jugurtha Hadjar wrote:
[snip]
"range returns a « generator », convert it to list to see.." -->
"converts" instead of "convert".
No, "convert" is correct here; it's the imperative, i.e. "convert it to
a list if you want to see...".
My
; it's the imperative, i.e. "convert it to
> a list if you want to see...".
>
>> "frequently used in for iterative loops" --> .. I think it should be
>> "frequently used in "for" iterative loops" .. It is confusing if the
to see...".
"frequently used in for iterative loops" --> .. I think it should be
"frequently used in "for" iterative loops" .. It is confusing if there
are no quotes, because "for" is a meaningful english word.. So
specifying you are talking about
Ulrich Eckhardt wrote:
> Am 05.06.2012 19:32, schrieb Laurent Pointal:
>> I started a first translation of my document originally in french. Could
>> some fluent english people read it and indicate errors or bad english
>> expressions.
>
> Just one note up front: Lan
On 06/05/2012 06:32 PM, Laurent Pointal wrote:
Hello,
I started a first translation of my document originally in french. Could
some fluent english people read it and indicate errors or bad english
expressions.
http://perso.limsi.fr/pointal/python:memento
Thanks.
A+
Laurent.
Very nice
out such constructions).
> In "Function definition"
> bloc => block
> (« black box ») => ("black box")
> [English speakers may not recognize « » symbols]
I switched them to "".
Its here to remember students that they can't access t
s grammatically correct too, but
I don't think I've seen it used regularly.
If the "else" could be in a different colour, that may be clearer.
RE: the order - "else" is being used as an adjective to clarify the noun
"block" - in English the adjective comes
't think I've seen it used regularly.
RE: the order - "else" is being used as an adjective to clarify the noun
"block" - in English the adjective comes before the noun (unlike a lot
of European languages)
e.g. we say "the red book", not "the book r
Am 05.06.2012 19:32, schrieb Laurent Pointal:
> I started a first translation of my document originally in french. Could
> some fluent english people read it and indicate errors or bad english
> expressions.
Just one note up front: Languages or nationalities are written with
uppercas
ER case sensitive
In "Conversions":
see verso => see other side
("verso" is not wrong, but it's an unusual word in US English)
logial => logical
In "Sequences indexing":
negative index -4 => [the formatting is broken]
In "Boolean Logic"
On 05/06/2012 21:01, Petite Abeille wrote:
On Jun 5, 2012, at 8:56 PM, MRAB wrote:
valeurs approchées => (not sure)
Approximation?
I think I understand now:
nombres flottants⦠valeurs approchées! => float-point numbersâ¦
approximate values!
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listi
On Jun 5, 2012, at 8:56 PM, MRAB wrote:
> valeurs approchées => (not sure)
Approximation?
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Paul Rubin wrote:
> Laurent Pointal writes:
>> I started a first translation of my document originally in french. Could
>> some fluent english people read it and indicate errors or bad english
>> expressions.
>>
>> http://perso.limsi.fr/pointal/python:memento
On 05/06/2012 18:32, Laurent Pointal wrote:
Hello,
I started a first translation of my document originally in french. Could
some fluent english people read it and indicate errors or bad english
expressions.
http://perso.limsi.fr/pointal/python:memento
In addition to what Paul wrote:
&quo
Laurent Pointal writes:
> I started a first translation of my document originally in french. Could
> some fluent english people read it and indicate errors or bad english
> expressions.
>
> http://perso.limsi.fr/pointal/python:memento
It looks nice. It took me a minute to f
Hello,
I started a first translation of my document originally in french. Could
some fluent english people read it and indicate errors or bad english
expressions.
http://perso.limsi.fr/pointal/python:memento
Thanks.
A+
Laurent.
--
Laurent POINTAL - laurent.poin...@laposte.net
--
http
snipped lots of mindless nonsense, nothing at all to do with Python
On 25-Jan-12 3:23 PM, Rick Johnson wrote:
... In my world ...
Rick, I may be overstepping the mark here but I believe all participants
on this list would probably like it if that's precisely where you stayed.
--
Dominic Bi
On Fri, 27 Jan 2012 09:06:57 -0800, Emile van Sebille wrote:
> On 1/25/2012 9:14 PM Steven D'Aprano said...
>> In the
>> same way that a native English speaker would never make the mistake of
>> using "organ" to refer to an unnamed mechanical device, so she wou
On 1/25/2012 9:14 PM Steven D'Aprano said...
In the
same way that a native English speaker would never make the mistake of
using "organ" to refer to an unnamed mechanical device, so she would
never use "gadget" to refer to an unnamed body part.
My wife introduced me t
Steven D'Aprano wrote:
> The Oxford Dictionary lists the first definition of "pretty" as
>
> Orig. cunning, crafty. Later (of a person) clever, skillful;
> (of a thing) cleverly made or done, ingenious, artful.
>
> and states that it is derived from
On Wed, Jan 25, 2012 at 10:25 PM, rusi wrote:
> The contents of this thread ostensibly argues about the word 'pretty'
> Actually it seems to be arguing about the word 'troll'
>
> Every other post calls the OP a troll and then outdoes his post in
> length.
I just grepped, and it's hardly "every ot
On 26 January 2012 05:25, rusi wrote:
> The contents of this thread ostensibly argues about the word 'pretty'
> Actually it seems to be arguing about the word 'troll'
>
> Every other post calls the OP a troll and then outdoes his post in
> length.
> This does not match any meaning I can make of t
The contents of this thread ostensibly argues about the word 'pretty'
Actually it seems to be arguing about the word 'troll'
Every other post calls the OP a troll and then outdoes his post in
length.
This does not match any meaning I can make of trolling.
Can someone please explain what 'troll' m
On Thu, Jan 26, 2012 at 4:14 PM, Steven D'Aprano
wrote:
> In the
> same way that a native English speaker would never make the mistake of
> using "organ" to refer to an unnamed mechanical device, so she would
> never use "gadget" to refer to an unnamed body p
actual words used by people, not to
make arbitrary rules that some words aren't good enough.
Dictionaries should be descriptive, not prescriptive. We do not need or
want an "Académie Française" for English, especially not one that would
impoverish the English language and reduce
On Thu, Jan 26, 2012 at 2:01 PM, Rick Johnson
wrote:
> I believe we'll just have to "agree to disagree" on the issue of
> pretty. However, let's take a step back and view this issue from a
> global perspective. Ask yourself:
>
> Q: "Am i choosing my words carefully, or just blindly imitating other
y stated that the test was NOT
> > *difficult*. How does "not difficult" extrapolate to "easy".
>
> That may be the literal meaning, but English composition does not
> always follow the rules of predicate logic. To me, the emphatic use
> of "to my surprise" i
On Jan 25, 6:28 pm, Jugurtha Hadjar wrote:
> I am sincerely sorry if my English offends some purists, but I
> am making efforts to write correctly, and making mistakes to learn. To
> learn this and many other things...
Hello Jugurtha,
You English does not offend me. i want you to rea
hat the writer was suggesting the final
> exam was "easy"? In fact, the writer never even mentioned the word
> "easy" at all! The writer only stated that the test was NOT
> *difficult*. How does "not difficult" extrapolate to "easy".
That may be the l
On Jan 25, 6:20 pm, Ian Kelly wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 25, 2012 at 4:23 PM, Rick Johnson
> > """I was frightened that the finals might be difficult this year,
> > however to my surprise, they were not."""
>
> > In this case the writer does not *precisely* quantify the difficulty
> > of his final exam
On 1/25/12 12:14 , Rick Johnson wrote:
You don't even need
"pretty" to get your point across.
If that's your argument, then we can drop the verb "to be", most
articles, most verb conjugations, and nearly all adjectives and adverbs.
For that matter, the vast majority of posts here can be drop
stilted than alternatives
such as relatively, moderately, and quite.
so your complaints are about 400 years late. Perhaps you don't know as
much about the English language as you think.
The Oxford Dictionary lists the first definition of "pretty" as
Orig. cunning, c
as an adjective for fairly,
> considerably, or other, as in the sentence "That was pretty easy." is
> well established and accepted English. So far there have been three
> dictionary entries saying it is valid English, including one of the
> most widely accepted.
>
No doubt
I just came home. It is 01h19 AM here in Algiers (Algeria, North
Africa.. Not New Orleans) and I find this funny thread. Thank you, by
the way.
I started communicating in English about two years ago, mostly on human
sciences topics and was forced to articulate ideas and concepts in this
Tell me, if something is "very
easy", EXACTLY how easy is it? Or do you gain nothing by using those
words either?
> So you have no capacity to reason on your own without outside
> influence? I feel horrible for you. All of the classical philosophers
> would have gulped poison lik
"
>
> So you have no capacity to reason on your own without outside
> influence? I feel horrible for you. All of the classical philosophers
> would have gulped poison like some college student at an all night
> kegger if they knew the shameful outcome of our wasted centuries
gt; Usage Note
> The qualifying adverb pretty, meaning “fairly or moderately” has been
> in general use since the late 16th century. Although most common in
> informal speech and writing, it is far from restricted to them, and
> often is less stilted than alternatives such as relativel
ther
meaning in other contexts is flatly ridiculous. The editors at
dictionary.com disagree with you too:
"""
Usage Note
The qualifying adverb pretty, meaning “fairly or moderately” has been
in general use since the late 16th century. Although most common in
informal speech and writi
ink XYZ is easy". Furthermore, if you insist on
> QUANTIFYING a QUANTIFIER, simply use any number of legal
> QUANTIFIERS. "I think XYZ is VERY easy" or "I think XYZ is
> SOMEWHAT easy" or "I think XYZ is difficult".
I remind you of http://orwell.ru/library/es
On Jan 25, 11:26 am, K Richard Pixley wrote:
> I disagree on all points.
>
> "Pretty" means "mostly". The difference in meaning is significant.
> "I'm sure" is definitive. "I'm pretty sure" leaves room for variation.
But "pretty" does not translate well as a quantifier, even though
that's exact
On 25/01/2012 05:55, Michael Torrie wrote:
On 01/24/2012 10:49 PM, Michael Torrie wrote:
On 01/24/2012 05:43 PM, Rick Johnson wrote:
Actually my custom script had a small flaw which kept it from
capturing ALL the atrocities. Here is a run with the bugfixes:
Wow. I had to trim 80% of your
On 1/23/12 21:57 , Rick Johnson wrote:
Here is a grep from the month of September 2011 showing the rampantly
egregious misuse of the following words and phrases:
* pretty
* hard
* right
* used to
* supposed to
"Pretty" is the most ludicrous of them all! As you will see, "pretty"
is u
On 01/24/2012 10:49 PM, Michael Torrie wrote:
> On 01/24/2012 05:43 PM, Rick Johnson wrote:
>> Actually my custom script had a small flaw which kept it from
>> capturing ALL the atrocities. Here is a run with the bugfixes:
>
> Wow. I had to trim 80% of your e-mail just to get rid of old quoted
> p
On 01/24/2012 05:43 PM, Rick Johnson wrote:
> Actually my custom script had a small flaw which kept it from
> capturing ALL the atrocities. Here is a run with the bugfixes:
Wow. I had to trim 80% of your e-mail just to get rid of old quoted
posts. For an expert, Rick, I'm really surprised you don
Top posting fixed.
-Original Message-
From: Blockheads Oi Oi [mailto:breamore...@yahoo.co.uk]
Sent: Wednesday, 25 January 2012 10:26 a.m.
To: python-list@python.org
Subject: Re: The devolution of English language and slothful c.l.p
behaviors exposed!
On 24/01/2012 21:20, Chris Angelico
On Jan 23, 11:57 pm, Rick Johnson
wrote:
> Here is a grep from the month of September 2011 showing the rampantly
> egregious misuse of the following words and phrases:
Actually my custom script had a small flaw which kept it from
capturing ALL the atrocities. Here is a run with the bugfixes:
p
"Talking" about version numbers, shouldn't the English dictionary and grammar
be under version control? I nominate Oxford University to administer this,
after all they produce the largest English dictionary and are experts on
English grammar. Someone had better let them k
On 24/01/2012 21:20, Chris Angelico wrote:
On Wed, Jan 25, 2012 at 8:13 AM, Blockheads Oi Oi
wrote:
On 24/01/2012 20:03, Joshua Landau wrote:
A simple version number doesn't imply huge breakages. Try "English2 v1.0"!
In fact, why would a perfect language need a version number?
It would be
On Wed, Jan 25, 2012 at 8:13 AM, Blockheads Oi Oi
wrote:
> On 24/01/2012 20:03, Joshua Landau wrote:
>> A simple version number doesn't imply huge breakages. Try "English2 v1.0"!
>>
>> In fact, why would a perfect language need a version number?
>>
> It would be difficult to maintain Python withou
On 24/01/2012 20:03, Joshua Landau wrote:
On 24 January 2012 17:25, Blockheads Oi Oi mailto:breamore...@yahoo.co.uk>> wrote:
On 24/01/2012 15:46, Andrea Crotti wrote:
I suggest to create English 2.0, and convince the whole world to
speak
your own
way
On 24 January 2012 17:25, Blockheads Oi Oi wrote:
> On 24/01/2012 15:46, Andrea Crotti wrote:
>
>> I suggest to create English 2.0, and convince the whole world to speak
>> your own
>> way better implementation of English.
>>
>
> Too late for that when compa
On 24/01/2012 15:46, Andrea Crotti wrote:
I suggest to create English 2.0, and convince the whole world to speak
your own
way better implementation of English.
Too late for that when comparing modern English with that of e.g.
Dickens, Shakespeare, Chaucer and Bede, hence at a minimum I reckon
of these silly distinctions of
English and American. Rick's right - these rampantly egregious
multiplicities cause problems.
I'm starting my own government. I declare that you are all part of my
new country, which shall be called the Tyranny of Rosuav. There -
problem solved!
ChrisA
You
On Wed, Jan 25, 2012 at 3:26 AM, Martin P. Hellwig
wrote:
> Having said that, I do like to bring to your attention that her Majesty,
> never ratified the 'Declaration of Independence'. :-)
Oh, stop it. It's high time we got rid of these silly distinctions of
English and A
On 24/01/2012 14:51, J wrote:
On Tue, Jan 24, 2012 at 09:05, Martin P. Hellwig
wrote:
On 24/01/2012 05:57, Rick Johnson wrote:
I would wish that pedantic citizens of the British colony in America stopped
calling whatever misinterpreted waffle they produce, English.
I, sir, as a citizen of
lem with those...
>
> As someone already said, english is a foreign language to a lot of us.
> While we're doing our best to make ourselves understood, your attitude
> can be seen as quite rude. (Does "quite" fit right as a "pretty"
> replacement ?)
I am
I suggest to create English 2.0, and convince the whole world to speak
your own
way better implementation of English.
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
>> * right
>> * used to
>> * supposed to
>
> I'm pretty sure that this news group is supposed to be for discussing the
> Python programming language. At least it used to be about Python. It is
> hard to understand why you think discussing English idioms is the
Wh. I did not expect this when I signed up to the Python mailing list.
> From: dreadpiratej...@gmail.com
> Date: Tue, 24 Jan 2012 09:51:57 -0500
> Subject: Re: The devolution of English language and slothful c.l.p behaviors
> exposed!
> To: martin.hell...@gmail.com
&g
On Tue, Jan 24, 2012 at 09:05, Martin P. Hellwig
wrote:
> On 24/01/2012 05:57, Rick Johnson wrote:
>
> I would wish that pedantic citizens of the British colony in America stopped
> calling whatever misinterpreted waffle they produce, English.
I, sir, as a citizen of that FORMER Br
reted waffle they produce, English.
--
mph
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
On 24/01/2012 05:57, Rick Johnson wrote:
I would wish that pedantic citizens of the British colony in America
stopped calling whatever misinterpreted waffle they produce, English.
--
mph
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
On 2012-01-24, Chris Angelico wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 24, 2012 at 4:57 PM, Rick Johnson
> wrote:
>>
>>
>> [RR's usual schtick]
> All in favour, say "Aye" in Latin. All against, say "Plonk".
I plonked RR ages ago. Now I only get to see his post when somebody
replies to him.
--
Grant Edwards
f your grep of was that
an automatic e-mail ?
> Same for "correct" and "right".
Well... no.
Again, read your own grep before posting it. In fact, don't post it at all.
> Of course, "used to" and "supposed to" will require people to rethink there
&g
On Tue, Jan 24, 2012 at 5:53 PM, Ian Kelly wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 23, 2012 at 10:57 PM, Rick Johnson
> wrote:
>>
>> Here is a grep
>
> A grep? What is a grep?
According to the damage type table on Aardwolf MUD, a grep is a type
of slash - at least, it's resisted by the same armor value that
resis
On Jan 24, 4:05 pm, Evan Driscoll wrote:
> On 1/23/2012 23:57, Rick Johnson wrote:> Of
> > course, "used to" and "supposed to" will require people to rethink
> > there lazy and slothful ways.
>
> I'll go repent in the corner, over their.
You forget, Rick's errors are genuine mistakes that only a
On Mon, Jan 23, 2012 at 10:57 PM, Rick Johnson
wrote:
>
> Here is a grep
A grep? What is a grep? That word is not in any of my dictionaries.
Are you perhaps carelessly invoking the neologism of referring to an
execution of the "grep" UNIX program as "a grep"?
> from the month of September 2011
You're right, but it's pretty hard for some people to do what they're
supposed to when it isn't what they're used to.
--
CPython 3.2.2 | Windows NT 6.1.7601.17640
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
On Tue, Jan 24, 2012 at 4:57 PM, Rick Johnson
wrote:
>
> Here is a grep from the month of September 2011...
Is it? Interesting. I met that month yesterday (she was shopping in
Oakleigh, don't ask) and she knew nothing about it.
Oh, did you mean "Here is the result of using the grep(1) utility on
e following words and phrases:
> >
> > * pretty
> > * hard
> > * right
> > * used to
> > * supposed to
>
> I'm pretty sure that this news group is supposed to be for discussing the
> Python programming language. At least it used to be about Python. It is
>
his news group is supposed to be for discussing the
Python programming language. At least it used to be about Python. It is
hard to understand why you think discussing English idioms is the right
thing to do here.
--
Steven
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
On 1/23/2012 23:57, Rick Johnson wrote:
> Of
> course, "used to" and "supposed to" will require people to rethink
> there lazy and slothful ways.
I'll go repent in the corner, over their.
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Here is a grep from the month of September 2011 showing the rampantly
egregious misuse of the following words and phrases:
* pretty
* hard
* right
* used to
* supposed to
"Pretty" is the most ludicrous of them all! As you will see, "pretty"
is used superfluously, over and over again! In fac
On Mon, 30 May 2011 23:04:41 +0200, Rikishi42 wrote:
> On 2011-05-28, Chris Angelico wrote:
>> I think it's geographic. This list covers a lot of geography; I'm in
>> Australia, there are quite a few Brits, and probably the bulk of posts
>> come from either the US or Europe. (And yes, I did delib
On 2011-05-28, Chris Angelico wrote:
> Chris Angelico
> yes, bit of a Bible geek as well as a programming geek
So you don't believe in genetic algorithms, then ?
(ducking for cover)
--
When in doubt, use brute force.
-- Ken Thompson
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinf
On 2011-05-28, Chris Angelico wrote:
> I think it's geographic. This list covers a lot of geography; I'm in
> Australia, there are quite a few Brits, and probably the bulk of posts
> come from either the US or Europe. (And yes, I did deliberately fold
> all of Europe down to one entity, and I did
rantingrick wrote:
> On May 18, 12:59 pm, s...@sig.for.address (Victor Eijkhout) wrote:
>> Harrison Hill wrote:
>>> No need - I have the Dictionary definition of recursion here:
>>> Recursion: (N). See recursion.
>> If you tell a joke, you have to tell it right.
>
> Jeez, speaking of bad colloqui
rantingrick wrote:
> On May 18, 7:19 am, Peter Moylan
> wrote:
>
>> It's interesting to note that the definitions of 'recursive' to be found
>> in Wikipedia and Wiktionary have very little in common with the
>> definitions to be found in the dictionaries covered by Onelook. No
>> wonder experts
On May 29, 4:46 pm, Chris Angelico wrote:
> On Mon, May 30, 2011 at 7:38 AM, rantingrick wrote:
> > Yes but understanding of this sort is very general ESPECIALLY in the
> > case of destroying data!
>
> > What are the limits of the recursion? What forces can act on the
> > recursion to stop it? If
On Mon, May 30, 2011 at 7:38 AM, rantingrick wrote:
> Yes but understanding of this sort is very general ESPECIALLY in the
> case of destroying data!
>
> What are the limits of the recursion? What forces can act on the
> recursion to stop it? If (for example) I know that a "while loop" will
> cont
On May 26, 6:12 am, Chris Angelico wrote:
> I just conducted a rapid poll of a non-technical userbase.
>
> (Okay, I just asked my sister who happens to be sitting here. But
> she's nontechnical.)
>
> She explained "recursive" as "it repeats until it can't go any
> further". I think that's a fair,
On May 26, 6:12 am, Chris Angelico wrote:
> I just conducted a rapid poll of a non-technical userbase.
>
> (Okay, I just asked my sister who happens to be sitting here. But
> she's nontechnical.)
>
> She explained "recursive" as "it repeats until it can't go any
> further". I think that's a fair,
On Mon, May 30, 2011 at 6:58 AM, rantingrick wrote:
> Yes "Gas Pedal"... that clears up all the confusion .
> However i would have thought if the vehicle had a "decelerator petal"
> it would at least sport a complimentary "accelerator petal". You know
> the whole "equal and opposite thing"?
Call
On May 24, 7:40 pm, Chris Angelico wrote:
> On Wed, May 25, 2011 at 8:06 AM, Rikishi42 wrote:
> > On 2011-05-24, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
> >> I wonder whether physicists insist that cars should have a "go faster
> >> pedal" because ordinary people don't need to understand Newton's Laws of
> >> M
On May 24, 7:40 pm, Chris Angelico wrote:
> On Wed, May 25, 2011 at 8:06 AM, Rikishi42 wrote:
> > On 2011-05-24, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
> >> I wonder whether physicists insist that cars should have a "go faster
> >> pedal" because ordinary people don't need to understand Newton's Laws of
> >> M
On May 24, 5:06 pm, Rikishi42 wrote:
> On 2011-05-24, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
> > I wonder whether physicists insist that cars should have a "go faster
> > pedal" because ordinary people don't need to understand Newton's Laws of
> > Motion in order to drive cars?
>
> Gas pedal. Pedal was allraedy
On May 20, 1:55 am, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
> Trust me on this, if the audience of Carry On films could understand
> recursion, anyone can!
Well we could also say that this pathetic display of metal
masturbation is recursive also.
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
On May 18, 3:00 pm, Xah Lee wrote:
> In the emacs case: “Recursive delete of xx? (y or n) ”, what could it
> possibly mean by the word “recursive” there? Like, it might delete the
> directory but not delete all files in it?
Actually i think this case is more for "scare factor" than anything.
As
On May 18, 12:59 pm, s...@sig.for.address (Victor Eijkhout) wrote:
> Harrison Hill wrote:
> > No need - I have the Dictionary definition of recursion here:
>
> > Recursion: (N). See recursion.
>
> If you tell a joke, you have to tell it right.
Jeez, speaking of bad colloquialisms...
"""if you'
On May 18, 12:59 pm, s...@sig.for.address (Victor Eijkhout) wrote:
> Harrison Hill wrote:
> > No need - I have the Dictionary definition of recursion here:
>
> > Recursion: (N). See recursion.
>
> If you tell a joke, you have to tell it right.
Jeez, speaking of bad colloquialisms...
"""if you'
On May 18, 7:19 am, Peter Moylan
wrote:
> It's interesting to note that the definitions of 'recursive' to be found
> in Wikipedia and Wiktionary have very little in common with the
> definitions to be found in the dictionaries covered by Onelook. No
> wonder experts in different areas have troub
On Sun, 29 May 2011 05:58:01 +1000, Chris Angelico wrote:
> Geeks tend to have larger vocabularies than non-geeks, on average;
> probably akin to our love of word games and precision (two distinct
> notions that bridge surprisingly often).
And also because more educated people in general tend to
On Sun, May 29, 2011 at 7:25 AM, GSO wrote:
> The beginning of wisdom is to call things by their right names. - Chinese
> Proverb (So I'm told at least, I'd check with the Chinese first though ;)
See, I thought it was "The fear of the Lord is the beginning of
wisdom", but the Chinese don't worshi
The beginning of wisdom is to call things by their right names. - Chinese
Proverb (So I'm told at least, I'd check with the Chinese first though ;)
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
1 - 100 of 325 matches
Mail list logo
