On 2011-12-16, Gregory Ewing greg.ew...@canterbury.ac.nz wrote:
Eelco wrote:
the actual english usage of the phrase, which omits
the negation completely :). (I could care less)
No, that's the American usage.
That's the _ignorant_ American usage. Americans with a clue use the
couldn't
On Dec 16, 3:58 am, MRAB pyt...@mrabarnett.plus.com wrote:
On 16/12/2011 02:14, alex23 wrote:
Eelcohoogendoorn.ee...@gmail.com wrote:
To tie it back in with python language design; all the more reason
not to opt for pseudo-backwards compatibility. If python wants a
remainder function,
On Dec 16, 6:30 am, alex23 wuwe...@gmail.com wrote:
On Dec 16, 3:01 pm, Chris Angelico ros...@gmail.com wrote:
And I would be most sorry to see % renamed to mod in Python.
Hello, %s! My favourite number is %d. mod (Fred,42) # This just
looks wrong.
Finally we can give this operator a
On Dec 16, 3:25 pm, Eelco hoogendoorn.ee...@gmail.com wrote:
Pseudo-backwards compatibility with other
languages, I couldnt not care less for.
Double negations n Goedelian situations have interesting implications
(tho here its triple)
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
On 16 dec, 18:38, rusi rustompm...@gmail.com wrote:
On Dec 16, 3:25 pm, Eelco hoogendoorn.ee...@gmail.com wrote:
Pseudo-backwards compatibility with other
languages, I couldnt not care less for.
Double negations n Goedelian situations have interesting implications
(tho here its triple)
Eelco wrote:
the actual english usage of the phrase, which omits
the negation completely :). (I could care less)
No, that's the American usage. The English usage is
I couldn't care less, which has the advantage of
actually making sense.
--
Greg
--
On Dec 17, 12:49 am, Gregory Ewing greg.ew...@canterbury.ac.nz
wrote:
Eelco wrote:
the actual english usage of the phrase, which omits
the negation completely :). (I could care less)
No, that's the American usage. The English usage is
I couldn't care less, which has the advantage of
In article
2420abd7-7d91-4bc9-bb3b-d8ec1680e...@u32g2000yqe.googlegroups.com,
Eelco hoogendoorn.ee...@gmail.com wrote:
And yes, I agree; 'I couldnt care less' makes much more sense. 'I
could care less' can only make sense if you interpret it
sarcastically, as if omitting an 'oh wait, I
On Fri, 16 Dec 2011 11:40:11 -0800, Eelco wrote:
On 16 dec, 18:38, rusi rustompm...@gmail.com wrote:
On Dec 16, 3:25 pm, Eelco hoogendoorn.ee...@gmail.com wrote:
Pseudo-backwards compatibility with other languages, I couldnt not
care less for.
Double negations n Goedelian situations have
On Fri, Dec 16, 2011 at 7:54 PM, Steven D'Aprano
steve+comp.lang.pyt...@pearwood.info wrote:
On Fri, 16 Dec 2011 11:40:11 -0800, Eelco wrote:
On 16 dec, 18:38, rusi rustompm...@gmail.com wrote:
On Dec 16, 3:25 pm, Eelco hoogendoorn.ee...@gmail.com wrote:
Pseudo-backwards compatibility with
On Dec 15, 4:43 am, rusi rustompm...@gmail.com wrote:
On Dec 14, 10:15 pm, Eelco hoogendoorn.ee...@gmail.com wrote:
'Kindof' off-topic, but what the hell :).
deja-vu
We keep having these debates -- so I wonder how off-topic it is...
And so do famous
On 12/14/11 12:32 PM, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
On Wed, 14 Dec 2011 10:56:02 +0200, Jussi Piitulainen wrote:
I'm not misunderstanding any argument. There was no argument. There was
a blanket pronouncement that _in mathematics_ mod is not a binary
operator. I should learn to challenge such
On Thu, Dec 15, 2011 at 9:47 PM, Robert Kern robert.k...@gmail.com wrote:
42 = 2 mod 5
2 = 42 mod 5
It might make more sense to programmers if you think of it as written:
42 = 2, mod 5
2 = 42, mod 5
ChrisA
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
On Dec 15, 2:44 pm, Eelco hoogendoorn.ee...@gmail.com wrote:
In other words, what logic needs is a better exception-handling
system, which completes the circle with programming languages quite
nicely. :)
Cute... but dangerously recursive (if taken literally)
Remember that logic is the
On Dec 15, 3:58 pm, Chris Angelico ros...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Dec 15, 2011 at 9:47 PM, Robert Kern robert.k...@gmail.com wrote:
42 = 2 mod 5
2 = 42 mod 5
It might make more sense to programmers if you think of it as written:
42 = 2, mod 5
2 = 42, mod 5
ChrisA
For the record I
On Dec 15, 11:47 am, Robert Kern robert.k...@gmail.com wrote:
On 12/14/11 12:32 PM, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
On Wed, 14 Dec 2011 10:56:02 +0200, Jussi Piitulainen wrote:
I'm not misunderstanding any argument. There was no argument. There was
a blanket pronouncement that _in mathematics_ mod
On Dec 15, 11:56 am, rusi rustompm...@gmail.com wrote:
On Dec 15, 2:44 pm, Eelco hoogendoorn.ee...@gmail.com wrote:
In other words, what logic needs is a better exception-handling
system, which completes the circle with programming languages quite
nicely. :)
Cute... but dangerously
rusi writes:
On Dec 15, 3:58 pm, Chris Angelico wrote:
On Thu, Dec 15, 2011 at 9:47 PM, Robert Kern wrote:
42 = 2 mod 5
2 = 42 mod 5
It might make more sense to programmers if you think of it as
written:
42 = 2, mod 5
2 = 42, mod 5
ChrisA
For the record I should say
On 12/15/2011 6:04 AM, rusi wrote:
On Dec 15, 3:58 pm, Chris Angelicoros...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Dec 15, 2011 at 9:47 PM, Robert Kernrobert.k...@gmail.com wrote:
42 = 2 mod 5
2 = 42 mod 5
It might make more sense to programmers if you think of it as written:
42 = 2, mod 5
2 = 42,
Eelco hoogendoorn.ee...@gmail.com wrote:
To tie it back in with python language design; all the more reason not
to opt for pseudo-backwards compatibility. If python wants a remainder
function, call it 'remainder'. Not 'rem', not 'mod', and certainly not
'%'.
Good luck with the PEP.
Its the
On 16/12/2011 02:14, alex23 wrote:
Eelcohoogendoorn.ee...@gmail.com wrote:
To tie it back in with python language design; all the more reason
not to opt for pseudo-backwards compatibility. If python wants a
remainder function, call it 'remainder'. Not 'rem', not 'mod', and
certainly not '%'.
On Fri, Dec 16, 2011 at 1:58 PM, MRAB pyt...@mrabarnett.plus.com wrote:
In financial circles it could be an operator for calculating
percentages, eg. 5 % x would be 5 percent of x.
It's an oddity, but an established one. :-)
And I would be most sorry to see % renamed to mod in Python.
Hello,
On Dec 16, 3:01 pm, Chris Angelico ros...@gmail.com wrote:
And I would be most sorry to see % renamed to mod in Python.
Hello, %s! My favourite number is %d. mod (Fred,42) # This just
looks wrong.
Finally we can give this operator a more fitting name - I propose
'inject' - and put an end to
On Dec 15, 2011 8:01 PM, MRAB pyt...@mrabarnett.plus.com wrote:
Python has def, del, int, str, len, and so on. rem or mod
(Ada has both, I believe) would be in keeping with the language.
I think I would have to object to rem purely on the basis that it denotes
comments in BASIC.
--
On Dec 14, 4:18 am, Steven D'Aprano steve
+comp.lang.pyt...@pearwood.info wrote:
They might not be willing to define it, but as soon as we programmers
do, well, we did.
Having studied the contemporary philosophy of mathematics, their concern
is probably that in their minds, mathematics is
Steven D'Aprano writes:
On Mon, 12 Dec 2011 09:29:11 -0800, Eelco wrote:
[quoting Jussi Piitulainen jpiit...@ling.helsinki.fi]
They recognize modular arithmetic but for some reason insist that
there is no such _binary operation_. But as I said, I don't
understand their concern. (Except
On 14 dec, 09:56, Jussi Piitulainen jpiit...@ling.helsinki.fi wrote:
Steven D'Aprano writes:
On Mon, 12 Dec 2011 09:29:11 -0800, Eelco wrote:
[quoting Jussi Piitulainen jpiit...@ling.helsinki.fi]
They recognize modular arithmetic but for some reason insist that
there is no such _binary
On Dec 14, 1:56 pm, Jussi Piitulainen jpiit...@ling.helsinki.fi
wrote:
Is someone saying that _division_ is not defined because -42 div -5 is
somehow both 9 and 8? Hm, yes, I see that someone might. The two
operations, div and rem, need to be defined together.
-
On Wed, Dec 14, 2011 at 10:47 PM, rusi rustompm...@gmail.com wrote:
`quot` is integer division truncated toward zero, while the result of
`div` is truncated toward negative infinity.
All these problems just because of negative numbers. They ought never
to have been invented.
At least nobody
On 14 December 2011 07:49, Eelco hoogendoorn.ee...@gmail.com wrote:
On Dec 14, 4:18 am, Steven D'Aprano steve
+comp.lang.pyt...@pearwood.info wrote:
They might not be willing to define it, but as soon as we programmers
do, well, we did.
Having studied the contemporary philosophy of
Eelco writes:
On 14 dec, 09:56, Jussi Piitulainen wrote:
But I think the argument there are several such functions,
therefore, _in mathematics_, there is no such function is its own
caricature.
Indeed. Obtaining a well defined function is just a matter of
picking a convention and
On Wed, 14 Dec 2011 10:56:02 +0200, Jussi Piitulainen wrote:
Steven D'Aprano writes:
On Mon, 12 Dec 2011 09:29:11 -0800, Eelco wrote:
[quoting Jussi Piitulainen jpiit...@ling.helsinki.fi]
They recognize modular arithmetic but for some reason insist that
there is no such _binary
On 14 dec, 12:55, Arnaud Delobelle arno...@gmail.com wrote:
On 14 December 2011 07:49, Eelco hoogendoorn.ee...@gmail.com wrote:
On Dec 14, 4:18 am, Steven D'Aprano steve
+comp.lang.pyt...@pearwood.info wrote:
They might not be willing to define it, but as soon as we programmers
do,
On Wed, 14 Dec 2011 02:09:32 -0800, Eelco wrote:
Arguably, the most elegant thing to do is to define integer division and
remainder as a single operation; which is not only the logical thing to
do mathematically, but might work really well programmatically too.
The semantics of python dont
On 14 dec, 13:22, Jussi Piitulainen jpiit...@ling.helsinki.fi wrote:
Is someone saying that _division_ is not defined because -42 div
-5 is somehow both 9 and 8? Hm, yes, I see that someone might. The
two operations, div and rem, need to be defined together.
(There is no way to make
rusi writes:
On Dec 14, 1:56 pm, Jussi Piitulainen jpiit...@ling.helsinki.fi
wrote:
Is someone saying that _division_ is not defined because -42 div -5 is
somehow both 9 and 8? Hm, yes, I see that someone might. The two
operations, div and rem, need to be defined together.
Steven D'Aprano writes:
On Wed, 14 Dec 2011 10:56:02 +0200, Jussi Piitulainen wrote:
I'm not misunderstanding any argument. There was no
argument. There was a blanket pronouncement that _in mathematics_
mod is not a binary operator. I should learn to challenge such
pronouncements and ask
On Dec 14, 1:38 pm, Steven D'Aprano steve
+comp.lang.pyt...@pearwood.info wrote:
On Wed, 14 Dec 2011 02:09:32 -0800, Eelco wrote:
Arguably, the most elegant thing to do is to define integer division and
remainder as a single operation; which is not only the logical thing to
do
On Thu, Dec 15, 2011 at 12:29 AM, Eelco hoogendoorn.ee...@gmail.com wrote:
On Dec 14, 1:38 pm, Steven D'Aprano steve
+comp.lang.pyt...@pearwood.info wrote:
That would be:
divmod(17, 5)
(3, 2)
Cool; if only it were in the math module id be totally happy.
That's easily solved.
import
On Wed, Dec 14, 2011 at 6:29 AM, Eelco hoogendoorn.ee...@gmail.com wrote:
On Dec 14, 1:38 pm, Steven D'Aprano steve
+comp.lang.pyt...@pearwood.info wrote:
On Wed, 14 Dec 2011 02:09:32 -0800, Eelco wrote:
Arguably, the most elegant thing to do is to define integer division and
remainder as a
On 14 December 2011 12:33, Eelco hoogendoorn.ee...@gmail.com wrote:
On 14 dec, 12:55, Arnaud Delobelle arno...@gmail.com wrote:
On 14 December 2011 07:49, Eelco hoogendoorn.ee...@gmail.com wrote:
On Dec 14, 4:18 am, Steven D'Aprano steve
+comp.lang.pyt...@pearwood.info wrote:
They might
'Kindof' off-topic, but what the hell :).
On Dec 14, 5:13 pm, Arnaud Delobelle arno...@gmail.com wrote:
On 14 December 2011 12:33, Eelco hoogendoorn.ee...@gmail.com wrote:
On 14 dec, 12:55, Arnaud Delobelle arno...@gmail.com wrote:
On 14 December 2011 07:49, Eelco hoogendoorn.ee...@gmail.com
On 12/14/2011 5:09 AM, Eelco wrote:
Arguably, the most elegant thing to do is to define integer division
and remainder as a single operation;
It actually is, as quotient and remainder are calculated together. The
microprocessors I know of expose this (as does Python). 'a divmod b'
puts the
On Dec 14, 10:15 pm, Eelco hoogendoorn.ee...@gmail.com wrote:
'Kindof' off-topic, but what the hell :).
deja-vu
We keep having these debates -- so I wonder how off-topic it is...
And so do famous CSists:
http://research.microsoft.com/en-us/um/people/gurevich/opera/123.pdf
/deja-vu
:
:
Again,
On Mon, 12 Dec 2011 09:29:11 -0800, Eelco wrote:
[quoting Jussi Piitulainen jpiit...@ling.helsinki.fi]
They recognize modular arithmetic but for some reason insist that there
is no such _binary operation_. But as I said, I don't understand their
concern. (Except the related concern about some
45 matches
Mail list logo
