In article hmlvas$2a...@reader1.panix.com,
Grant Edwards inva...@invalid.invalid wrote:
On 2010-03-03, Grant Edwards inva...@invalid.invalid wrote:
On 2010-03-03, Gregory Ewing greg.ew...@canterbury.ac.nz wrote:
Grant Edwards wrote:
Just a mediocre copy of the CP/M filesystem, which was in
Steven D'Aprano wrote:
(a) Can we objectively judge the goodness of code, or is it subjective?
(b) Is goodness of code quantitative, or is it qualitative?
Yes, I'm not really talking about numeric vs. non-numeric,
but objective vs. subjective. The measurement doesn't have
to yield a numeric
D'Arcy J.M. Cain wrote:
And that is why text files in MS-DOS and CP/M before it end with ^Z.
They needed a way to tell where the end of the information was. Why
they used ^Z (SUB - Substitute) instead of ^C (ETX - End of TeXt) or
even ^D (EOT - End Of Transmission) is anyone's guess.
Well,
Richard Brodie wrote:
It goes back to ancient PDP operating systems, so may well
predate Unix, depending which exact OS was the first to use it.
Yes, I think it was used in RT-11, which also had
block-oriented disk files.
There were two kinds of devices in RT-11, character
and block, and the
Steve Holden wrote:
Puts me in mind of Mario Wolczko's early attempts to implement SmallTalk
on a VAX 11/750. The only bitmapped display we had available was a Three
Rivers PERQ, connected by a 9600bps serial line. We left it running at
seven o'clock one evening, and by nine am the next day it
Steven D'Aprano wrote:
True, but one can look at best practice, or even standard practice.
For Python coders, using docstrings is standard practice if not best
practice. Using strings as comments is not.
In that particular case, yes, it would be possible to
objectively examine the code and
Gregory Ewing greg.ew...@canterbury.ac.nz writes:
However, that's only a very small part of what goes to make good code.
Much more important are questions like: Are the comments meaningful
and helpful? Is the code reasonably self-explanatory outside of the
comments? Is it well modularised,
On Thu, 04 Mar 2010 23:38:31 +1300, Gregory Ewing wrote:
Steven D'Aprano wrote:
True, but one can look at best practice, or even standard practice.
For Python coders, using docstrings is standard practice if not best
practice. Using strings as comments is not.
In that particular case,
On Feb 24, 9:23 pm, Andreas Waldenburger use...@geekmail.invalid
wrote:
Hi all,
a company that works with my company writes a lot of of their code in
Python (lucky jerks). I've seen their code and it basically looks like
this:
Function that does stuff
def doStuff():
while not
On 03/03/2010 04:48 PM, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
Or one can simply use *reason*: what justification is there for putting
comments in strings at the top of the function? The only one I can see is
if you are writing for an embedded device, you may want to remove doc
strings to save memory --
Gregory Ewing wrote:
MRAB wrote:
BTW, the first programming I did was in hexadecimal (C4xx was LDI xx).
Hey, a SC/MP! That was my first programming language,
too. What sort of machine was it in?
Mk14 from Science of Cambridge, a kit with hex keypad and 7-segment
display, which I had to
On 2010-03-03, Gregory Ewing greg.ew...@canterbury.ac.nz wrote:
Grant Edwards wrote:
Just a mediocre copy of the CP/M filesystem, which was in turn
copied from DEC's RSTS or RSX.
It was actually an improvement over CP/M's file
system. CP/M didn't have hierarchical directories
Neither did
On 2010-03-03, Grant Edwards inva...@invalid.invalid wrote:
On 2010-03-03, Gregory Ewing greg.ew...@canterbury.ac.nz wrote:
Grant Edwards wrote:
Just a mediocre copy of the CP/M filesystem, which was in turn
copied from DEC's RSTS or RSX.
It was actually an improvement over CP/M's file
On Wed, 03 Mar 2010 14:42:00 +
MRAB pyt...@mrabarnett.plus.com wrote:
Gregory Ewing wrote:
Mk14 from Science of Cambridge, a kit with hex keypad and 7-segment
display, which I had to solder together, and also make my own power
supply. I had the extra RAM and the I/O chip, so that's 256B
* Steven D'Aprano:
On Wed, 03 Mar 2010 15:30:36 +, Grant Edwards wrote:
I definitely remember that old MS-DOS programs would treat Ctrl-Z as an
EOF marker when it was read from a text file and would terminate a text
file with a Ctrl-Z when writing one.
I believe that Windows (at least up
On Wed, Mar 3, 2010 at 10:30 AM, Grant Edwards inva...@invalid.invalid wrote:
On 2010-03-03, Grant Edwards inva...@invalid.invalid wrote:
I definitely remember that old MS-DOS programs would treat
Ctrl-Z as an EOF marker when it was read from a text file and
would terminate a text file with a
On Wed, 3 Mar 2010 15:05:54 + (UTC)
Grant Edwards inva...@invalid.invalid wrote:
It was actually an improvement over CP/M's file
system. CP/M didn't have hierarchical directories
Neither did the original MS-DOS filesystem.
I think that it always had a hierarchical file system although
On 2010-03-03, D'Arcy J.M. Cain da...@druid.net wrote:
On Wed, 3 Mar 2010 15:05:54 + (UTC)
Grant Edwards inva...@invalid.invalid wrote:
It was actually an improvement over CP/M's file
system. CP/M didn't have hierarchical directories
Neither did the original MS-DOS filesystem.
I
D'Arcy J.M. Cain wrote:
Makes me want to go down to the basement and fire up the Altair. :-)
Please don't, or else I fire up that univ Yugoslavian copy of VAX with
Pascal compiler (where I wrote my first program) and I will start my
first program of ping-pong.
It was a few hundred lines
--- On Wed, 3/3/10, D'Arcy J.M. Cain wrote:
They needed a way to tell where the end of the information
was. Why
they used ^Z (SUB - Substitute) instead of ^C (ETX - End of
TeXt) or
even ^D (EOT - End Of Transmission) is anyone's guess.
That has always puzzled me to. ETX and EOT were well
D'Arcy J.M. Cain wrote:
On Wed, 3 Mar 2010 15:05:54 + (UTC)
Grant Edwards inva...@invalid.invalid wrote:
It was actually an improvement over CP/M's file
system. CP/M didn't have hierarchical directories
Neither did the original MS-DOS filesystem.
I think that it always had a hierarchical
Ed Keith e_...@yahoo.com wrote in message
news:mailman.215.1267639293.23598.python-l...@python.org...
That has always puzzled me to. ETX and EOT were well established,
why no use one of them? I'd love to know what they were thinking.
It goes back to ancient PDP operating systems, so may
D'Arcy J.M. Cain wrote:
On Wed, 03 Mar 2010 14:42:00 +
MRAB pyt...@mrabarnett.plus.com wrote:
Gregory Ewing wrote:
Mk14 from Science of Cambridge, a kit with hex keypad and 7-segment
display, which I had to solder together, and also make my own power
supply. I had the extra RAM and the I/O
mk wrote:
D'Arcy J.M. Cain wrote:
Makes me want to go down to the basement and fire up the Altair. :-)
Please don't, or else I fire up that univ Yugoslavian copy of VAX with
Pascal compiler (where I wrote my first program) and I will start my
first program of ping-pong.
It was a few
Ed Keith wrote:
--- On Wed, 3/3/10, D'Arcy J.M. Cain wrote:
They needed a way to tell where the end of the information
was. Why
they used ^Z (SUB - Substitute) instead of ^C (ETX - End of
TeXt) or
even ^D (EOT - End Of Transmission) is anyone's guess.
That has always puzzled me to. ETX and
On Wed, Mar 3, 2010 at 1:01 PM, Ed Keith e_...@yahoo.com wrote:
--- On Wed, 3/3/10, D'Arcy J.M. Cain wrote:
They needed a way to tell where the end of the information
was. Why
they used ^Z (SUB - Substitute) instead of ^C (ETX - End of
TeXt) or
even ^D (EOT - End Of Transmission) is
On 2010-03-03, mk mrk...@gmail.com wrote:
That has always puzzled me to. ETX and EOT were well established, why
no use one of them? I'd love to know what they were thinking.
Probably nothing: what many people do with confronted with a problem.
It reminds me of why Windows uses backslashes
Steve Holden wrote:
Puts me in mind of Mario Wolczko's early attempts to implement SmallTalk
on a VAX 11/750. The only bitmapped display we had available was a Three
Rivers PERQ, connected by a 9600bps serial line. We left it running at
seven o'clock one evening, and by nine am the next day it
--- On Wed, 3/3/10, David Robinow drobi...@gmail.com wrote:
From: David Robinow drobi...@gmail.com
Subject: Re: Docstrings considered too complicated
To: python-list@python.org
Date: Wednesday, March 3, 2010, 2:54 PM
On Wed, Mar 3, 2010 at 1:01 PM, Ed
Keith e_...@yahoo.com
wrote
On Wed, 03 Mar 2010 22:19:04 +0100 mk mrk...@gmail.com wrote:
For the uncouth yobs, err, culturally-challenged:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xe1a1wHxTyo
(Four Yorkshiremen)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-eDaSvRO9xA
That's the definitive version. I mean, if you're going to talk
On Wed, Mar 3, 2010 at 3:02 PM, Grant Edwards inva...@invalid.invalid wrote:
On 2010-03-03, mk mrk...@gmail.com wrote:
That has always puzzled me to. ETX and EOT were well established, why
no use one of them? I'd love to know what they were thinking.
Probably nothing: what many people do
On Wed, 03 Mar 2010 19:38:16 -, Steve Holden st...@holdenweb.com
wrote:
mk wrote:
D'Arcy J.M. Cain wrote:
Makes me want to go down to the basement and fire up the Altair. :-)
Please don't, or else I fire up that univ Yugoslavian copy of VAX with
Pascal compiler (where I wrote my
In article mailman.201.1267632673.23598.python-l...@python.org,
D'Arcy J.M. Cain da...@druid.net wrote:
On Wed, 03 Mar 2010 14:42:00 +
MRAB pyt...@mrabarnett.plus.com wrote:
Gregory Ewing wrote:
Mk14 from Science of Cambridge, a kit with hex keypad and 7-segment
display, which I had
On Mon, 01 Mar 2010 21:09:39 + Mark Lawrence
breamore...@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
Andreas Waldenburger wrote:
[snip]
We did not buy code. If it were written in C or such, we would never
get to see it.
It's not our concern.
/W
From your original post.
quote
a company that
On Tue, 02 Mar 2010 09:48:47 +1100 Ben Finney
ben+pyt...@benfinney.id.au wrote:
It's not our concern.
Then I don't see what that problem is.
There is none. I was griping about how stupid they are. That is a
personal problem I have with their *code* (not software), and I thought
I'd just
Andreas Waldenburger wrote:
On Tue, 02 Mar 2010 09:48:47 +1100 Ben Finney
ben+pyt...@benfinney.id.au wrote:
It's not our concern.
Then I don't see what that problem is.
There is none. I was griping about how stupid they are. That is a
personal problem I have with their
Andreas Waldenburger use...@geekmail.invalid writes:
Don't get me wrong; our whole system is more fragile than I find
comfortable. But I guess getting 10ish different parties around the
globe to work in complete unison is quite a feat, and I'm surprised it
even works as it is. But it does,
On Tue, 02 Mar 2010 19:05:25 +0100 Jean-Michel Pichavant
jeanmic...@sequans.com wrote:
Andreas Waldenburger wrote:
I had hoped that everyone just read it, went like Oh geez.,
smiled it off with a hint of lesson learned and got back to
whatever it was they were doing. Alas, I was wrong
On Wed, 03 Mar 2010 08:22:40 +1100 Ben Finney
ben+pyt...@benfinney.id.au wrote:
Andreas Waldenburger use...@geekmail.invalid writes:
Don't get me wrong; our whole system is more fragile than I find
comfortable. But I guess getting 10ish different parties around the
globe to work in
In article hm9cbc$9p...@speranza.aioe.org, Mel mwil...@the-wire.com wrote:
Jean-Michel Pichavant wrote:
Andreas Waldenburger wrote:
On Fri, 26 Feb 2010 09:09:36 -0600 Tim Daneliuk tun...@tundraware.com
wrote:
Reminiscent of:
mov AX,BX ; Move the contents of BX into AX
Well,
In article 20100302225156.67171...@geekmail.invalid,
Andreas Waldenburger use...@geekmail.invalid wrote:
Sorry, you guys drained all the funny out of me.
Don't let a few nitpickers do that! I thought it was funny; after that,
just remember that every Usenet thread drifts away from *your*
On 2010-03-02, Albert van der Horst alb...@spenarnc.xs4all.nl wrote:
No nothing clever, nothing conscious, just reinventing the wheel
badly.
Next time you tell me that the MSDOS file system was well thought
out :-)
Just a mediocre copy of the CP/M filesystem, which was in turn
copied from
On Tue, 02 Mar 2010 22:51:56 +0100, Andreas Waldenburger wrote:
On Tue, 02 Mar 2010 19:05:25 +0100 Jean-Michel Pichavant
jeanmic...@sequans.com wrote:
Andreas Waldenburger wrote:
I had hoped that everyone just read it, went like Oh geez., smiled
it off with a hint of lesson learned
On Tue, 02 Mar 2010 23:19:09 +0100, Andreas Waldenburger wrote:
We demand testable quality standards, but not of their code. We demand
it of their software. We say *what* we want, they decide *how* they'll
do it. Noncompliance will be fined, by a contractually agreed amount.
Everything beyond
Andreas Waldenburger use...@geekmail.invalid writes:
It works. They are supposed to make it work. And that's what they do.
Whether or not they put their docstrings in the place they should does
not change that their code works.
No-one has been denying that.
What the quality of their source
MRAB wrote:
BTW, the first programming I did was in hexadecimal (C4xx was LDI xx).
Hey, a SC/MP! That was my first programming language,
too. What sort of machine was it in?
--
Greg
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Grant Edwards wrote:
Just a mediocre copy of the CP/M filesystem, which was in turn
copied from DEC's RSTS or RSX.
It was actually an improvement over CP/M's file
system. CP/M didn't have hierarchical directories
or timestamps and recorded file sizes in 128-byte
blocks rather than bytes.
--
Ben Finney wrote:
Just as customers should demand both that a building be built to do its
job well, *and* that its architectural plans meet measurable, testable
industry standards of quality for independent re-use at some
indeterminate later date.
A problem is that it's very hard to come up
On Wed, 03 Mar 2010 18:40:00 +1300, Gregory Ewing wrote:
Ben Finney wrote:
Just as customers should demand both that a building be built to do its
job well, *and* that its architectural plans meet measurable, testable
industry standards of quality for independent re-use at some
MRAB wrote:
Gregory Ewing wrote:
Mel wrote:
You could think of it as a not bad use of the design principle
Clear The Simple Stuff Out Of The Way First. Destinations are
commonly a lot simpler than sources
That's not usually true in assembly languages, though,
where the source and
Andreas Waldenburger use...@geekmail.invalid wrote:
But as I said: a) I am (we are) not in a position to impose this (We
don't work with the code, we just run the software).
I personally believe that the end users have _every_ right to impose
quality requirements on code used within their
On Mon, 1 Mar 2010 05:01:49 -0800 (PST) alex23 wuwe...@gmail.com
wrote:
Andreas Waldenburger use...@geekmail.invalid wrote:
But as I said: a) I am (we are) not in a position to impose this (We
don't work with the code, we just run the software).
I personally believe that the end users
Jean-Michel Pichavant wrote:
MRAB wrote:
Gregory Ewing wrote:
Mel wrote:
You could think of it as a not bad use of the design principle
Clear The Simple Stuff Out Of The Way First. Destinations are
commonly a lot simpler than sources
That's not usually true in assembly languages, though,
On 03/02/10 00:09, Andreas Waldenburger wrote:
On Mon, 1 Mar 2010 05:01:49 -0800 (PST) alex23 wuwe...@gmail.com
wrote:
Andreas Waldenburger use...@geekmail.invalid wrote:
But as I said: a) I am (we are) not in a position to impose this (We
don't work with the code, we just run the
On Tue, 02 Mar 2010 03:18:30 +1100 Lie Ryan lie.1...@gmail.com wrote:
On 03/02/10 00:09, Andreas Waldenburger wrote:
On Mon, 1 Mar 2010 05:01:49 -0800 (PST) alex23 wuwe...@gmail.com
wrote:
Andreas Waldenburger use...@geekmail.invalid wrote:
But as I said: a) I am (we are) not in a
Andreas Waldenburger wrote:
On Tue, 02 Mar 2010 03:18:30 +1100 Lie Ryan lie.1...@gmail.com wrote:
On 03/02/10 00:09, Andreas Waldenburger wrote:
On Mon, 1 Mar 2010 05:01:49 -0800 (PST) alex23 wuwe...@gmail.com
wrote:
Andreas Waldenburger use...@geekmail.invalid wrote:
On 2010-03-01 11:22 , Andreas Waldenburger wrote:
Back in the software world: Those guys write code that works. It does
what it's supposed to do. Why should we care where they put their
comments?
Software usually needs to be maintained and extended over the course of its
lifetime. The
On Mon, 01 Mar 2010 11:42:16 -0600 Robert Kern robert.k...@gmail.com
wrote:
On 2010-03-01 11:22 , Andreas Waldenburger wrote:
Back in the software world: Those guys write code that works. It
does what it's supposed to do. Why should we care where they put
their comments?
Software
On Mon, 01 Mar 2010 18:42:17 +0100 Jean-Michel Pichavant
jeanmic...@sequans.com wrote:
Andreas Waldenburger wrote:
[snip]
Back in the software world: Those guys write code that works. It
does what it's supposed to do. Why should we care where they put
their comments?
If you've
Andreas Waldenburger wrote:
On Mon, 01 Mar 2010 18:42:17 +0100 Jean-Michel Pichavant
jeanmic...@sequans.com wrote:
Andreas Waldenburger wrote:
[snip]
Back in the software world: Those guys write code that works. It
does what it's supposed to do. Why should we care where they put
their
Andreas Waldenburger use...@geekmail.invalid writes:
On Mon, 01 Mar 2010 18:42:17 +0100 Jean-Michel Pichavant
jeanmic...@sequans.com wrote:
Andreas Waldenburger wrote:
[snip]
Back in the software world: Those guys write code that works. It
does what it's supposed to do. Why should we
In article mailman.59.1267456634.23598.python-l...@python.org,
MRAB pyt...@mrabarnett.plus.com wrote:
Ah, yes, Star Trek (the original series).
If they transported down to a planet and there was a man in a red shirt
who you'd never seen before, he'd be the one to die! :-)
Of course.
Gregory Ewing wrote:
Mel wrote:
You could think of it as a not bad use of the design principle Clear The
Simple Stuff Out Of The Way First. Destinations are commonly a lot
simpler than sources
Calculations for immediate values could be just about anything.
Mel.
--
In article 4b889e3d$0$27844$c3e8...@news.astraweb.com,
Steven D'Aprano st...@remove-this-cybersource.com.au wrote:
On Fri, 26 Feb 2010 21:51:17 -0600, Tim Daneliuk wrote:
The only possible exception to this I can think of is when there is some
non-obvious side-effect (i.e. language and/or
On Feb 24, 8:23 pm, Andreas Waldenburger use...@geekmail.invalid
wrote:
Hi all,
a company that works with my company writes a lot of of their code in
Python (lucky jerks). I've seen their code and it basically looks like
this:
Function that does stuff
def doStuff():
while not
Steven D'Aprano st...@remove-this-cybersource.com.au writes:
Also, some assemblies perform the move in different directions according
to the arguments. So you might have:
mv AX,BX ; move contents of BX into AX
mv @CX,DX ; move contents of @CX into DX
Horrible, yes, but apparently some
On Sat, 27 Feb 2010 07:29:46 -0800 (PST) John Pinner
funth...@gmail.com wrote:
A good way to control Python contractors is (given that firstly there
are functional specifications to comply with, and tests to pass) is to
impose the following condition:
that all code delivered must reach a
Mel wrote:
You could think of it as a not bad use of the design principle Clear The
Simple Stuff Out Of The Way First. Destinations are commonly a lot simpler
than sources
That's not usually true in assembly languages, though,
where the source and destination are both very restricted
and
Gregory Ewing wrote:
Mel wrote:
You could think of it as a not bad use of the design principle Clear
The Simple Stuff Out Of The Way First. Destinations are commonly a
lot simpler than sources
That's not usually true in assembly languages, though,
where the source and destination are both
On Thu, 25 Feb 2010 12:51:00 -0800 (PST) John Roth
johnro...@gmail.com wrote:
On Feb 24, 1:23 pm, Andreas Waldenburger use...@geekmail.invalid
wrote:
a company that works with my company writes a lot of of their code
in Python (lucky jerks). I've seen their code and it basically
looks
Andreas Waldenburger wrote:
On Thu, 25 Feb 2010 12:51:00 -0800 (PST) John Roth
johnro...@gmail.com wrote:
On Feb 24, 1:23 pm, Andreas Waldenburger use...@geekmail.invalid
wrote:
a company that works with my company writes a lot of of their code
in Python (lucky jerks). I've seen their
On 2/24/2010 2:23 PM, Andreas Waldenburger wrote:
Hi all,
a company that works with my company writes a lot of of their code in
Python (lucky jerks). I've seen their code and it basically looks like
this:
Function that does stuff
def doStuff():
while not wise(up):
yield
On Fri, 26 Feb 2010 15:50:25 +0100 Jean-Michel Pichavant
jeanmic...@sequans.com wrote:
Andreas Waldenburger wrote:
And they use mixedCase function/method names.
and ? whatIsTheProblem ?
Thanks for proving my point. ;)
No seriously though: Let it go. I wasn't being serious. As long as
On Fri, 26 Feb 2010 09:09:36 -0600 Tim Daneliuk tun...@tundraware.com
wrote:
On 2/24/2010 2:23 PM, Andreas Waldenburger wrote:
[stuff]
Reminiscent of:
mov AX,BX ; Move the contents of BX into AX
Well, there might be some confusion there as to what gets moved where,
In article eq4l57-okf2@ozzie.tundraware.com,
Tim Daneliuk tun...@tundraware.com wrote:
On 2/24/2010 2:23 PM, Andreas Waldenburger wrote:
Hi all,
a company that works with my company writes a lot of of their code in
Python (lucky jerks). I've seen their code and it basically looks
Andreas Waldenburger wrote:
Function that does stuff
def doStuff():
while not wise(up):
yield scorn
Now my question is this: How do I kill these people without the
authorities thinking they didn't deserve it?
Their unit tests are just as complete, illustrative, and
Andreas Waldenburger use...@geekmail.invalid wrote in message
news:20100226173907.55676...@geekmail.invalid...
Reminiscent of:
mov AX,BX ; Move the contents of BX into AX
Well, there might be some confusion there as to what gets moved where,
wouldn't you say?
Depends on
Andreas Waldenburger wrote:
On Fri, 26 Feb 2010 09:09:36 -0600 Tim Daneliuk tun...@tundraware.com
wrote:
On 2/24/2010 2:23 PM, Andreas Waldenburger wrote:
[stuff]
Reminiscent of:
mov AX,BX ; Move the contents of BX into AX
Well, there might be some
Roy Smith wrote:
In article eq4l57-okf2@ozzie.tundraware.com,
Tim Daneliuk tun...@tundraware.com wrote:
On 2/24/2010 2:23 PM, Andreas Waldenburger wrote:
Hi all,
a company that works with my company writes a lot of of their code in
Python (lucky jerks). I've seen their code and
Roy Smith wrote:
/**
* Tracing facility. Writes the message to the specified output stream.
* If output stream is NULL, writes the message to the process log.
*
* @param msg_id The message id to use for lookup.
* @param ostrThe output stream.
* @param p1 The first substition
Jean-Michel Pichavant wrote:
Andreas Waldenburger wrote:
On Fri, 26 Feb 2010 09:09:36 -0600 Tim Daneliuk tun...@tundraware.com
wrote:
Reminiscent of:
mov AX,BX ; Move the contents of BX into AX
Well, there might be some confusion there as to what gets moved where,
wouldn't
On 2010-02-26, Jean-Michel Pichavant jeanmic...@sequans.com wrote:
Andreas Waldenburger wrote:
On Fri, 26 Feb 2010 09:09:36 -0600 Tim Daneliuk tun...@tundraware.com
wrote:
On 2/24/2010 2:23 PM, Andreas Waldenburger wrote:
[stuff]
Reminiscent of:
mov AX,BX
Jean-Michel Pichavant wrote:
Andreas Waldenburger wrote:
On Fri, 26 Feb 2010 09:09:36 -0600 Tim Daneliuk tun...@tundraware.com
wrote:
On 2/24/2010 2:23 PM, Andreas Waldenburger wrote:
[stuff]
Reminiscent of:
mov AX,BX ; Move the contents of BX into AX
On Fri, 26 Feb 2010 09:09:36 -0600, Tim Daneliuk wrote:
Reminiscent of:
mov AX,BX ; Move the contents of BX into AX
That's a *good* comment, because without it most English-speaking people
would assume you were moving the contents of AX into BX.
And, yes, I've actually
Steven D'Aprano st...@remove-this-cybersource.com.au writes:
On Fri, 26 Feb 2010 09:09:36 -0600, Tim Daneliuk wrote:
Reminiscent of:
mov AX,BX ; Move the contents of BX into AX
That's a *good* comment, because without it most English-speaking people
would assume you were
Steven D'Aprano wrote:
On Fri, 26 Feb 2010 09:09:36 -0600, Tim Daneliuk wrote:
Reminiscent of:
mov AX,BX ; Move the contents of BX into AX
That's a *good* comment, because without it most English-speaking people
would assume you were moving the contents of AX into BX.
* MRAB:
Steven D'Aprano wrote:
On Fri, 26 Feb 2010 09:09:36 -0600, Tim Daneliuk wrote:
Reminiscent of:
mov AX,BX ; Move the contents of BX into AX
That's a *good* comment, because without it most English-speaking
people would assume you were moving the contents of AX into
On Fri, 26 Feb 2010 18:47:26 -0600, John Bokma wrote:
Steven D'Aprano st...@remove-this-cybersource.com.au writes:
On Fri, 26 Feb 2010 09:09:36 -0600, Tim Daneliuk wrote:
Reminiscent of:
mov AX,BX ; Move the contents of BX into AX
That's a *good* comment, because
Steven D'Aprano wrote:
On Fri, 26 Feb 2010 18:47:26 -0600, John Bokma wrote:
Steven D'Aprano st...@remove-this-cybersource.com.au writes:
On Fri, 26 Feb 2010 09:09:36 -0600, Tim Daneliuk wrote:
Reminiscent of:
mov AX,BX ; Move the contents of BX into AX
That's a *good*
On 27 Feb 2010 00:02:40 GMT
Steven D'Aprano st...@remove-this-cybersource.com.au wrote:
On Fri, 26 Feb 2010 09:09:36 -0600, Tim Daneliuk wrote:
mov AX,BX ; Move the contents of BX into AX
That's a *good* comment, because without it most English-speaking people
would assume
On 2/26/2010 9:25 PM, MRAB wrote:
Steven D'Aprano wrote:
On Fri, 26 Feb 2010 18:47:26 -0600, John Bokma wrote:
Steven D'Aprano st...@remove-this-cybersource.com.au writes:
On Fri, 26 Feb 2010 09:09:36 -0600, Tim Daneliuk wrote:
Reminiscent of:
mov AX,BX ; Move the contents
On Sat, 27 Feb 2010 00:54:53 +, MRAB wrote:
The assembly languages of virtually all the processors that I've come
across put the destination first, eg. x86:
Incorrect. x86 assembly has two distinct syntax branches, Intel
syntax (which is most common in the Windows world according to
On Sat, 27 Feb 2010 03:25:47 +, MRAB wrote:
Also, some assemblies perform the move in different directions
according to the arguments. So you might have:
mv AX,BX ; move contents of BX into AX mv @CX,DX ; move contents of
@CX into DX
Horrible, yes, but apparently some assembly
On Fri, 26 Feb 2010 21:51:17 -0600, Tim Daneliuk wrote:
The only possible exception to this I can think of is when there is some
non-obvious side-effect (i.e. language and/or hardware is
misfeatured):
mov A,B; Moving A into B also will also arm
On Feb 24, 1:23 pm, Andreas Waldenburger use...@geekmail.invalid
wrote:
Hi all,
a company that works with my company writes a lot of of their code in
Python (lucky jerks). I've seen their code and it basically looks like
this:
Function that does stuff
def doStuff():
while not
On Wed, Feb 24, 2010 at 12:23 PM, Andreas Waldenburger
use...@geekmail.invalid wrote:
Hi all,
a company that works with my company writes a lot of of their code in
Python (lucky jerks). I've seen their code and it basically looks like
this:
Function that does stuff
def doStuff():
while
On 2/24/2010 4:54 PM, Jonathan Gardner wrote:
On Wed, Feb 24, 2010 at 12:23 PM, Andreas Waldenburger
use...@geekmail.invalid wrote:
Hi all,
a company that works with my company writes a lot of of their code in
Python (lucky jerks). I've seen their code and it basically looks like
this:
On Wed, 24 Feb 2010 21:23:03 +0100, Andreas Waldenburger wrote:
Hi all,
a company that works with my company writes a lot of of their code in
Python (lucky jerks). I've seen their code and it basically looks like
this:
Function that does stuff
def doStuff():
while not wise(up):
In article pan.2010.02.25.00.22...@remove.this.cybersource.com.au,
Steven D'Aprano ste...@remove.this.cybersource.com.au wrote:
# Function that does stuff
def doStuff():
while not wise(up):
yield scorn
which means the biggest problem is that they had the perfect opportunity
On Wed, Feb 24, 2010 at 4:54 PM, Jonathan Gardner
jgard...@jonathangardner.net wrote:
On Wed, Feb 24, 2010 at 12:23 PM, Andreas Waldenburger
use...@geekmail.invalid wrote:
Now my question is this: How do I kill these people without the
authorities thinking they didn't deserve it?
kill -9
100 matches
Mail list logo
