Re: Python 2 or 3
On 3 déc, 04:54, Antti J Ylikoski wrote: > Helsinki, Finland, the EU <<< >>> sys.version '2.7.2 (default, Jun 12 2011, 15:08:59) [MSC v.1500 32 bit (Intel)]' >>> 'éléphant' '\xe9l\xe9phant' >>> >>> sys.version '3.2.2 (default, Sep 4 2011, 09:51:08) [MSC v.1500 32 bit (Intel)]' >>> 'éléphant' 'éléphant' >>> jmf -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Multiprocessing: killing children when parent dies
I think the OP meant when the parent gets killed (by ctrl+c or similar), not deleted. At least that's what I think when I think of a program being killed. Is it even possible to send a signal in such a case? Cheers, Jack On Fri, Dec 2, 2011 at 4:27 PM, 8 Dihedral wrote: > Please check Erlang that spawn so easily. And there are Python packages > can do the same task. > -- > http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list > -- The earth is a very small stage in a vast cosmic arena. Think of the rivers of blood spilled by all those generals and emperors so that in glory and in triumph they could become the momentary masters of a fraction of a dot. - Carl Sagan [Pale Blue Dot] -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Python 2 or 3
On Sat, 03 Dec 2011 05:54:19 +0200, Antti J Ylikoski wrote:
> The O'Reilly book has some 1200 pages. I would not want to invest such
> an amount of work and time to an obsolete language (i. e. Python 2).
Python 2 is not an obsolete language. The differences between Python 2
and Python 3 are minor, more like different dialects of one language than
two languages. I learned Python 1.5 and watched the extended transition
between 1.5 -> 2.2, and in my opinion, the 2.5 -> 3.2 transition is not
that much more difficult.
An experienced programmer won't have any difficulty learning both, and
swapping between them. Newbies who have never programmed before often
have trouble with the differences between 2.x and 3.x, but if you are an
experienced programmer, you shouldn't have any trouble at all. The
biggest difference to the language is that strings are now Unicode
instead of byte strings; this has forced a lot of English speakers to
learn about Unicode and bytes instead of assuming that the universe is
ASCII. Apart from that, the differences are, in my opinion, trivial.
However, there are a lot of them:
http://docs.python.org/release/3.0.1/whatsnew/3.0.html
But the most important ones in my opinion are:
* unicode text, as mentioned above, and the consequences of this;
* some of the modules in the standard library have been renamed;
* various new modules have been added;
* some built-in functions and methods which used to return lists now
return lazy iterators or views;
* print is now a function instead of a statement;
* a small number of syntax changes, some of which are also supported by
Python 2.6 and 2.7;
* "classic classes" no longer exist, so there is now only one class
mechanism, not two.
If you can deal with the difference between these two lines without
getting confused:
print md5.md5("spam").hexdigest() # Python 2.x
print(hashlib.md5("spam").hexdigest()) # Python 3.x
you're half way there.
--
Steven
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Python 2 or 3
On Sat, Dec 3, 2011 at 9:04 PM, Steven D'Aprano
wrote:
> If you can deal with the difference between these two lines without
> getting confused:
>
> print md5.md5("spam").hexdigest() # Python 2.x
> print(hashlib.md5("spam").hexdigest()) # Python 3.x
The second line needs to be:
print(hashlib.md5("spam".encode()).hexdigest())
Relatively insignificant differences, since Python 2 and Python 3 both
support both bytes and unicode strings. The only difference is that
Py3 makes Unicode the default, forcing you to be explicit when you
want bytes.
ChrisA
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Referencing module.instance
HA! After much experimenting I hit upon getattr(__import__(page), page):
for page in self.allowedPages:
scriptPath = '{}/{}.py'.format(os.path.dirname(__file__), page)
if os.path.exists(scriptPath):
self.modules[page] = getattr(__import__(page), page)
Then in __call_ I just say:
target = incoming CGI variable
self.modules[target](qList, environ)
and it works!
-- Gnarlie
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Python 2 or 3
On 3 December 2011 03:54, Antti J Ylikoski wrote: > > I'm in the process of learning Python. I already can code > objet-oriented programs with the language. I have in my hands the > O'Reilly book by Mark Lutz, Programming Python, in two versions: the > 2nd Edition, which covers Python 2, and the 4th edition, which covers > Python 3. > > In the "official Python site" so to speak, http://www.python.org, it > is mentioned that the authors recommend the visitor, who is a novice, > to learn Python 2 rather than Python 3, because most of existing > software has been writen with Python 2. > > The O'Reilly book has some 1200 pages. I would not want to invest > such an amount of work and time to an obsolete language (i. e. Python > 2). Python 2 and Python 3 are mostly the same language. Learning either will be equally valuable IMHO. There are some significant differences but if you have a good understanding of one, you will have no problem adapting very quickly to the other. And Python 2 is definitely not obsolete :) -- Arnaud -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Install Python on Windows without Start Menu icons?
On 02/12/2011 16:34, snorble wrote: Is it possible to automate the Python installation on Windows using the MSI file so it does not add a Start Menu folder? I would like to push out Python to all of my office workstations, but I'd like for it to be relatively silent from the user's point of view. If you just want to run python scripts in those machines (not developing in it), you can use something like py2exe [http://www.py2exe.org/]. It converts a python script to a standalone executable. Good luck! -- Att; Pedro Henrique G. Souto ╔═╗ ║ ²²²d○_○b²²² ║ ╚═╝ -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Django ported to Python3!
Thanks Stefan for clarifying that. I guess Martin deserves most of the credit. But I still admire how Sajip jumped in, and I especially admire how the core team accepted his work without taking a "Not Invented Here" attitude. I sure hope the port is accepted into the main trunk soon. There is just such a huge difference bewtween "90% done" and actually released. Often code is 90% done but is never finished. And Django has such enormous psychological significance for Python 3. Many important projects will never begin serious porting until after Django officially supports Python 3. And many Python folks will finally start to take Python 3 seriously only when Django does announce official support. Ron -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: order independent hash?
On Saturday, December 3, 2011 9:04:49 AM UTC+8, Steven D'Aprano wrote: > On Fri, 02 Dec 2011 10:18:12 -0800, 8 Dihedral wrote: > [...] > > > Dihedral, EVERY SINGLE ONE of your messages is double posted. You are > sending to the newsgroup and the mailing list, but they are aliases for > each other. Please stop double posting. > > > -- > Steven A list can replace a hash. I knew that in lisp. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: order independent hash?
On 12/02/2011 07:39 PM, Dave Angel wrote: > On 12/01/2011 08:55 AM, Neal Becker wrote: >> Gelonida N wrote: >> >>> On 11/30/2011 01:32 PM, Neal Becker wrote: I like to hash a list of words (actually, the command line args of my program) in such a way that different words will create different hash, but not sensitive to the order of the words. Any ideas? >>> Do youmean hash like digest like md5sum / sha1 ? >>> >>> >>> You should sort the words alphabetically, concatenate them with a space >>> or any character, that will NEVER be part of a word and calulate the >>> hash. >>> >>> If words can exist multiple times, then youhad tu uniqufy them (u using >>> a python dict / set) first. >> Yes that sounds just like what I wanted - thanks! >> You're welcome. is it working as expected? -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Python 2 or 3
On 12/03/2011 04:54 AM, Antti J Ylikoski wrote: > > I'm in the process of learning Python. I already can code > objet-oriented programs with the language. I have in my hands the > O'Reilly book by Mark Lutz, Programming Python, in two versions: the > 2nd Edition, which covers Python 2, and the 4th edition, which covers > Python 3. > > In the "official Python site" so to speak, http://www.python.org, it > is mentioned that the authors recommend the visitor, who is a novice, > to learn Python 2 rather than Python 3, because most of existing > software has been writen with Python 2. > > The O'Reilly book has some 1200 pages. I would not want to invest > such an amount of work and time to an obsolete language (i. e. Python > 2). > > What is the opinion of the wizards here, shall I learm Python 2 or > Python 3? I'm posting this here because I feel that this point is > interesting to other students of Python. > > > Cheers, Antti "Andy" Ylikoski > Helsinki, Finland, the EU I would still stick with python 2. In my opinion there is no reason to rush to the most recent version. Especially when working in a corporate environment or when being obliged to use certain web servers / servers you will notice, that you will still encounter quite some hosts with python 2.5 and even some with python2.4. Most machines, that I have to use, run python 2.6 (and some python 2.5) I personally try to write most of my code such that it could still run with python 2.5 I decided that python2.4 is my cut-off point, though I still have one machines and some embedded devices, which just run 2.4 Other considerations - there are still more libraries / packages available for python 2 than for python 3, though this is changing. - if you write code nicely enough in python 2, then you can translate it to python 3. autmatically. However up to my knowledge you cannot automatically translate python 3 code to python 2 code. With that strategy your code will be able to run on most web servers and your own machines. If you want to write your own code which does not have to run on other machines and / or if you want to heavily use unicode, then it might be better to start with Python 3. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
How to generate java .properties files in python
Hi all,
I need to generate some java .properties files in Python (2.6 / 2.7).
It's a simple format to store key/value pairs e.g.
blue=bleu
green=vert
red=rouge
The key/value are unicode strings. The annoying thing is that the
file is encoded in ISO 8859-1, with all non Latin1 characters escaped
in the form \u (same as how unicode characters are escaped in
Python).
I thought I could use the "unicode_escape" codec. But it doesn't work
because it escapes Latin1 characters with escape sequences of the form
\xHH, which is not valid in a java .properties file.
Is there a simple way to achieve this? I could do something like this:
def encode(u):
"""encode a unicode string in .properties format"""
return u"".join(u"\\u%04x" % ord(c) if ord(c) > 0xFF else c for c
in u).encode("latin_1")
but it would be quite inefficient as I have many to generate.
--
Arnaud
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Django ported to Python3!
In article , Ron wrote: > Django has such > enormous psychological significance for Python 3. Many important > projects will never begin serious porting until after Django > officially supports Python 3. And many Python folks will finally start > to take Python 3 seriously only when Django does announce official > support. In a somewhat related topic, it looks like Mongodb will also be supporting Python 3 soon. It's on the roadmap for their 2.2 release (https://jira.mongodb.org/browse/PYTHON-84). There's no date announced yet, but extrapolating from past release schedules, I'd guess mid 2012. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: How to generate java .properties files in python
Arnaud Delobelle wrote:
> I need to generate some java .properties files in Python (2.6 / 2.7).
> It's a simple format to store key/value pairs e.g.
>
> blue=bleu
> green=vert
> red=rouge
>
> The key/value are unicode strings. The annoying thing is that the
> file is encoded in ISO 8859-1, with all non Latin1 characters escaped
> in the form \u (same as how unicode characters are escaped in
> Python).
>
> I thought I could use the "unicode_escape" codec. But it doesn't work
> because it escapes Latin1 characters with escape sequences of the form
> \xHH, which is not valid in a java .properties file.
>
> Is there a simple way to achieve this? I could do something like this:
>
> def encode(u):
> """encode a unicode string in .properties format"""
> return u"".join(u"\\u%04x" % ord(c) if ord(c) > 0xFF else c for c
> in u).encode("latin_1")
>
> but it would be quite inefficient as I have many to generate.
>>> class D(dict):
... def __missing__(self, key):
... result = self[key] = u"\\u%04x" % key
... return result
...
>>> d = D(enumerate(map(unichr, range(256
>>> u"ähnlich üblich nötig ΦΧΨ"
u'\xe4hnlich \xfcblich n\xf6tig \u03a6\u03a7\u03a8'
>>> u"ähnlich üblich nötig ΦΧΨ".translate(d)
u'\xe4hnlich \xfcblich n\xf6tig \\u03a6\\u03a7\\u03a8'
>>> u"ähnlich üblich nötig ΦΧΨ".translate(d).encode("latin1")
'\xe4hnlich \xfcblich n\xf6tig \\u03a6\\u03a7\\u03a8'
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Python 2 or 3
On Sun, Dec 4, 2011 at 7:59 AM, Gelonida N wrote: > if you write code nicely enough in python 2, then you can translate it > to python 3. autmatically. It's entirely possible to write code that can run on both Python 2 and Python 3 - at least, if you can target 2.6/2.7 and get the appropriate future directives. Add in a few exception-guarded imports for the renamed modules, and then all you're left with is a few things where you can take a little care while coding, run it through both versions to test, and have it all work. ChrisA -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Python 2 or 3
On 12/3/2011 3:59 PM, Gelonida N wrote: I would still stick with python 2. In my opinion there is no reason to rush to the most recent version. Python 3 is 3 years old. Starting with it now is hardly rushing. There are several reasons someone 'in the process of learning Python' might want to start with it. The removal of old stuff makes it more steamlined and easier to learn. There is only one class system instead of two, one meaning of '/' instead of two, and one version of the input, range, map, and filter functions instead of two. For anyone working with unicode instead of ascii, Python 3 is much better, and 3.3 will be better yet. There are numerous improvements to the standard library. Most but not all bugfixes have been backported; changes and new features have not. What's New in 3.0/1/2 is a long list of possible reasons. -- Terry Jan Reedy -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Python 2 or 3
On Sun, Dec 4, 2011 at 1:52 PM, Terry Reedy wrote: > For anyone working with unicode instead of ascii... Which, frankly, should be everyone. You can't get away with assuming that a character is a byte any more; even if you stick to the US, you're going to run into some non-ASCII symbols sooner or later. Of course, you can work with UTF-8, which means that anything that fits into 7-bit ASCII will be represented as itself; but you still need to be aware of the difference between 'bytes' and 'str' (or between 'str' and 'unicode'). ChrisA -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
