On 4/19/2014 9:06 PM, Gregory Ewing wrote:
Chris Angelico wrote:
I'd rather have to explicitly request floating-point division;
When you write / in Python 3, you *are* explicitly requesting
floating-point division.
Similarly, when you write // you're explicitly requesting
integer division.
Terry Reedy writes:
> LibreOffice bundles 3.3. So anyone who does Python scripting in
> LibreOffice is using Python 3. Actually, I believe LO uses Python
> internally for some of its scripting. If so, everyone using LO is
> indirectly using 3.3.
I didn't even know LO supported Python scripting, b
On 04/18/2014 10:49 PM, Andrew Berg wrote:
> Python 3 is not the future; it is the present. If you're developing
> an application, just use Python 3.4 and don't look back unless you
> absolutely positively *need* one of the big libraries that doesn't
> fully support Python 3 yet.
Depends on what
Chris Angelico wrote:
Is your function so generic that it has to be able
to handle float, Decimal, or complex, and not care about the
difference, and yet has to ensure that int divided by int doesn't
yield int?
It doesn't have to be that generic to cause pain. Even if
you're only dealing with f
On Sun, Apr 20, 2014 at 11:06 AM, Gregory Ewing
wrote:
> Chris Angelico wrote:
>>
>> I'd rather have to explicitly request floating-point division;
>
>
> When you write / in Python 3, you *are* explicitly requesting
> floating-point division.
>
> Similarly, when you write // you're explicitly requ
Chris Angelico wrote:
I'd rather have to explicitly request floating-point division;
When you write / in Python 3, you *are* explicitly requesting
floating-point division.
Similarly, when you write // you're explicitly requesting
integer division.
I don't see the problem. You write whatever y
On Sun, Apr 20, 2014 at 6:38 AM, Ian Kelly wrote:
>> Or you just cast one of them to float. That way you're sure you're
>> working with floats.
>
> Which is inappropriate if the type passed in was a Decimal or a complex.
In that case, you already have a special case in your code, so whether
that
On Sat, Apr 19, 2014 at 2:31 PM, Chris Angelico wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 20, 2014 at 5:58 AM, Ian Kelly wrote:
>> Considering that Fraction and Decimal did not exist yet, what type do
>> you think the PEP 238 implementers should have chosen for the result
>> of dividing two ints? If float is not acc
On Sun, Apr 20, 2014 at 5:58 AM, Ian Kelly wrote:
> Considering that Fraction and Decimal did not exist yet, what type do
> you think the PEP 238 implementers should have chosen for the result
> of dividing two ints? If float is not acceptable, and int is not
> acceptable (which was the whole poi
On Sat, Apr 19, 2014 at 3:37 AM, Chris Angelico wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 19, 2014 at 7:25 PM, Ian Kelly wrote:
>> The change from / denoting "classic
>> division" to "true division" really only affects the case where both
>> operands are integers, so far as I'm aware. If you want to divide two
>> in
- Original Message -
> From: Chris Angelico
> To:
> Cc: "python-list@python.org"
> Sent: Saturday, April 19, 2014 3:42 PM
> Subject: Re: Why Python 3?
> Right. It's not the magic line that fixes everything; if it were,
> Python 3 wouldn't be a big deal at all. Go Py3 if you can, bu
On Sun, Apr 20, 2014 at 3:23 AM, Terry Reedy wrote:
> LibreOffice bundles 3.3. So anyone who does Python scripting in LibreOffice
> is using Python 3.
This much I agree with...
> Actually, I believe LO uses Python internally for some of
> its scripting. If so, everyone using LO is indirectly usi
On 19/04/2014 07:40, Paul Rubin wrote:
That said, I don't know anyone who actually uses Python 3.
You do now :)
--
My fellow Pythonistas, ask not what our language can do for you, ask
what you can do for our language.
Mark Lawrence
---
This email is free from viruses and malware because
On 4/19/2014 2:40 AM, Paul Rubin wrote:
That said, I don't know anyone who actually uses Python 3.
I have no idea who you know ;-)
LibreOffice bundles 3.3. So anyone who does Python scripting in
LibreOffice is using Python 3. Actually, I believe LO uses Python
internally for some of its scr
On 19/04/2014 14:06, Eric S. Johansson wrote:
On 4/19/2014 12:04 AM, Ryan Hiebert wrote:
If you are starting a new project, I'd highly encourage you to use
Python 3. It is a stable, well supported, and beautiful language, and
gives you the full power of the innovation that is current in the
Pyt
On Saturday, April 19, 2014 5:23:01 PM UTC+5:30, Steve Hayes wrote:
> It took me a week, with some help from this forum, to get the Print statement
> to work.
How long does it take one to learn to drive a car?
To play the piano? To become a brain surgeon?
No I am not exactly in the "gung-ho over
Am 19.04.2014 14:33, schrieb bob gailer:
> On 4/16/2014 6:38 AM, Egon Frerich wrote:
>> If I use the interpreter I get:
>>
>> Python 3.3.5 (default, Apr 12 2014, 23:34:20)
>> [GCC 4.6.3] on linux
>> Type "help", "copyright", "credits" or "license" for more information.
>> import mptt
>> print(mptt)
Am 18.04.2014 13:48, schrieb Peter Otten:
> Egon Frerich wrote:
>
>
> Basically Python 3 allows for packages to omit the __init__.py
>
> $ mkdir aaa
> $ python3 -c'import aaa; print(aaa)'
>
> $ touch aaa/__init__.py
> $ python3 -c'import aaa; print(aaa)'
>
>
> Namespace packages have advanta
On Friday, April 18, 2014 10:28:05 PM UTC-5, Anthony Papillion wrote:
> Hello Everyone,
> So I've been working with Python for a while and I'm starting to take
> on more and more serious projects with it. I've been reading a lot
> about Python 2 vs Python 3 and the community kind of seems split on
On Friday, April 18, 2014 8:46:13 PM UTC-7, Larry Hudson wrote:
> On 04/18/2014 04:14 PM, gwhite wrote:
>
> > [snip]
> > I'm not sure when a backslash continuation might be needed, or if that
> > requirement has been designed out of Python.
>
> ['they' meaning trailing backslashes]
>
> No, 'the
On Sat, Apr 19, 2014 at 11:26 PM, Roy Smith wrote:
> Chris Angelico wrote:
>
>> I strongly recommend going for Python 3 unless something actually
>> stops you from doing so.
>
> One of the problems is you don't know in advance if something is going
> to stop you. By committing to P3 now, you are
Chris Angelico wrote:
> I strongly recommend going for Python 3 unless something actually
> stops you from doing so.
One of the problems is you don't know in advance if something is going
to stop you. By committing to P3 now, you are eliminating from possible
future use, all of those third-pa
On 4/19/2014 12:04 AM, Ryan Hiebert wrote:
If you are starting a new project, I'd highly encourage you to use
Python 3. It is a stable, well supported, and beautiful language, and
gives you the full power of the innovation that is current in the
Python world. Python 2 is still well supported (
On 2014.04.19 07:58, Ian Foote wrote:
> Django has been there since 1.5. My company has been using python3 in
> production since 1.6 was released. There have been a few other third
> party libraries we've wanted to use but can't, but we've been able to
> work around that.
I guess I'm a bit behind t
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 19/04/14 05:49, Andrew Berg wrote:
> On 2014.04.18 22:28, Anthony Papillion wrote:
>> What is the general feel of /this/ community? I'm about to start
>> a large scale Python project. Should it be done in 2 or 3? What
>> are the benefits, aside from
On Sat, Apr 19, 2014 at 9:53 PM, Steve Hayes wrote:
>>Some say 'Python 3 is the future, use it for everything now' and other
>>say 'Python 3 is the future but you can't do everything in it now so
>>use Python 2'.
>
> Yes, that made me more or less abandon my attempt to learn Python.
>
> I had Pyth
On 4/16/2014 6:38 AM, Egon Frerich wrote:
If I use the interpreter I get:
Python 3.3.5 (default, Apr 12 2014, 23:34:20)
[GCC 4.6.3] on linux
Type "help", "copyright", "credits" or "license" for more information.
import mptt
print(mptt)
But if I import mptt in my program the print-statement gi
On Fri, 18 Apr 2014 22:28:05 -0500, Anthony Papillion
wrote:
>Hello Everyone,
>
>So I've been working with Python for a while and I'm starting to take
>on more and more serious projects with it. I've been reading a lot
>about Python 2 vs Python 3 and the community kind of seems split on
>which sh
On Saturday, April 19, 2014 4:35:41 PM UTC+5:30, Ben Finney wrote:
> Well, it's clear: Python 3 is uncontroversially the future :-) Also:
> \"Spam will be a thing of the past in two years' time." --Bill |
> `\ Gates, 2004-01-24 |
> _o__)
Anthony Papillion writes:
> So I've been working with Python for a while and I'm starting to take
> on more and more serious projects with it. I've been reading a lot
> about Python 2 vs Python 3 and the community kind of seems split on
> which should be used.
The community is in transition; the
Ian Kelly :
> On Sat, Apr 19, 2014 at 1:34 AM, Chris Angelico wrote:
>> if you're going to move to Python 3, you may as well have your code
>> start working that way, so you get used to typing // to divide
>> integers and get an integer (floor division).
>
> [...]
>
> We also gained a consistent
On Sat, Apr 19, 2014 at 7:25 PM, Ian Kelly wrote:
> The change from / denoting "classic
> division" to "true division" really only affects the case where both
> operands are integers, so far as I'm aware. If you want to divide two
> integers and get a decimal result, then convert one or both of t
On Sat, Apr 19, 2014 at 1:34 AM, Chris Angelico wrote:
> That'll make Python 2.6/2.7 behave like Python 3.x in three ways:
> firstly, "print" will be a function instead of a statement (and it's
> more powerful than the statement form, as well as being more
> flexible); secondly, quoted strings wil
On Sat, Apr 19, 2014 at 4:40 PM, Paul Rubin wrote:
> If you're starting a new project and you get to choose between 2 and 3,
> other things equal I'd say use 3. I've kept using 2 basically because
> it's the path of least resistance. I'm somewhat following the 3
> situation and of course I'd use
34 matches
Mail list logo
