Hello everyone.
I use bisect module.
bisect module developer give us c extension as _bisect.
If Python3.3 use _bisect, _bisect override his functions in bisect.py.
now, I use id() function to determine for using c extension or not.
>>> import bisect
>>> id(bisect.bisect)
139679893708880
>>> imp
On Mon, Aug 3, 2015 at 1:10 PM, Mark Lawrence wrote:
> On 03/08/2015 02:27, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, 3 Aug 2015 08:34 am, Rick Johnson wrote:
>>
>>> So what? If i had to guess, i would guess that the hacks are
>>> mostly to bring py3000 features to 2.7
>>
>>
>> These would be the featu
On Sun, 02 Aug 2015 16:11:14 -0500, Tim Chase wrote:
> On 2015-08-02 21:54, Ben Finney wrote:
>> So, both XML and JSON should be considered write-only, and produced
>> only for consumption by a computer; they are a poor choice for
>> presenting to a human.
[snip]
> I second Ben's thoughts again
On 03/08/2015 02:27, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
On Mon, 3 Aug 2015 08:34 am, Rick Johnson wrote:
So what? If i had to guess, i would guess that the hacks are
mostly to bring py3000 features to 2.7
These would be the features of Python 3 that nobody needs and nobody wants
because Python 2 is good
On Mon, Aug 3, 2015 at 12:15 PM, Rick Johnson
wrote:
> On Sunday, August 2, 2015 at 7:25:37 PM UTC-5, Mark Lawrence wrote:
>> rr should have a field day with this one [...]
>
> You must be nuts if you think i'm going to click that link
> for an article that was written today, Hahaha! Quote the
> r
On Sunday, August 2, 2015 at 7:25:37 PM UTC-5, Mark Lawrence wrote:
> rr should have a field day with this one [...]
You must be nuts if you think i'm going to click that link
for an article that was written today, Hahaha! Quote the
relevant bits.
--
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/pyt
On 2015-08-02 21:54, Ben Finney wrote:
> So, both XML and JSON should be considered write-only, and produced
> only for consumption by a computer; they are a poor choice for
> presenting to a human.
>
> The “INI” format as handled by the Python ‘configparser’ module is
> what I would recommend for
On Mon, 3 Aug 2015 08:34 am, Rick Johnson wrote:
>> Just because company X is using 2.7, why does that mean
>> that *you* shouldn't using 3.x? Surely you should make
>> your own decision, based on your own needs.
>
> It's not just *ANY* company Steven, it's Guido's freaking
> employer! That would
Cecil Westerhof writes:
> On Sunday 2 Aug 2015 13:54 CEST, Ben Finney wrote:
>
> > So, both XML and JSON should be considered write-only, and produced
> > only for consumption by a computer; they are a poor choice for
> > presenting to a human.
>
> Well, I would use nested data. (A file will hav
On 02Aug2015 18:18, Chris Angelico wrote:
On Sun, Aug 2, 2015 at 6:16 PM, Chris Angelico wrote:
On Sun, Aug 2, 2015 at 5:41 PM, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
* if you don't wish to do that, you're screwed, and I think that the
best you can do is program defensively by detecting the problem
afte
On 02Aug2015 17:41, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
On Sun, 2 Aug 2015 01:53 pm, Cameron Simpson wrote:
Maybe this should be over in python-ideas, since there is a proposal down
the bottom of this message. But first the background...
I've just wasted a silly amount of time debugging an issue that reall
rr should have a field day with this one
http://nafiulis.me/python-3-may-become-relevant-now.html
--
My fellow Pythonistas, ask not what our language can do for you, ask
what you can do for our language.
Mark Lawrence
--
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
On Sunday, August 2, 2015 at 6:25:37 PM UTC-5, Chris Angelico wrote:
> Wind the clock back to 2012, when Guido was working for Google.
> Dropbox wants him. Is he going to refuse the job unless they *first*
> get onto Py3, or is he going to accept the job with a view to
> migrating them?
Well, i do
On Mon, Aug 3, 2015 at 8:34 AM, Rick Johnson
wrote:
> On Sunday, August 2, 2015 at 3:05:09 AM UTC-5, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
>
>> If Dropbox were using Python 1.5, would you conclude that
>> Python 2 was not worth developing in?
>
> No, if Dropbox were using py1.5, i would conclude that it was
> be
On 02Aug2015 18:51, Cecil Westerhof wrote:
On Sunday 2 Aug 2015 13:54 CEST, Ben Finney wrote:
Cecil Westerhof writes:
Because of this I think a human readable file would be best.
I agree with that criterion; in the absence of compelling reasons
otherwise, human-readable and -editable text
On Sunday, August 2, 2015 at 3:05:09 AM UTC-5, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
> If Dropbox were using Python 1.5, would you conclude that
> Python 2 was not worth developing in?
No, if Dropbox were using py1.5, i would conclude that it was
being managed by monkeys -- since Py1.5 existed before
Dropbox w
On 08/01/2015 01:34 PM, Lukas Barth wrote:
Hi!
I have a list of numbers that I treat as "circular", i.e. [1,2,3] and [2,3,1]
should be the same. Now I want to rotate these to a well defined status, so that I can
can compare them.
If all elements are unique, the solution is easy: find the mini
Cecil Westerhof writes:
> Well, I would use nested data. (A file will have extra fields besides
> the name.) That is why I was thinking about json. But I will look into
> it.
An alternative, very similar to JSON but with some good cherries picked from
YAML is AXON, which is my preferite these da
On 2015-08-01 13:34, Lukas Barth wrote:
> I have a list of numbers that I treat as "circular", i.e. [1,2,3]
> and [2,3,1] should be the same. Now I want to rotate these to a
> well defined status, so that I can can compare them.
>
> If all elements are unique, the solution is easy: find the minimu
On Sunday 2 Aug 2015 13:54 CEST, Ben Finney wrote:
> Cecil Westerhof writes:
>
>> Because of this I think a human readable file would be best.
>
> I agree with that criterion; in the absence of compelling reasons
> otherwise, human-readable and -editable text is a good default.
>
>> Personally I
On 02/08/2015 12:54, Ben Finney wrote:
Cecil Westerhof writes:
Because of this I think a human readable file would be best.
The “INI” format as handled by the Python ‘configparser’ module is what
I would recommend for a simple flat configuration file. It is more
intuitive to edit, and has a
Cecil Westerhof writes:
> Because of this I think a human readable file would be best.
I agree with that criterion; in the absence of compelling reasons
otherwise, human-readable and -editable text is a good default.
> Personally I do not find XML very readable. So a conf or json file
> looks t
On Saturday, August 1, 2015 at 1:34:44 PM UTC-7, Lukas Barth wrote:
> Hi!
>
> I have a list of numbers that I treat as "circular", i.e. [1,2,3] and [2,3,1]
> should be the same. Now I want to rotate these to a well defined status, so
> that I can can compare them.
>
> If all elements are unique
On Sun, Aug 2, 2015 at 8:11 PM, Cecil Westerhof wrote:
> Because of this I think a human readable file would be best.
> Personally I do not find XML very readable. So a conf or json file
> looks the most promising to me. And I would have a slight preference
> for a json file.
>
> Any comments, tho
There are a lot of ways to store configuration information:
- conf file
- xml file
- database
- json file
- and possible a lot of other ways
I want to write a Python program to display cleaned log files. I do
not think I need a lot of configuration to be stored:
- some things relating to the GUI
-
On Sun, 2 Aug 2015 08:51 am, Lukas Barth wrote:
> On Saturday, August 1, 2015 at 11:37:48 PM UTC+2, Emile van Sebille wrote:
>> Well, it looks to me that I don't know what a 'canonical rotation' is --
>
> That's because it is not defined. ;)
>
> I need a way to rotate one of these lists in a way
On Sun, Aug 2, 2015 at 6:16 PM, Chris Angelico wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 2, 2015 at 5:41 PM, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
>> * if you don't wish to do that, you're screwed, and I think that the
>> best you can do is program defensively by detecting the problem
>> after the event and bailing out:
>>
>>
On Sun, Aug 2, 2015 at 5:41 PM, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
> * if you don't wish to do that, you're screwed, and I think that the
> best you can do is program defensively by detecting the problem
> after the event and bailing out:
>
> # untested
> import __main__
> import myactualfilename
>
On Sun, 2 Aug 2015 04:57 am, Rick Johnson wrote:
> On Saturday, August 1, 2015 at 12:45:45 AM UTC-5, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
>
>> > Yep, even the BDFL is actively developing in 2.7! He's no fool.
>>
>> Of course not. Dropbox pay him to work on their systems,
>> and he wants to keep his job.
>
>
On Sun, 2 Aug 2015 01:53 pm, Cameron Simpson wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> Maybe this should be over in python-ideas, since there is a proposal down
> the bottom of this message. But first the background...
>
> I've just wasted a silly amount of time debugging an issue that really I
> know about, but had
30 matches
Mail list logo
