"Aahz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Antoon Pardon
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>>The problem is there is also ground for bugs if you don't use "blah is
>>True". If some application naturally seems to ask for a variable that
>>ca
"manuhack" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>I copied the lines
>
> f=open('/tmp/workfile', 'w')
> print f
> f.close()
>
> from Python 2.4 Documentation 7.2. But it said IOerror No such file or
> directory" '/tmp/workfile'
>
> Is it something about the os? I'm using P
"Peter Otten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> QOTW: "It's hard to make a mistake by having too many short and simple
> functions. And much too easy to make them when you have too few ;-)"
> - Thomas Bartkus
>
And of course there is a mathematical proof of that prov
"Michael Tobis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>I think I agree with Steve here.
>
> I suspect you should either have sufficiently trained your users in
> Python, or have limited them to one-line statements which you could
> then strip of leading whitespace before pas
"Steve Holden" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Andy Salnikov wrote:
>> "Michael Tobis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>
>>>
>>>When you say &quo
"Michael Tobis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> Indentation
>> makes all kinds of inlined code extremely clumsy or practically
>> impossible
>> in Python.
>
> This is the only sensible argument against the indentation thing I've
> heard. Python squirms about being
"Steve Holden" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> sturlamolden wrote:
>> Robert Kern wrote:
>>
>>
>>>And you need to ask why Python is a better Matlab than Matlab?
>>
>>
>>
>> First there are a few things I don't like:
>>
>> 1. Intendation as a part of the syntax, reall
"Gregor Horvath" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Daniel T. wrote:
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >
> >
> >>A paper finding that OOP can lead to more buggy software is at
> >>http://www.leshatton.org/IEEE_Soft_98a.html
> >
> >
> > Sure, OOP *can* lead to more buggy sof
