On 2011-12-16, Gregory Ewing wrote:
> Eelco wrote:
>> the actual english usage of the phrase, which omits
>> the negation completely :). (I could care less)
>
> No, that's the American usage.
That's the _ignorant_ American usage. Americans with a clue use the
"couldn't" version. I won't comment
On Fri, Dec 16, 2011 at 7:54 PM, Steven D'Aprano
wrote:
> On Fri, 16 Dec 2011 11:40:11 -0800, Eelco wrote:
>
>> On 16 dec, 18:38, rusi wrote:
>>> On Dec 16, 3:25 pm, Eelco wrote:
>>>
>>> > Pseudo-backwards compatibility with other languages, I couldnt not
>>> > care less for.
>>>
>>> Double nega
On Fri, 16 Dec 2011 11:40:11 -0800, Eelco wrote:
> On 16 dec, 18:38, rusi wrote:
>> On Dec 16, 3:25 pm, Eelco wrote:
>>
>> > Pseudo-backwards compatibility with other languages, I couldnt not
>> > care less for.
>>
>> Double negations n Goedelian situations have interesting implications
>> (tho
In article
<2420abd7-7d91-4bc9-bb3b-d8ec1680e...@u32g2000yqe.googlegroups.com>,
Eelco wrote:
> And yes, I agree; 'I couldnt care less' makes much more sense. 'I
> could care less' can only make sense if you interpret it
> sarcastically, as if omitting an 'oh wait, I cant', but that does not
> s
On Dec 17, 12:49 am, Gregory Ewing
wrote:
> Eelco wrote:
> > the actual english usage of the phrase, which omits
> > the negation completely :). (I could care less)
>
> No, that's the American usage. The English usage is
> "I couldn't care less", which has the advantage of
> actually making sense.
Eelco wrote:
the actual english usage of the phrase, which omits
the negation completely :). (I could care less)
No, that's the American usage. The English usage is
"I couldn't care less", which has the advantage of
actually making sense.
--
Greg
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/pyth
On 16 dec, 18:38, rusi wrote:
> On Dec 16, 3:25 pm, Eelco wrote:
>
> > Pseudo-backwards compatibility with other
> > languages, I couldnt not care less for.
>
> Double negations n Goedelian situations have interesting implications
> (tho here its triple)
Heh. Well at least my extra (unintended)
On Dec 16, 3:25 pm, Eelco wrote:
> Pseudo-backwards compatibility with other
> languages, I couldnt not care less for.
Double negations n Goedelian situations have interesting implications
(tho here its triple)
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
On Dec 16, 6:30 am, alex23 wrote:
> On Dec 16, 3:01 pm, Chris Angelico wrote:
>
> > And I would be most sorry to see % renamed to mod in Python.
>
> > "Hello, %s! My favourite number is %d." mod ("Fred",42) # This just
> > looks wrong.
>
> Finally we can give this operator a more fitting name -
On Dec 16, 3:58 am, MRAB wrote:
> On 16/12/2011 02:14, alex23 wrote:
>
> > Eelco wrote:
> >> To tie it back in with python language design; all the more reason
> >> not to opt for pseudo-backwards compatibility. If python wants a
> >> remainder function, call it 'remainder'. Not 'rem', not 'mod',
On Dec 15, 2011 8:01 PM, "MRAB" wrote:
> Python has "def", "del", "int", "str", "len", and so on. "rem" or "mod"
> (Ada has both, I believe) would be in keeping with the language.
I think I would have to object to "rem" purely on the basis that it denotes
comments in BASIC.
--
http://mail.python
On Dec 16, 3:01 pm, Chris Angelico wrote:
> And I would be most sorry to see % renamed to mod in Python.
>
> "Hello, %s! My favourite number is %d." mod ("Fred",42) # This just
> looks wrong.
Finally we can give this operator a more fitting name - I propose
'inject' - and put an end to this ins
On Fri, Dec 16, 2011 at 1:58 PM, MRAB wrote:
> In financial circles it could be an operator for calculating
> percentages, eg. "5 % x" would be 5 percent of x.
>
> It's an oddity, but an established one. :-)
And I would be most sorry to see % renamed to mod in Python.
"Hello, %s! My favourite nu
On 16/12/2011 02:14, alex23 wrote:
Eelco wrote:
To tie it back in with python language design; all the more reason
not to opt for pseudo-backwards compatibility. If python wants a
remainder function, call it 'remainder'. Not 'rem', not 'mod', and
certainly not '%'.
Python has "def", "del", "i
Eelco wrote:
> To tie it back in with python language design; all the more reason not
> to opt for pseudo-backwards compatibility. If python wants a remainder
> function, call it 'remainder'. Not 'rem', not 'mod', and certainly not
> '%'.
Good luck with the PEP.
> Its the more pythonic way; a se
On 12/15/2011 6:04 AM, rusi wrote:
On Dec 15, 3:58 pm, Chris Angelico wrote:
On Thu, Dec 15, 2011 at 9:47 PM, Robert Kern wrote:
42 = 2 mod 5
2 = 42 mod 5
It might make more sense to programmers if you think of it as written:
42 = 2, mod 5
2 = 42, mod 5
Better, using ascii text, woul
rusi writes:
> On Dec 15, 3:58 pm, Chris Angelico wrote:
> > On Thu, Dec 15, 2011 at 9:47 PM, Robert Kern wrote:
> > > 42 = 2 mod 5
> > > 2 = 42 mod 5
> >
> > It might make more sense to programmers if you think of it as
> > written:
> >
> > 42 = 2, mod 5
> > 2 = 42, mod 5
> >
> > ChrisA
>
> Fo
On Dec 15, 11:56 am, rusi wrote:
> On Dec 15, 2:44 pm, Eelco wrote:
>
> > In other words, what logic needs is a better exception-handling
> > system, which completes the circle with programming languages quite
> > nicely. :)
>
> Cute... but dangerously recursive (if taken literally)
> Remember th
On Dec 15, 11:47 am, Robert Kern wrote:
> On 12/14/11 12:32 PM, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
>
> > On Wed, 14 Dec 2011 10:56:02 +0200, Jussi Piitulainen wrote:
> >> I'm not misunderstanding any argument. There was no argument. There was
> >> a blanket pronouncement that _in mathematics_ mod is not a bin
On Dec 15, 3:58 pm, Chris Angelico wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 15, 2011 at 9:47 PM, Robert Kern wrote:
> > 42 = 2 mod 5
> > 2 = 42 mod 5
>
> It might make more sense to programmers if you think of it as written:
>
> 42 = 2, mod 5
> 2 = 42, mod 5
>
> ChrisA
For the record I should say that the guy who
On Dec 15, 2:44 pm, Eelco wrote:
> In other words, what logic needs is a better exception-handling
> system, which completes the circle with programming languages quite
> nicely. :)
Cute... but dangerously recursive (if taken literally)
Remember that logic is the foundation of programming langua
On Thu, Dec 15, 2011 at 9:47 PM, Robert Kern wrote:
> 42 = 2 mod 5
> 2 = 42 mod 5
It might make more sense to programmers if you think of it as written:
42 = 2, mod 5
2 = 42, mod 5
ChrisA
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
On 12/14/11 12:32 PM, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
On Wed, 14 Dec 2011 10:56:02 +0200, Jussi Piitulainen wrote:
I'm not misunderstanding any argument. There was no argument. There was
a blanket pronouncement that _in mathematics_ mod is not a binary
operator. I should learn to challenge such pronoun
On Dec 15, 4:43 am, rusi wrote:
> On Dec 14, 10:15 pm, Eelco wrote:
>
> > 'Kindof' off-topic, but what the hell :).
>
>
> We keep having these debates -- so I wonder how off-topic it is...
> And so do famous
> CSists:http://research.microsoft.com/en-us/um/people/gurevich/opera/123.pdf
>
Well,
On Dec 14, 10:15 pm, Eelco wrote:
> 'Kindof' off-topic, but what the hell :).
We keep having these debates -- so I wonder how off-topic it is...
And so do famous CSists:
http://research.microsoft.com/en-us/um/people/gurevich/opera/123.pdf
:
:
> > Again, you are completely mis-representing the
On 12/14/2011 5:09 AM, Eelco wrote:
Arguably, the most elegant thing to do is to define integer division
and remainder as a single operation;
It actually is, as quotient and remainder are calculated together. The
microprocessors I know of expose this (as does Python). 'a divmod b'
puts the q
'Kindof' off-topic, but what the hell :).
On Dec 14, 5:13 pm, Arnaud Delobelle wrote:
> On 14 December 2011 12:33, Eelco wrote:
> > On 14 dec, 12:55, Arnaud Delobelle wrote:
> >> On 14 December 2011 07:49, Eelco wrote:
> >> > On Dec 14, 4:18 am, Steven D'Aprano >> > +comp.lang.pyt...@pearwood
On 14 December 2011 12:33, Eelco wrote:
> On 14 dec, 12:55, Arnaud Delobelle wrote:
>> On 14 December 2011 07:49, Eelco wrote:
>> > On Dec 14, 4:18 am, Steven D'Aprano > > +comp.lang.pyt...@pearwood.info> wrote:
>> >> > They might not be willing to define it, but as soon as we programmers
>> >>
On Wed, Dec 14, 2011 at 6:29 AM, Eelco wrote:
> On Dec 14, 1:38 pm, Steven D'Aprano +comp.lang.pyt...@pearwood.info> wrote:
>> On Wed, 14 Dec 2011 02:09:32 -0800, Eelco wrote:
>> > Arguably, the most elegant thing to do is to define integer division and
>> > remainder as a single operation; which
On Thu, Dec 15, 2011 at 12:29 AM, Eelco wrote:
> On Dec 14, 1:38 pm, Steven D'Aprano +comp.lang.pyt...@pearwood.info> wrote:
>> That would be:
>>
>> >>> divmod(17, 5)
>>
>> (3, 2)
>
> Cool; if only it were in the math module id be totally happy.
That's easily solved.
import math
math.divmod=div
On Dec 14, 1:38 pm, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
> On Wed, 14 Dec 2011 02:09:32 -0800, Eelco wrote:
> > Arguably, the most elegant thing to do is to define integer division and
> > remainder as a single operation; which is not only the logical thing to
> > do mathematically, but might work really well p
Steven D'Aprano writes:
> On Wed, 14 Dec 2011 10:56:02 +0200, Jussi Piitulainen wrote:
> > I'm not misunderstanding any argument. There was no
> > argument. There was a blanket pronouncement that _in mathematics_
> > mod is not a binary operator. I should learn to challenge such
> > pronouncements
rusi writes:
> On Dec 14, 1:56 pm, Jussi Piitulainen
> wrote:
> >
> > Is someone saying that _division_ is not defined because -42 div -5 is
> > somehow both 9 and 8? Hm, yes, I see that someone might. The two
> > operations, div and rem, need to be defined together.
> ---
On 14 dec, 13:22, Jussi Piitulainen wrote:
> > > Is someone saying that _division_ is not defined because -42 div
> > > -5 is somehow both 9 and 8? Hm, yes, I see that someone might. The
> > > two operations, div and rem, need to be defined together.
>
> > > (There is no way to make remainder a bi
On Wed, 14 Dec 2011 02:09:32 -0800, Eelco wrote:
> Arguably, the most elegant thing to do is to define integer division and
> remainder as a single operation; which is not only the logical thing to
> do mathematically, but might work really well programmatically too.
>
> The semantics of python d
On 14 dec, 12:55, Arnaud Delobelle wrote:
> On 14 December 2011 07:49, Eelco wrote:
> > On Dec 14, 4:18 am, Steven D'Aprano > +comp.lang.pyt...@pearwood.info> wrote:
> >> > They might not be willing to define it, but as soon as we programmers
> >> > do, well, we did.
>
> >> > Having studied the
On Wed, 14 Dec 2011 10:56:02 +0200, Jussi Piitulainen wrote:
> Steven D'Aprano writes:
>> On Mon, 12 Dec 2011 09:29:11 -0800, Eelco wrote:
>>
>> [quoting Jussi Piitulainen ]
>> >> They recognize modular arithmetic but for some reason insist that
>> >> there is no such _binary operation_. But as I
Eelco writes:
> On 14 dec, 09:56, Jussi Piitulainen wrote:
> > But I think the argument "there are several such functions,
> > therefore, _in mathematics_, there is no such function" is its own
> > caricature.
>
> Indeed. Obtaining a well defined function is just a matter of
> picking a convention
On 14 December 2011 07:49, Eelco wrote:
> On Dec 14, 4:18 am, Steven D'Aprano +comp.lang.pyt...@pearwood.info> wrote:
>> > They might not be willing to define it, but as soon as we programmers
>> > do, well, we did.
>>
>> > Having studied the contemporary philosophy of mathematics, their concern
On Wed, Dec 14, 2011 at 10:47 PM, rusi wrote:
> `quot` is integer division truncated toward zero, while the result of
> `div` is truncated toward negative infinity.
All these problems just because of negative numbers. They ought never
to have been invented.
At least nobody rounds toward positive
On Dec 14, 1:56 pm, Jussi Piitulainen
wrote:
>
> Is someone saying that _division_ is not defined because -42 div -5 is
> somehow both 9 and 8? Hm, yes, I see that someone might. The two
> operations, div and rem, need to be defined together.
-
Haskell defines a quot-re
On 14 dec, 09:56, Jussi Piitulainen wrote:
> Steven D'Aprano writes:
> > On Mon, 12 Dec 2011 09:29:11 -0800, Eelco wrote:
>
> > [quoting Jussi Piitulainen ]
> > >> They recognize modular arithmetic but for some reason insist that
> > >> there is no such _binary operation_. But as I said, I don't
>
Steven D'Aprano writes:
> On Mon, 12 Dec 2011 09:29:11 -0800, Eelco wrote:
>
> [quoting Jussi Piitulainen ]
> >> They recognize modular arithmetic but for some reason insist that
> >> there is no such _binary operation_. But as I said, I don't
> >> understand their concern. (Except the related con
On Dec 14, 4:18 am, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
> > They might not be willing to define it, but as soon as we programmers
> > do, well, we did.
>
> > Having studied the contemporary philosophy of mathematics, their concern
> > is probably that in their minds, mathematics is whatever some dead guy
> > s
On Mon, 12 Dec 2011 09:29:11 -0800, Eelco wrote:
[quoting Jussi Piitulainen ]
>> They recognize modular arithmetic but for some reason insist that there
>> is no such _binary operation_. But as I said, I don't understand their
>> concern. (Except the related concern about some programming language
45 matches
Mail list logo
