On Oct 14, 9:22 pm, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
> In message
> <12fcd67a-774d-42f0-851a-9c3497df9...@s24g2000pri.googlegroups.com>, Steve
>
> Howell wrote:
> > On Oct 14, 4:09 pm, Gregory Ewing wrote:
> >> Steve Howell wrote:
>
> >> Maybe "analogy" or "similarity" would be a better word here.
>
>
In message
<12fcd67a-774d-42f0-851a-9c3497df9...@s24g2000pri.googlegroups.com>, Steve
Howell wrote:
> On Oct 14, 4:09 pm, Gregory Ewing wrote:
>> Steve Howell wrote:
>>
>> Maybe "analogy" or "similarity" would be a better word here.
>
> Agreed. "Analogy" seems particularly appropriate.
Excep
On Oct 14, 4:09 pm, Gregory Ewing wrote:
> Steve Howell wrote:
> > That was the original context of my comment. The term "symmetry" gets
> > used a couple times in that PEP, and I think we're in violent
> > agreement that the concept of "symmetry" is wishy-washy at best.
>
> > Here is just one ex
Steve Howell wrote:
That was the original context of my comment. The term "symmetry" gets
used a couple times in that PEP, and I think we're in violent
agreement that the concept of "symmetry" is wishy-washy at best.
Here is just one example from the PEP:
The symmetry between "if x in y
On Oct 13, 7:25 pm, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
> In message
> , Steve
>
> Howell wrote:
> > I guess a lot depends on how you define "symmetry." Is your
> > definition of "symmetry" equivalent to your definition of
> > "orthogonality"?
>
> No idea. It’s just that the example being discussed in thi
In message
, Steve
Howell wrote:
> I guess a lot depends on how you define "symmetry." Is your
> definition of "symmetry" equivalent to your definition of
> "orthogonality"?
No idea. It’s just that the example being discussed in this thread seemed to
come under the old term “orthogonality”, so
On Oct 13, 4:27 pm, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
> In message
> <57a322df-8e42-4da5-af96-0c21c5733...@b14g2000pro.googlegroups.com>, Steve
>
> Howell wrote:
> > Lawrence, I was actually talking about symmetry, not orthogonality.
>
> So what’s the difference?
I don't think there's a big difference b
In message
<57a322df-8e42-4da5-af96-0c21c5733...@b14g2000pro.googlegroups.com>, Steve
Howell wrote:
> Lawrence, I was actually talking about symmetry, not orthogonality.
So what’s the difference?
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
On 13/10/2010 02:40, Steve Howell wrote:
On Oct 12, 5:54 pm, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
In message, D'Arcy
J.M. Cain wrote:
On Tue, 12 Oct 2010 23:34 +1300
Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
Symmetry is always a tricky balance in programming languages.
Is that what we used to call “orthogonali
On Oct 12, 5:54 pm, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
> In message , D'Arcy
>
> J.M. Cain wrote:
> > On Tue, 12 Oct 2010 23:34 +1300
> > Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>
> >>> Symmetry is always a tricky balance in programming languages.
>
> >> Is that what we used to call “orthogonality”?
>
> > No, orthogo
In message , D'Arcy
J.M. Cain wrote:
> On Tue, 12 Oct 2010 23:34 +1300
> Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>
>>> Symmetry is always a tricky balance in programming languages.
>>
>> Is that what we used to call “orthogonality”?
>
> No, orthogonality is something else. "Orthogonal" means "perpendicula
On Tue, 12 Oct 2010 23:34 +1300
Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
> > Symmetry is always a tricky balance in programming languages.
>
> Is that what we used to call “orthogonality”?
No, orthogonality is something else. "Orthogonal" means "perpendicular
to." See the Wikipedia article for a discussion
In message
, Steve
Howell wrote:
> Symmetry is always a tricky balance in programming languages.
Is that what we used to call “orthogonality”?
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
On Oct 11, 5:11 pm, Gregory Ewing wrote:
> Robert Kern wrote:
> > The reasoning for this decision is spelled out in the PEP introducing
> > the iterator feature:
>
> > http://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0234/
>
> There's also the question of whether 'if x in dict' should
> compare keys only or bo
Robert Kern wrote:
The reasoning for this decision is spelled out in the PEP introducing
the iterator feature:
http://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0234/
There's also the question of whether 'if x in dict' should
compare keys only or both keys and values. This was also
hotly debated back whe
On 10/11/10 6:11 AM, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
In message<8h9ob9fku...@mid.individual.net>, Gregory Ewing wrote:
Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
Did you know that applying the “set” or “frozenset” functions to a dict
return a set of its keys?
Seems a bit dodgy, somehow.
That's just a consequ
Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
In message <8h9ob9fku...@mid.individual.net>, Gregory Ewing wrote:
Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
Did you know that applying the “set” or “frozenset” functions to a dict
return a set of its keys?
Seems a bit dodgy, somehow.
That's just a consequence of the fact tha
In message <8h9ob9fku...@mid.individual.net>, Gregory Ewing wrote:
> Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>
>> Did you know that applying the “set” or “frozenset” functions to a dict
>> return a set of its keys?
>
>> Seems a bit dodgy, somehow.
>
> That's just a consequence of the fact that dicts produce
Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
Did you know that applying the “set” or “frozenset” functions to a dict
return a set of its keys?
Seems a bit dodgy, somehow.
That's just a consequence of the fact that dicts produce their
keys when iterated over, and the set constructor iterates over
whatever you
In message <87bp79qdhk@rudin.co.uk>, Paul Rudin wrote:
> Certainly you can model a set as a dictionary, but that's likely to be
> less efficient than using a set, and quite possibly you'll need to roll
> your own operations on your sets, whereas they're provided for the built
> in implementati
On 10/5/2010 3:39 AM, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
Sets aren't an alternative to dictionaries. They have a completely
different purpose.
A dict/mapping is a specialized set -- a set of ordered pairs in which
each first member (the 'key') only appears once as a first member. The
set union of two ma
On 10/5/2010 3:01 AM, Ian Kelly wrote:
self._pos = {predicate: {object: {subject: None}}}
That's a bit ugly because the None serves no purpose here; the value
associated with the subject has no meaning in this context.
This is what we did in Python before sets were added.
> It also
useless
> Semantic web. I did get a bit confused in reading about the concept of
> sets in python and why you would use them instead of a dictionary for
Sets are faster and more convenient to do intersections, unions,
differences. They also use less space than dictionaries. Finally they
also help conveyi
"B. M. Whealton" writes:
> I did get a bit confused in reading about the concept of sets in
> python and why you would use them instead of a dictionary for example.
Use a set when something is naturally modelled as a set... it's a
collection of unordered objects that you can test for membership,
On Mon, 04 Oct 2010 22:31:50 -0400, B. M. Whealton wrote:
> I did get a bit confused in reading about the concept of
> sets in python and why you would use them instead of a dictionary for
> example.
Why would you use a spoon instead of a paper clip? Why would you use a
hat-stand instead of a pe
On Tue, Oct 5, 2010 at 12:01 AM, Ian Kelly wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 4, 2010 at 8:31 PM, B. M. Whealton
> wrote:
>>
>> self._pos = {predicate:{object:set([subject])}}
>>
>> We have the first dictionary keyed off the first term, the second
>> dictionary keyed off the second term, and the set cont
On Mon, Oct 4, 2010 at 8:31 PM, B. M. Whealton <
bwheal...@futurewavedesigns.com> wrote:
> self._pos = {predicate:{object:set([subject])}}
>
> We have the first dictionary keyed off the first term, the second
> dictionary keyed off the second term, and the set containing the third
> terms(no
Hello all,
So, I started learning python just recently. I got inspired
by a project that related to the semantic web. I can see why this would
be a language chosen for the applications that help to build the
semantic web. It is interesting to see that indeed python does have
structures
28 matches
Mail list logo
