Rick Johnson :
> If history has taught us anything, it is that, intelligence will
> *ALWAYS* defeat brute strength, and that the *MOST* intelligent
> societies are consequently those who possess both a humbled respect
> for freedom, and a vile rejection of oppression.
Impressive. With such a high
On Thursday, January 8, 2015 7:11:45 AM UTC-6, Albert van der Horst wrote:
> Rick Johnson wrote:
> >Widespread centralized free schooling did not exists until
> >almost the 1900's. Heck, looking back at American history,
> >the world *SHOULD* be in awe. To go from a rag-tag
> >illiterate bunch of c
In article ,
Rick Johnson wrote:
>On Saturday, January 3, 2015 4:39:25 AM UTC-6, Mark Lawrence wrote:
>
>> I used to get very confused watching the old westerns. The child when
>> talking about "more" and "paw" wasn't referring to possibly an
>> adjective, noun or adverb and a part of an animal,
On Sunday, January 4, 2015 7:19:23 AM UTC-6, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
> Dear gods, I know I'm going to regret this... [...]
Yes, but *NOT* for the reason you think!
With all the intellectual and philosophical *GOLD* i have
dropped into this thread (and others), the only response you
can muster is t
Dear gods, I know I'm going to regret this...
Mark Lawrence wrote:
> On 03/01/2015 17:53, Rick Johnson wrote:
>> On Saturday, January 3, 2015 4:39:25 AM UTC-6, Mark Lawrence wrote:
>>
>>> I used to get very confused watching the old westerns. The child when
>>> talking about "more" and "paw" w
On 03/01/2015 17:53, Rick Johnson wrote:
On Saturday, January 3, 2015 4:39:25 AM UTC-6, Mark Lawrence wrote:
I used to get very confused watching the old westerns. The child when
talking about "more" and "paw" wasn't referring to possibly an
adjective, noun or adverb and a part of an animal, b
On Saturday, January 3, 2015 4:39:25 AM UTC-6, Mark Lawrence wrote:
> I used to get very confused watching the old westerns. The child when
> talking about "more" and "paw" wasn't referring to possibly an
> adjective, noun or adverb and a part of an animal, but what we would
> refer to in the
On 03/01/2015 10:16, Chris Angelico wrote:
On Sat, Jan 3, 2015 at 9:01 PM, Steven D'Aprano
wrote:
Chris Angelico wrote:
On Sat, Jan 3, 2015 at 4:54 AM, Rustom Mody wrote:
And how does this strange language called English fits into your rules
and (no) special cases scheme?
http://www.omgf
On Sat, Jan 3, 2015 at 9:01 PM, Steven D'Aprano
wrote:
> Chris Angelico wrote:
>
>> On Sat, Jan 3, 2015 at 4:54 AM, Rustom Mody wrote:
>>> And how does this strange language called English fits into your rules
>>> and (no) special cases scheme?
>>>
>>>
> http://www.omgfacts.com/lists/3989/Did-you
Chris Angelico wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 3, 2015 at 4:54 AM, Rustom Mody wrote:
>> And how does this strange language called English fits into your rules
>> and (no) special cases scheme?
>>
>>
http://www.omgfacts.com/lists/3989/Did-you-know-that-ough-can-be-pronounced-TEN-DIFFERENT-WAYS
>
> I learne
Chris Angelico wrote:
On Sat, Jan 3, 2015 at 4:15 AM, Rick Johnson
wrote:
Those who refuse to be a part of the modern world can
suffer the troubles of forking the code into their ancient
systems -- and i will not loose any sleep over the issue.
By the way, is this "loose" part of your "moder
On Friday, January 2, 2015 11:54:49 AM UTC-6, Rustom Mody wrote:
> And how does this strange language called English fits
> into your rules and (no) special cases scheme?
Oh i'm not blind to the many warts of the English language,
for it has many undesirable qualities indeed, however, it
*is* the
On Sat, Jan 3, 2015 at 4:15 AM, Rick Johnson
wrote:
> Those who refuse to be a part of the modern world can
> suffer the troubles of forking the code into their ancient
> systems -- and i will not loose any sleep over the issue.
By the way, is this "loose" part of your "modern world", or is that
On Sat, Jan 3, 2015 at 4:54 AM, Rustom Mody wrote:
> And how does this strange language called English fits into your rules
> and (no) special cases scheme?
>
> http://www.omgfacts.com/lists/3989/Did-you-know-that-ough-can-be-pronounced-TEN-DIFFERENT-WAYS
I learned six, which is no more than ther
On Friday, January 2, 2015 10:45:17 PM UTC+5:30, Rick Johnson wrote:
> On Friday, January 2, 2015 8:01:50 AM UTC-6, Chris Angelico wrote:
> > I'm not sure that I'd want to. Handling case insensitivity is fine
> > when you're restricting everything to ASCII, but it's rather harder
> > when you allow
On Friday, January 2, 2015 8:01:50 AM UTC-6, Chris Angelico wrote:
> I'm not sure that I'd want to. Handling case insensitivity is fine
> when you're restricting everything to ASCII, but it's rather harder
> when you allow all of Unicode. For instance, U+0069 and U+0049 would
> be considered case-i
On 02/01/2015 14:01, Chris Angelico wrote:
On Sat, Jan 3, 2015 at 12:51 AM, Ervin Hegedüs wrote:
it may be at the concrete example in OP is better the glob - but
I think in most cases the re modul gives more flexibility, I mean
the glob modul can handle the upper/lower chars?
I'm not sure tha
On Sat, Jan 3, 2015 at 1:10 AM, Ervin Hegedüs wrote:
> I didn't want to solve the OP's problem - I just gave an idea.
> Here was another possible solution, I think the OP can choose the
> right one :)
Heh. Fortunately, even in cases where the OP can't recognize the right
choice, the rest of pytho
Hi Chris,
On Sat, Jan 03, 2015 at 01:01:31AM +1100, Chris Angelico wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 3, 2015 at 12:51 AM, Ervin Hegedüs wrote:
> > it may be at the concrete example in OP is better the glob - but
> > I think in most cases the re modul gives more flexibility, I mean
> > the glob modul can handl
On Sat, Jan 3, 2015 at 12:51 AM, Ervin Hegedüs wrote:
> it may be at the concrete example in OP is better the glob - but
> I think in most cases the re modul gives more flexibility, I mean
> the glob modul can handle the upper/lower chars?
I'm not sure that I'd want to. Handling case insensitivit
Hi,
On Fri, Jan 02, 2015 at 11:59:17PM +1100, Chris Angelico wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 2, 2015 at 11:36 PM, Ervin Hegedüs wrote:
> >> And worse, the given re would delete a file named "uni" which doesn't
> >> sound ANYTHING like what the OP wanted :-)
> >
> > yes, you're right - I've missed out a "."
On Fri, Jan 2, 2015 at 11:36 PM, Ervin Hegedüs wrote:
>> And worse, the given re would delete a file named "uni" which doesn't
>> sound ANYTHING like what the OP wanted :-)
>
> yes, you're right - I've missed out a "." before the "*". :)
Another reason to avoid regexps when you don't actually nee
Hi,
On Fri, Jan 02, 2015 at 05:35:52AM -0600, Tim Chase wrote:
> On 2015-01-02 21:21, Cameron Simpson wrote:
> > >def unlinkFiles():
> > >dirname = "/path/to/dir"
> > >for f in os.listdir(dirname):
> > >if re.match("^unix*$", f):
> > >os.remove(os.path.join(dirname, f))
On 2015-01-02 21:21, Cameron Simpson wrote:
> >def unlinkFiles():
> >dirname = "/path/to/dir"
> >for f in os.listdir(dirname):
> >if re.match("^unix*$", f):
> >os.remove(os.path.join(dirname, f))
>
> That is a very expensive way to check the filename in this
> particula
On 2015-01-02 10:21, Cameron Simpson wrote:
On 02Jan2015 10:00, Ervin Hegedüs wrote:
On Thu, Jan 01, 2015 at 05:13:31PM -0600, Anthony Papillion wrote:
I have a function I'm writing to delete wildcarded files in a directory.
I tried this:
def unlinkFiles():
os.remove("/home/anthony/backup
Hi,
On Fri, Jan 02, 2015 at 09:21:53PM +1100, Cameron Simpson wrote:
> On 02Jan2015 10:00, Ervin Hegedüs wrote:
> >On Thu, Jan 01, 2015 at 05:13:31PM -0600, Anthony Papillion wrote:
> >>I have a function I'm writing to delete wildcarded files in a directory.
> >>I tried this:
> >>
> >>def unlinkF
On 02Jan2015 10:00, Ervin Hegedüs wrote:
On Thu, Jan 01, 2015 at 05:13:31PM -0600, Anthony Papillion wrote:
I have a function I'm writing to delete wildcarded files in a directory.
I tried this:
def unlinkFiles():
os.remove("/home/anthony/backup/unix*")
This doesn't seem to work because i
Hi,
On Thu, Jan 01, 2015 at 05:13:31PM -0600, Anthony Papillion wrote:
> Hi Everyone,
>
> I have a function I'm writing to delete wildcarded files in a directory.
> I tried this:
>
> def unlinkFiles():
> os.remove("/home/anthony/backup/unix*")
>
> This doesn't seem to work because it's a wi
Anthony Papillion writes:
> I have a function I'm writing to delete wildcarded files in a
> directory.
Is the brute-force method (explicit, easy to understand) good enough?
import os
import os.path
import glob
paths_to_remove = glob.glob(
os.path.join([
This doesn't seem to work because it's a wildcard filename. What is the
proper way to delete files using wildcards?
You could try glob[1] and then iterate over collected list (it also
gives you a chance to handle errors like unreadable/not owned by you files).
[1] https://docs.python.org/2/
Hi Everyone,
I have a function I'm writing to delete wildcarded files in a directory.
I tried this:
def unlinkFiles():
os.remove("/home/anthony/backup/unix*")
This doesn't seem to work because it's a wildcard filename. What is the
proper way to delete files using wildcards?
Thanks,
Anthony
31 matches
Mail list logo
