On Feb 29, 8:59 am, Steve Holden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Steve Holden wrote:
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > [...]
> > > If you want a computer language to model human thought, then is there
> >> even such thing as subclassing?
>
> > Kindly try to limit your ramblings to answerable questions
Steve Holden wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> [...]
> > If you want a computer language to model human thought, then is there
>> even such thing as subclassing?
>
> Kindly try to limit your ramblings to answerable questions. Without keen
> insight into the function of the mind that is current
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[...]
> If you want a computer language to model human thought, then is there
> even such thing as subclassing?
Kindly try to limit your ramblings to answerable questions. Without keen
insight into the function of the mind that is currently available to the
psychologica
On Feb 28, 3:18 pm, "Terry Reedy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> | But the default behavior may become the "true" copy, that seems
> | simpler for a newbie to grasp.
>
> To me, it is the opposite. If I say
> gvr = Guido_van_Russum # o
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
| But the default behavior may become the "true" copy, that seems
| simpler for a newbie to grasp.
To me, it is the opposite. If I say
gvr = Guido_van_Russum # or any natural language equivalent
do you really think a copy is made?
Cop
On Feb 28, 8:40 am, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> But the default behavior may become the "true" copy, that seems
> simpler for a newbie to grasp. The language then may give a tool to
> use references too (like passing arrays to functions in Pascal, you
> can use "var" for pass-by-reference reference)
Steven D'Aprano:
>the readability of your posts will increase a LOT if you break it up into
>paragraphs,<
You are right, I'll try to do it (when I go in flux state I write
quickly, but I tend to produce long paragraphs).
>The thing is, make-another-copy and make-another-reference are semantica
On Feb 28, 12:46 am, Steven D'Aprano <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
cybersource.com.au> wrote:
> By the way bearophile... the readability of your posts will increase a
> LOT if you break it up into paragraphs, rather than use one or two giant
> run-on paragraphs.
>
> My comments follow.
>
> On Tue, 26 Feb 2008
By the way bearophile... the readability of your posts will increase a
LOT if you break it up into paragraphs, rather than use one or two giant
run-on paragraphs.
My comments follow.
On Tue, 26 Feb 2008 15:22:16 -0800, bearophileHUGS wrote:
> Steven D'Aprano:
>> Usability for beginners is a
On Feb 26, 5:22 pm, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Steven D'Aprano:
>
> > Usability for beginners is a good thing, but not at the expense of
> > teaching them the right way to do things. Insisting on explicit requests
> > before copying data is a *good* thing. If it's a gotcha for newbies,
> > that's j
Steven D'Aprano:
> Usability for beginners is a good thing, but not at the expense of
> teaching them the right way to do things. Insisting on explicit requests
> before copying data is a *good* thing. If it's a gotcha for newbies,
> that's just a sign that newbies don't know the Right Way from the
On 26 Feb., 14:36, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> A possible solution to this problem is "optional delimiters". What's
> the path of less resistance to implement such "optional delimiters"?
> Is to use comments. For example: #} or #: or something similar.
> If you use such pairs of symbols in a systema
On Tue, 26 Feb 2008 05:36:57 -0800, bearophileHUGS wrote:
> So it can be invented a language
> (that may be slower than Python, but many tricks and a JIT may help to
> reduce this problem) where
>
> a = [1, 2, 3]
> b = a
> Makes b a copy-on-write copy of a, that is without reference semantics.
U
On Feb 26, 11:27 am, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
>
> > It's Unpythonic to compile a machine instruction out of a script. But
> > maybe in the right situations, with the right constraints on a
> > function, certain chunks could be native, almost like a mini-
> > compilation. How
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:
> It's Unpythonic to compile a machine instruction out of a script. But
> maybe in the right situations, with the right constraints on a
> function, certain chunks could be native, almost like a mini-
> compilation. How much machine instruction do you want to support?
This lan
On Feb 26, 9:45 am, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
>
> > Why not b = copyonwrite( a )?
> > Subclass the interpreter-- make your own session.
>
> Your idea may work, but I am talking about a new language (with some
> small differences, not a revolution). Making such language efficient
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:
> Why not b = copyonwrite( a )?
> Subclass the interpreter-- make your own session.
Your idea may work, but I am talking about a new language (with some
small differences, not a revolution). Making such language efficient
enough may require to add some complex tricks, copy-on-wr
On Feb 26, 7:36 am, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> This is the best praise of semantic indentation I have read so far, by
> Chris
> Okasaki:http://okasaki.blogspot.com/2008/02/in-praise-of-mandatory-indentatio...
>
> A quotation:
>
> >Imagine my surprise when I started teaching this language and found
This is the best praise of semantic indentation I have read so far, by
Chris Okasaki:
http://okasaki.blogspot.com/2008/02/in-praise-of-mandatory-indentation-for.html
A quotation:
>Imagine my surprise when I started teaching this language and found the
>students picking it up faster than any langu
19 matches
Mail list logo
