Am 29.03.16 um 08:21 schrieb Rustom Mody:
Dijkstra liked to point out that CS was backward in America compared to Europe
because in Europe they used 'store' but Americans used anthropomorphism like
memory
Now given that store can mean -- among other things --
- room where I dump stuff
- shop wh
Rustom Mody :
> And my mum made the strange remark: "You guys use all the words that I
> know. And you make them into sentences that have no meaning at all."
That's what I think when I hear Estonian spoken.
> My own finding is that repurposing old words to new concepts causes
> more confusion an
On Tuesday, March 29, 2016 at 8:16:12 AM UTC+5:30, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
> Steven D'Aprano writes:
>
> > On Mon, 28 Mar 2016 06:51 pm, Jussi Piitulainen wrote:
> >
> >> Ben Bacarisse writes:
> >>
> >>> It's shame that anonymous functions (for that's what's being returned
> >>> here -- a function w
On Tue, Mar 29, 2016 at 3:45 PM, Marko Rauhamaa wrote:
> Chris Angelico :
>
>> On Tue, Mar 29, 2016 at 12:40 AM, Marko Rauhamaa wrote:
>>> Dan Sommers :
>>>
On Mon, 28 Mar 2016 11:58:54 +0300, Marko Rauhamaa wrote:
> As for Python, I don't feel a great need for anonymous functions.
Steven D'Aprano :
> On Tue, 29 Mar 2016 08:40 am, Chris Angelico wrote:
>
>> On Tue, Mar 29, 2016 at 12:40 AM, Marko Rauhamaa wrote:
>>> Dan Sommers :
>>>
On Mon, 28 Mar 2016 11:58:54 +0300, Marko Rauhamaa wrote:
> As for Python, I don't feel a great need for anonymous functions.
> H
Chris Angelico :
> On Tue, Mar 29, 2016 at 12:40 AM, Marko Rauhamaa wrote:
>> Dan Sommers :
>>
>>> On Mon, 28 Mar 2016 11:58:54 +0300, Marko Rauhamaa wrote:
>>>
As for Python, I don't feel a great need for anonymous functions.
However, I keep running into a need for anonymous classes, o
On Tue, Mar 29, 2016 at 1:45 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
> If functions were defined
>
> fun f(x): return x * x
>
> then an anonymous function could be written as a function definition but
> the name
>
> fun (x): return x * x
>
> I suppose you could do that even with "def" but it's a bit less
> m
Steven D'Aprano writes:
> On Mon, 28 Mar 2016 06:51 pm, Jussi Piitulainen wrote:
>
>> Ben Bacarisse writes:
>>
>>> It's shame that anonymous functions (for that's what's being returned
>>> here -- a function with no name) were born of a subject that used
>>> arbitrary Greek letters for things.
On Tuesday, March 29, 2016 at 5:11:02 AM UTC+5:30, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
> On Mon, 28 Mar 2016 06:51 pm, Jussi Piitulainen wrote:
>
> > Ben Bacarisse writes:
> >
> >> It's shame that anonymous functions (for that's what's being returned
> >> here -- a function with no name) were born of a subjec
On Tue, Mar 29, 2016 at 10:50 AM, Random832 wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 28, 2016, at 19:40, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
>> Not to mention "Monad". I don't think *anyone* knows what a Monad is ;-)
>
> A monad is just a monoid in the category of endofunctors; what's the
> problem?
>
> Well, someone had to say i
On Mon, Mar 28, 2016, at 19:40, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
> Not to mention "Monad". I don't think *anyone* knows what a Monad is ;-)
A monad is just a monoid in the category of endofunctors; what's the
problem?
Well, someone had to say it.
--
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
On Mon, 28 Mar 2016 06:51 pm, Jussi Piitulainen wrote:
> Ben Bacarisse writes:
>
>> It's shame that anonymous functions (for that's what's being returned
>> here -- a function with no name) were born of a subject that used
>> arbitrary Greek letters for things. We seem stuck with the mysterious
On Tue, Mar 29, 2016 at 9:52 AM, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
> That would be called "type" :-)
>
> type(name, bases, namespace) returns a new class:
>
>
> py> C = type("MyClass", (object,), {'foo': 1})
> py> C
>
> py> C.foo
> 1
Yeah, but to do that in a single expression, you need to have all the
fun
On Tue, 29 Mar 2016 08:40 am, Chris Angelico wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 29, 2016 at 12:40 AM, Marko Rauhamaa wrote:
>> Dan Sommers :
>>
>>> On Mon, 28 Mar 2016 11:58:54 +0300, Marko Rauhamaa wrote:
>>>
As for Python, I don't feel a great need for anonymous functions.
However, I keep running i
On Tue, Mar 29, 2016 at 12:40 AM, Marko Rauhamaa wrote:
> Dan Sommers :
>
>> On Mon, 28 Mar 2016 11:58:54 +0300, Marko Rauhamaa wrote:
>>
>>> As for Python, I don't feel a great need for anonymous functions.
>>> However, I keep running into a need for anonymous classes, or,
>>> rather, classless o
Dan Sommers :
> On Mon, 28 Mar 2016 11:58:54 +0300, Marko Rauhamaa wrote:
>
>> As for Python, I don't feel a great need for anonymous functions.
>> However, I keep running into a need for anonymous classes, or,
>> rather, classless objects. Not a biggie. I just create a one-off
>> inner class and
On Mon, 28 Mar 2016 11:58:54 +0300, Marko Rauhamaa wrote:
> As for Python, I don't feel a great need for anonymous functions.
> However, I keep running into a need for anonymous classes, or, rather,
> classless objects. Not a biggie. I just create a one-off inner class
> and instantiate it, but I
Jussi Piitulainen :
> Ben Bacarisse writes:
>> It's shame that anonymous functions (for that's what's being returned
>> here -- a function with no name) were born of a subject that used
>> arbitrary Greek letters for things. We seem stuck with the mysterious
>> but meaningless "lambda" for a very
Ben Bacarisse writes:
> It's shame that anonymous functions (for that's what's being returned
> here -- a function with no name) were born of a subject that used
> arbitrary Greek letters for things. We seem stuck with the mysterious
> but meaningless "lambda" for a very simple and useful idea.
Richard Riehle writes:
> Several months ago, I posted a question regarding how to create a list
> of functions.
> I realize that this seems trivial to many experience Pythonistas. But
> it might prove useful for those who are relative newcomers to the
> language. In any case,
Hi Richard,
On 27/03/16 20:38, Richard Riehle wrote:
I realize that this seems trivial to many experience Pythonistas. But it might
prove useful for those who are relative newcomers
Thanks for sharing your solution (people finding the original question
because it happens to match their own
Several months ago, I posted a question regarding how to create a list of
functions. I quickly solved the problem on my own, but I am just now getting
around to sharing my solution. It was actually quite simple, and also quite
useful for the problem I had at hand. Below is an example of one
On Sunday, December 13, 2015 at 9:26:52 AM UTC-8, Ganesh Pal wrote:
> Hi Team,
>
> Iam on linux and python 2.7 . I have a bunch of functions which I
> have run sequentially .
> I have put them in a list and Iam calling the functions in the list as
> shown below , this works fine for me , please
On Mon, Dec 14, 2015 at 1:43 PM, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
> Why do people do this?
>
> "Hi, here's a cake a made earlier, I think it tastes really nice. What do
> you think?"
>
> "That's not a cake. It's a bowl of mud with a cherry on top. Where is the
> actual cake?"
Steven, haven't you ever had a
On Mon, 14 Dec 2015 04:26 am, Ganesh Pal wrote:
> Hi Team,
>
> Iam on linux and python 2.7 . I have a bunch of functions which I
> have run sequentially .
> I have put them in a list and Iam calling the functions in the list as
> shown below , this works fine for me ,
No it doesn't. It doesn
On 2015-12-13, Ganesh Pal wrote:
> Hi Team,
>
> Iam on linux and python 2.7 . I have a bunch of functions which I
> have run sequentially . I have put them in a list and Iam calling the
> functions in the list as shown below , this works fine for me ,
> please share your opinion/views on the same
please share your
> opinion/views on the same
>
>
> Sample code :
>
> def print1():
> print "one"
>
> def print2():
> print "two"
>
> def print3():
> print "three"
>
> print_test = [print1(),print2(),print3()] //call
Ganesh Pal wrote:
> Hi Team,
>
> Iam on linux and python 2.7 . I have a bunch of functions which I
> have run sequentially .
> I have put them in a list and Iam calling the functions in the list as
> shown below , this works fine for me , please share your
> opinion/views on the same
>
>
> S
On 13/12/2015 17:26, Ganesh Pal wrote:
Iam on linux and python 2.7 . I have a bunch of functions which I
have run sequentially .
I have put them in a list and Iam calling the functions in the list as
shown below , this works fine for me , please share your
opinion/views on the same
Sample c
Hi Team,
Iam on linux and python 2.7 . I have a bunch of functions which I
have run sequentially .
I have put them in a list and Iam calling the functions in the list as
shown below , this works fine for me , please share your
opinion/views on the same
Sample code :
def print1():
print "
On Friday, August 30, 2013 8:36:40 AM UTC+2, alex23 wrote:
> On 30/08/2013 4:17 PM, fp2...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > On Wednesday, August 28, 2013 8:50:53 PM UTC+2, Josh English wrote:
>
> >> def compose(*funcs):
>
> >> for func in funcs:
>
> >> if not callable(func):
>
> >>
On Friday, August 30, 2013 8:23:44 AM UTC+2, alex23 wrote:
> On 30/08/2013 4:14 PM, fp2...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > For this purpose however, I suspect that a named function with a proper
> > docstring that can be imported and reused over and over again is probably
> > more appropriate than a lamb
On 30/08/2013 4:17 PM, fp2...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wednesday, August 28, 2013 8:50:53 PM UTC+2, Josh English wrote:
def compose(*funcs):
for func in funcs:
if not callable(func):
raise ValueError('Must pass callable functions')
Imho still, the ValueError you are rais
On 30/08/2013 4:14 PM, fp2...@gmail.com wrote:
For this purpose however, I suspect that a named function with a proper
docstring that can be imported and reused over and over again is probably more
appropriate than a lambda
Given that in Chris' example the lambda was returned from a factory,
On Wednesday, August 28, 2013 8:50:53 PM UTC+2, Josh English wrote:
> Reduce tricks are nice, but I prefer clarity sometimes:
>
>
>
> def double(x):
>
> return x*2
>
>
>
> def add3(x):
>
> return x+3
>
>
>
>
>
> def compose(*funcs):
>
> for func in funcs:
>
> if n
On Thursday, August 29, 2013 11:35:39 PM UTC+2, Chris Angelico wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 30, 2013 at 7:27 AM, wrote:
>
> > Chris, call me a snob, but I resent using lambdas (aren't they usually
> > considered odd/bad practice in python?)
>
>
>
> They're not bad practice; all they are is a functio
On Friday, August 30, 2013 4:09:45 AM UTC+2, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
> On Thu, 29 Aug 2013 13:50:39 -0700, fp2161 wrote:
>
>
>
> > My way is so obvious that it may not be that interesting...
>
> >
>
> > def func4(f1,f2,f3,f4):
>
> > def anon(x):
>
> > f1(f2(f3(f4(x
>
> >
On 8/29/2013 5:48 PM, fp2...@gmail.com wrote:
Here is the generalisable version:
def comp(*func):
def anon(x):
res=x
for f in func:
res=f(res)
return res
return anon
With a bit more work, one can set the __name__ and __qualname__ attributes.
On Fri, Aug 30, 2013 at 7:27 AM, wrote:
> Chris, call me a snob, but I resent using lambdas (aren't they usually
> considered odd/bad practice in python?)
They're not bad practice; all they are is a function without a name,
that's restricted to returning a single expression. So they're
perfectl
On Thu, 29 Aug 2013 14:27:23 -0700, fp2161 wrote:
> Chris, call me a snob, but I resent using lambdas (aren't they usually
> considered odd/bad practice in python?)
Only among people who dislike functional programming idioms. Like GvR.
It is true that lambda functions are slightly restricted com
On Thu, 29 Aug 2013 13:50:39 -0700, fp2161 wrote:
> My way is so obvious that it may not be that interesting...
>
> def func4(f1,f2,f3,f4):
> def anon(x):
> f1(f2(f3(f4(x
> return anon
I don't think "obvious" is quite the right description. Well, perhaps
"obviously wrong" :-
4(func3(func2(func1(myval
>
> >
>
> > I was wondering if there is a function in standard library that
>
> > would take a list of functions and a initial value and do the above
>
> > like this:
>
> >
>
> > func_im_looking_for([
On Thursday, August 29, 2013 11:05:38 PM UTC+2, Chris Angelico wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 30, 2013 at 6:50 AM, wrote:
>
> > My way is so obvious that it may not be that interesting...
>
> >
>
> > def func4(f1,f2,f3,f4):
>
> > def anon(x):
>
> > f1(f2(f3(f4(x
>
> > return anon
On Thursday, August 29, 2013 11:05:38 PM UTC+2, Chris Angelico wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 30, 2013 at 6:50 AM, wrote:
>
> > My way is so obvious that it may not be that interesting...
>
> >
>
> > def func4(f1,f2,f3,f4):
>
> > def anon(x):
>
> > f1(f2(f3(f4(x
>
> > return anon
On Fri, Aug 30, 2013 at 6:50 AM, wrote:
> My way is so obvious that it may not be that interesting...
>
> def func4(f1,f2,f3,f4):
> def anon(x):
> f1(f2(f3(f4(x
> return anon
Or have it return the result of f1. And then, since it's an anonymous
function that simply returns an
tion in standard library that would take a
> list of functions and a initial value and do the above like this:
>
>
>
> func_im_looking_for([func1, func2, func3, func4], myval)
>
>
>
> I looked in itertools but nothing seamed to do the job. This seams like
>
Reduce tricks are nice, but I prefer clarity sometimes:
def double(x):
return x*2
def add3(x):
return x+3
def compose(*funcs):
for func in funcs:
if not callable(func):
raise ValueError('Must pass callable functions')
def inner(value):
for func in fu
W dniu środa, 28 sierpnia 2013 15:43:39 UTC+2 użytkownik Tim Chase napisał:
> When 3 replies from 3 people all arrive within minutes, each
> suggesting reduce(), I'd figure it's the "one obvious way to do
> it" :-)
I guess it's at least a good hint ;)
Thanks to all! :)
--
http://mail.pytho
On 2013-08-28 06:23, AdamKal wrote:
> Thanks!
>
> I guess this is as simple as it gets then. I was just looking for
> the "one obvious way to do it".
When 3 replies from 3 people all arrive within minutes, each
suggesting reduce(), I'd figure it's the "one obvious way to do
it" :-)
-tkc
--
On Wed, Aug 28, 2013 at 11:23 PM, AdamKal wrote:
> I guess this is as simple as it gets then. I was just looking for the "one
> obvious way to do it".
The one obvious way to do some things is to post on python-list and
see what comes back :) I love reading over these sorts of threads,
they're go
Am 2013-08-28 14:52 schrieb AdamKal:
Hi,
From time to time I have to apply a series of functions to a value in such a
way:
func4(func3(func2(func1(myval
I was wondering if there is a function in standard library that would take a
list of functions and a initial value and do the above
f functions to a value
>
> > in such a way:
>
> >
>
> > func4(func3(func2(func1(myval
>
> >
>
> > I was wondering if there is a function in standard library that
>
> > would take a list of functions and a initial value and do the abo
Tim Chase writes:
> On 2013-08-28 05:52, AdamKal wrote:
> > From time to time I have to apply a series of functions to a value
> > in such a way:
> >
> > func4(func3(func2(func1(myval
> >
> > I was wondering if there is a function in standard library
Am 28.08.2013 13:52, schrieb AdamKal:
Hi,
From time to time I have to apply a series of functions to a value in
such a way:
func4(func3(func2(func1(myval
I was wondering if there is a function in standard library that would
take a list of functions and a initial value and do the above
AdamKal writes:
> Hi,
>
> From time to time I have to apply a series of functions to a value
> in such a way:
>
> func4(func3(func2(func1(myval
>
> I was wondering if there is a function in standard library that
> would take a list of functions and a initial va
On 2013-08-28 05:52, AdamKal wrote:
> From time to time I have to apply a series of functions to a value
> in such a way:
>
> func4(func3(func2(func1(myval
>
> I was wondering if there is a function in standard library that
> would take a list of functions and a ini
Hi,
>From time to time I have to apply a series of functions to a value in such a
>way:
func4(func3(func2(func1(myval
I was wondering if there is a function in standard library that would take a
list of functions and a initial value and do the above like this:
func_im_looking_for(
On Tuesday 26 May 2009 05:00:14 am Paul Rudin wrote:
>
> class Foo(object):
>
> def __init__(self, pos):
> self.pos = pos
>
> def __call__(self, arg):
> return self.pos + arg
>
> f = [Foo(x) for x in range(10)]
Or, without the class:
In [1]: def get_incrementor(n):
...:
enzo michelangeli wrote:
Let's suppose I want to create a list of n functions of a single
argument, returning the sum between argument and index in the list, so
that e.g.:
f[0](10) will return 10
f[3](12) will return 15
...and so on. I had naively though of coding:
f = [lambda x: x+j for j in
Arnaud Delobelle wrote:
> "Diez B. Roggisch" writes:
>
>> You need to capture n into the closure of the lambda:
>>
>> f = [lambda x, n=n: x+j for j in xrange(n)]
>
> You mean [lambda x, j=j: x+j for j in xrange(n)]
Ah, sorry, parentheses-problem.
Diez
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/li
Paul Rudin wrote:
> "Diez B. Roggisch" writes:
>
>> enzo michelangeli schrieb:
>>> Let's suppose I want to create a list of n functions of a single
>>> argument, returning the sum between argument and index in the list, so
>>> that e.g.:
>>>
>>> f[0](10) will return 10
>>> f[3](12) will return 1
Thanks guys. So far I had only come out with
f = [eval('lambda x: x+'+str(j)) for j in range(3)]
...which I hated because, as everybody knows, eval is evil :-)
Enzo
On May 26, 5:20 pm, Arnaud Delobelle wrote:
> "Diez B. Roggisch" writes:
>
> > You need to capture n into the closure of the lam
"Diez B. Roggisch" writes:
> You need to capture n into the closure of the lambda:
>
> f = [lambda x, n=n: x+j for j in xrange(n)]
You mean [lambda x, j=j: x+j for j in xrange(n)]
Another way would be [(lambda j:lambda x: x+j)(j) for j in xrange(n)]
Or more readably:
def adder(n):
return
"Diez B. Roggisch" writes:
> enzo michelangeli schrieb:
>> Let's suppose I want to create a list of n functions of a single
>> argument, returning the sum between argument and index in the list, so
>> that e.g.:
>>
>> f[0](10) will return 10
>> f[3](12) will return 15
>>
>> ...and so on. I had na
enzo michelangeli schrieb:
Let's suppose I want to create a list of n functions of a single
argument, returning the sum between argument and index in the list, so
that e.g.:
f[0](10) will return 10
f[3](12) will return 15
...and so on. I had naively though of coding:
f = [lambda x: x+j for j
enzo michelangeli writes:
> Let's suppose I want to create a list of n functions of a single
> argument, returning the sum between argument and index in the list, so
> that e.g.:
>
> f[0](10) will return 10
> f[3](12) will return 15
>
> ...and so on. I had naively though of coding:
>
> f = [lamb
Let's suppose I want to create a list of n functions of a single
argument, returning the sum between argument and index in the list, so
that e.g.:
f[0](10) will return 10
f[3](12) will return 15
...and so on. I had naively though of coding:
f = [lambda x: x+j for j in range(n)]
Unfortunately,
Thanks for all your replies, but the thing is I want to get the list of
functions in that file itself, not by importing it as a module. I've decided
to go with a class-based approach due to a number of other reasons, but I'm
still interested in a way to get function name in that f
member Basu wrote:
I'm putting some utility functions in a file and then building a simple
shell interface to them. Is their some way I can automatically get a
list of all the functions in the file? I could wrap them in a class and
then use attributes, but I'd rather leave them as simple functi
On Dec 29, 3:50 am, "Chris Rebert" wrote:
> On Sun, Dec 28, 2008 at 11:26 PM, member Basu wrote:
> > I'm putting some utility functions in a file and then building a simple
> > shell interface to them. Is their some way I can automatically get a list of
> > all the functions in the file? I could
En Mon, 29 Dec 2008 05:26:52 -0200, member Basu
escribió:
I'm putting some utility functions in a file and then building a simple
shell interface to them. Is their some way I can automatically get a
list of
all the functions in the file? I could wrap them in a class and then use
attributes,
On Sun, Dec 28, 2008 at 11:26 PM, member Basu wrote:
> I'm putting some utility functions in a file and then building a simple
> shell interface to them. Is their some way I can automatically get a list of
> all the functions in the file? I could wrap them in a class and then use
> attributes, but
I'm putting some utility functions in a file and then building a simple
shell interface to them. Is their some way I can automatically get a list of
all the functions in the file? I could wrap them in a class and then use
attributes, but I'd rather leave them as simple functions.
Thanks,
Basu
--
ht
HMS Surprise <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
...
> Why is apply deprecated?
Because it does exacly the same job as just calling the function with
*a/**k, and there should preferably be only one obvious way to perform a
given task (this guiding principle leads to simplicity in the language,
and is co
On Mar 16, 6:44 pm, James Stroud <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> HMS Surprise wrote:
> > Seems to me that one should be able to put the names of several
> > functions in a list and then have the list executed. But it seems the
> > output of the functions is hidden, only their return value is visible.
HMS Surprise wrote:
> Seems to me that one should be able to put the names of several
> functions in a list and then have the list executed. But it seems the
> output of the functions is hidden, only their return value is visible.
> Is this because the list execution is another scope?
>
> Thanx,
>
Hi!
Your code run OK for me.
But, if you want "time-lag" (sorry for my english) execution, you can
try this:
def a():
print "this is a"
def b():
print "this is b"
lst = [a, b]
[f() for f in lst]
--
@-salutations
Michel Claveau
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/py
On Mar 16, 3:59 pm, "7stud" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> lst = [a, b]
>
> The () symbol causes the named function to execute, and a function
> call in the code is always replaced by the function's return value.
Try this:
--
def a():
print "this is a"
def b():
print "this is b
lst = [a, b]
The () symbol causes the named function to execute, and a function
call in the code is always replaced by the function's return value.
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Seems to me that one should be able to put the names of several
functions in a list and then have the list executed. But it seems the
output of the functions is hidden, only their return value is visible.
Is this because the list execution is another scope?
Thanx,
jh
~~~
Tim,
Greatly appreciate your help. You are right - the functions work
from the list; i don't actually need the string with events.
Thanks again - great list and great people...
Val
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Hi Kent,
Thanks. Great help. It does work now,
and with expressions as well.
my very best,
Val
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
John Machin wrote:
> On 27/04/2006 10:38 AM, val bykoski wrote:
> > Hi The List:
> > I have a modeling app where i'm detecting events (in temporal
> > dynamics) applying a set of (boolean) functions - kind of:
> >
> > event_list = "f1 f2 etc".split() # each fi detects a specific event
> > i have
val bykoski wrote:
> Hi The List:
>I have a modeling app where i'm detecting events (in temporal
> dynamics) applying a set of (boolean) functions - kind of:
>
> event_list = "f1 f2 etc".split() # each fi detects a specific event
> i have defs for functions fi, or simple boolean expressions
On 27/04/2006 10:38 AM, val bykoski wrote:
> Hi The List:
> I have a modeling app where i'm detecting events (in temporal
> dynamics) applying a set of (boolean) functions - kind of:
>
> event_list = "f1 f2 etc".split() # each fi detects a specific event
> i have defs for functions fi, or simp
ould have worked:
event_list = [f1, f2, etc]
As it is, event_list is a list of strings, not a list of functions.
Then, when you want to call it, remember that it has to be treated like a
function:
for ev in event_list:
if ev(t):
pass
If you REALLY need the list of functions to
Hi The List:
I have a modeling app where i'm detecting events (in temporal
dynamics) applying a set of (boolean) functions - kind of:
event_list = "f1 f2 etc".split() # each fi detects a specific event
i have defs for functions fi, or simple boolean expressions for each, so
that evList is a
87 matches
Mail list logo
