On Monday 11 April 2016 14:03, Fillmore wrote:
> I'll make sure I approach the temple of pythonistas bare-footed and with
> greater humility next time
Don't forget to rip your clothes into rags and heap ashes on your head too.
--
Steve
--
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
On 2016-04-11 01:33, MRAB wrote:
> A one-element tuple can be written as:
>
> >>> ('hello',)
> ('hello',)
>
> As has been said already, it's the comma that makes the tuple. The
> parentheses are often needed to avoid ambiguity.
Except when the comma *doesn't* make the tuple:
>>> t = ()
On Monday, April 11, 2016 at 11:12:39 AM UTC+5:30, Stephen Hansen wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 10, 2016, at 10:18 PM, Rustom Mody wrote:
> > On Monday, April 11, 2016 at 10:17:13 AM UTC+5:30, Stephen Hansen wrote:
> > > On Sun, Apr 10, 2016, at 09:03 PM, Fillmore wrote:
> > > > and the (almost always to be
Terry Reedy :
> On 4/10/2016 8:17 PM, Fillmore wrote:
>
>> apparently my 'discontinuity' is mappable to the fact that there's no
>> such thing as one-element tuples in Python, and attempts to create
>> one will result in a string (i.e. an object of a different kind!)...
>
> Please work through the
On Sun, Apr 10, 2016, at 10:18 PM, Rustom Mody wrote:
> On Monday, April 11, 2016 at 10:17:13 AM UTC+5:30, Stephen Hansen wrote:
> > On Sun, Apr 10, 2016, at 09:03 PM, Fillmore wrote:
> > > and the (almost always to be avoided) use of eval()
> >
> > FWIW, there's ast.literal_eval which is safe and
On Monday, April 11, 2016 at 10:17:13 AM UTC+5:30, Stephen Hansen wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 10, 2016, at 09:03 PM, Fillmore wrote:
> > and the (almost always to be avoided) use of eval()
>
> FWIW, there's ast.literal_eval which is safe and there's no reason to
> avoid it.
Its error reporting is clunky
On Sun, Apr 10, 2016, at 09:03 PM, Fillmore wrote:
> and the (almost always to be avoided) use of eval()
FWIW, there's ast.literal_eval which is safe and there's no reason to
avoid it. You'll still have to deal with the fact that a single string
on a line will return a string while multiples will
On 04/10/2016 11:54 PM, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
On Mon, 11 Apr 2016 12:48 pm, Fillmore wrote:
funny, but it seems to me that you are taking it personally... thank god i
even apologized in advance for what was most probably a stupid question..
I hope you did get a laugh out of it, because it w
On Mon, 11 Apr 2016 12:48 pm, Fillmore wrote:
>
> funny, but it seems to me that you are taking it personally... thank god i
> even apologized in advance for what was most probably a stupid question..
I hope you did get a laugh out of it, because it wasn't meant to be nasty.
But it was meant to
funny, but it seems to me that you are taking it personally... thank god i even
apologized
in advance for what was most probably a stupid question..
On 04/10/2016 09:50 PM, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
Fillmore, you should feel very pleased with yourself. All the tens of
thousands of Python program
On Mon, Apr 11, 2016 at 12:22 PM, Dan Sommers wrote:
> On Mon, 11 Apr 2016 01:33:10 +0100, MRAB wrote:
>
>> There _is_ one exception though: (). It's the empty tuple (a 0-element
>> tuple). It doesn't have a comma and the parentheses are mandatory.
>> There's no other way to write it.
>
> The othe
On Mon, 11 Apr 2016 01:33:10 +0100, MRAB wrote:
> There _is_ one exception though: (). It's the empty tuple (a 0-element
> tuple). It doesn't have a comma and the parentheses are mandatory.
> There's no other way to write it.
The other way to write it is:
tuple()
--
https://mail.python.org/
On Mon, 11 Apr 2016 08:51 am, Fillmore wrote:
> at which point did the language designers decide to betray the
> "path of least surprise" principle and create a 'discontinuity' in the
> language?
It was March 1996, and I was there. I don't remember the date, I'm afraid.
Some of the core Python de
On 4/10/2016 8:17 PM, Fillmore wrote:
apparently my 'discontinuity' is mappable to the fact that there's no such
thing as one-element tuples in Python, and attempts to create one will
result in a string (i.e. an object of a different kind!)...
Please work through the tutorial before posting wr
On 2016-04-11 10:45, Ben Finney wrote:
> Also, there is another obvious way to create an empty tuple: call
> the ‘tuple’ type directly:
>
> >>> foo = tuple()
> >>> print(type(foo), len(foo))
> 0
But here the parens make the tuple too:
>>> foo = tuple
>>> print(type(foo))
On Sun, Apr 10, 2016, at 05:45 PM, Ben Finney wrote:
> So, let's please stop saying “parens don't create a tuple”. They do, and
> because of that I've stopped saying that false over-simplification.
I stand by "parens don't make a tuple", with the caveat that I should
have mentioned the empty tuple
On Mon, Apr 11, 2016 at 10:45 AM, Ben Finney wrote:
> So the expanation that remains true when you examine it is: People
> wanted a literal syntax to create a zero-length tuple. A pair of parens
> is that literal syntax, and it's the parens that create the (empty)
> tuple.
But parens do NOT creat
Stephen Hansen writes:
> […] parens don't make tuples, commas do.
Chris Angelico writes:
> The thing you're confused at is that it's not the parentheses that
> create a tuple. Parentheses merely group.
MRAB writes:
> As has been said already, it's the comma that makes the tuple. The
> par
On Mon, Apr 11, 2016 at 10:33 AM, MRAB wrote:
> For example, object are passed into a function thus:
>
> f(x, y)
>
> (In reality, it's making a tuple and then passing that in.)
Actually that's not the case; certain syntactic constructs allow you
to specify multiple of something, without packa
On Sun, Apr 10, 2016, at 05:17 PM, Fillmore wrote:
> On 04/10/2016 07:30 PM, Stephen Hansen wrote:
>
> > There's nothing inconsistent or surprising going on besides you doing
> > something vaguely weird and not really expressing what you find
> > surprising.
>
> well, I was getting some surprisin
Fillmore writes:
> Sorry guys. It was not my intention to piss off anyone...just trying
> to understand how the languare works
Frustration is understandable when learning something new :-) Hopefully
that can be a signal to take a breath, and compose messages to minimise
frustration for the reade
On 2016-04-11 01:13, Fillmore wrote:
Sorry guys. It was not my intention to piss off anyone...just trying to
understand how the languare works
I guess that the answer to my question is: there is no such thing as a
one-element tuple,
and Python will automatically convert a one-element tuple to
On Sun, Apr 10, 2016, at 05:22 PM, Fillmore wrote:
> Hold on a sec! it turns up that there is such thing as single-element
> tuples in python:
>
> >>> c = ('hello',)
> >>> c
> ('hello',)
> >>> c[0]
> 'hello'
> >>> c[1]
> Traceback (most recent call last):
>File "", line 1, in
> IndexError
On Mon, Apr 11, 2016 at 10:13 AM, Fillmore wrote:
> Sorry guys. It was not my intention to piss off anyone...just trying to
> understand how the languare works
>
> I guess that the answer to my question is: there is no such thing as a
> one-element tuple,
> and Python will automatically convert a
On 04/10/2016 08:13 PM, Fillmore wrote:
Sorry guys. It was not my intention to piss off anyone...just trying to
understand how the languare works
I guess that the answer to my question is: there is no such thing as a
one-element tuple,
and Python will automatically convert a one-element tuple
On 04/10/2016 07:30 PM, Stephen Hansen wrote:
There's nothing inconsistent or surprising going on besides you doing
something vaguely weird and not really expressing what you find
surprising.
well, I was getting some surprising results for some of my data, so I can
guarantee that I was surpris
On Sun, Apr 10, 2016, at 05:18 PM, Stephen Hansen wrote:
> The parens are optional, I always put them in because:
> >>> b = "hello",
Ahem, "because its easy to miss the trailing comma" is what I meant to
say here.
--
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
On Sun, Apr 10, 2016, at 05:13 PM, Fillmore wrote:
> I guess that the answer to my question is: there is no such thing as a
> one-element tuple,
> and Python will automatically convert a one-element tuple to a string...
> hence the
> behavior I observed is explained...
>
> >>> a = ('hello','bonjo
Sorry guys. It was not my intention to piss off anyone...just trying to
understand how the languare works
I guess that the answer to my question is: there is no such thing as a
one-element tuple,
and Python will automatically convert a one-element tuple to a string... hence
the
behavior I obs
On Sun, Apr 10, 2016, at 03:51 PM, Fillmore wrote:
>
> let's look at this:
>
> $ python3.4
> Python 3.4.0 (default, Apr 11 2014, 13:05:11)
> [GCC 4.8.2] on linux
> Type "help", "copyright", "credits" or "license" for more information.
> >>> line1 = '"String1" | bla'
> >>> parts1 = line1.split("
Fillmore writes:
> let's look at this:
Can you set a “Subject” field that pertains to the actual question? As
is, it doesn't help know what you want to discuss.
> the question is: at which point did the language designers decide to
> betray the "path of least surprise" principle and create a
>
On Mon, Apr 11, 2016 at 8:51 AM, Fillmore wrote:
> the question is: at which point did the language designers decide to betray
> the
> "path of least surprise" principle and create a 'discontinuity' in the
> language?
> Open to the idea that I am getting something fundamentally wrong. I'm new to
>
let's look at this:
$ python3.4
Python 3.4.0 (default, Apr 11 2014, 13:05:11)
[GCC 4.8.2] on linux
Type "help", "copyright", "credits" or "license" for more information.
>>> line1 = '"String1" | bla'
>>> parts1 = line1.split(" | ")
>>> parts1
['"String1"', 'bla']
>>> tokens1 = eval(parts1[0])
>>
33 matches
Mail list logo
