Op 04-11-13 10:07, Ben Finney schreef:
> Antoon Pardon writes:
>
>> This is a typical: "Heads, I win, Tail, you lose" situation that is
>> being set up.
>
> If you see a discussion as a zero-sum game – like a coin toss, where one
> person's win can only be at the expense of someone else's loss –
Antoon Pardon writes:
> This is a typical: "Heads, I win, Tail, you lose" situation that is
> being set up.
If you see a discussion as a zero-sum game – like a coin toss, where one
person's win can only be at the expense of someone else's loss – then I
fear this isn't going to be productive.
Su
Op 03-11-13 23:11, Ben Finney schreef:
> Antoon Pardon writes:
>
>> Op 03-11-13 06:17, Steven D'Aprano schreef:
>>> I'm trying hard to give up threads like this, where people debate
>>> the subjective tone of an email and ever more pedantic arguments
>>> about the precise wording. Even when all p
Antoon Pardon writes:
> Op 03-11-13 06:17, Steven D'Aprano schreef:
> > I'm trying hard to give up threads like this, where people debate
> > the subjective tone of an email and ever more pedantic arguments
> > about the precise wording. Even when all participants are arguing in
> > good faith, t
Op 03-11-13 06:17, Steven D'Aprano schreef:
> On Sat, 02 Nov 2013 18:22:38 +, Joshua Landau wrote:
> [...]
>> Sure, you in all probability didn't mean it like that but rurpy isn't
>> uncalled for in raising the concern. Really I just want to remind you
>> that you're both on the same side here.
On 11/02/2013 11:17 PM, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
> On Sat, 02 Nov 2013 18:22:38 +, Joshua Landau wrote:
> [...]
>> Sure, you in all probability didn't mean it like that but rurpy isn't
>> uncalled for in raising the concern. Really I just want to remind you
>> that you're both on the same side he
On 11/01/2013 09:52 PM, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
>[...]
> I did not declare as a
> fact that he had no experience, as you claim, but posed it as a question
> and expressed it explicitly as a subjective observation.
This is a key point. Several of your other denials are
true only if you are right
Op 03-11-13 06:17, Steven D'Aprano schreef:
> On Sat, 02 Nov 2013 18:22:38 +, Joshua Landau wrote:
> [...]
>> Sure, you in all probability didn't mean it like that but rurpy isn't
>> uncalled for in raising the concern. Really I just want to remind you
>> that you're both on the same side here.
On Sat, 02 Nov 2013 18:22:38 +, Joshua Landau wrote:
[...]
> Sure, you in all probability didn't mean it like that but rurpy isn't
> uncalled for in raising the concern. Really I just want to remind you
> that you're both on the same side here.
Thanks for the comments Joshua, but I'm afraid I
On Sun, Nov 3, 2013 at 6:49 AM, Skybuck Flying
wrote:
> For those programmers that want to write clear/understandable/less buggy
> code instead of the fastest it could be interesting.
"it", without context? What could be interesting? You're not quoting
any text, so I have no idea what you're refe
For those programmers that want to write clear/understandable/less buggy
code instead of the fastest it could be interesting.
Also ultimately compilers are free to implement it they way they want it ;)
Thus freeing the programmer from strange assembler instruction orders as
usual ;)
If you e
Mark said :
"The White Flag before this also escalates out of control. "
This word "before" ... I don't think it means what you think it means.
This thread has been off the rails for days.
--
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
On 02/11/2013 18:22, Joshua Landau wrote:
On 1 November 2013 05:41, Steven D'Aprano
wrote:
On Thu, 31 Oct 2013 21:41:32 -0700, rurpy wrote:
On 10/31/2013 02:41 AM, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
On Wed, 30 Oct 2013 19:48:55 -0700, rurpy wrote:
On 10/30/2013 04:22 AM, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
Skybuck
On 1 November 2013 05:41, Steven D'Aprano
wrote:
> On Thu, 31 Oct 2013 21:41:32 -0700, rurpy wrote:
>
>> On 10/31/2013 02:41 AM, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
>>> On Wed, 30 Oct 2013 19:48:55 -0700, rurpy wrote:
On 10/30/2013 04:22 AM, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
> Skybuck's experience at programming
Op 02-11-13 02:51, ru...@yahoo.com schreef:
> On 11/01/2013 06:50 AM, Antoon Pardon wrote:
>> Op 01-11-13 05:41, ru...@yahoo.com schreef:
>>> On 10/31/2013 02:41 AM, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
>>>
I don't know whether you are deliberately lying, or whether you're just
such a careless reader
On Fri, 01 Nov 2013 18:50:02 -0700, rurpy wrote:
> Instead of endlessly repeating your misrepresentation charges along with
> exaggerations like "nothing of the sort", why don't you for once
> actually say how my paraphrase differs materially in meaning from what
> was said?
I have directly addre
On 11/01/2013 06:50 AM, Antoon Pardon wrote:
> Op 01-11-13 05:41, ru...@yahoo.com schreef:
>> On 10/31/2013 02:41 AM, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
>>
>>> I don't know whether you are deliberately lying, or whether you're just
>>> such a careless reader that you have attributed words actually written by
On 10/31/2013 11:41 PM, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
> On Thu, 31 Oct 2013 21:41:32 -0700, rurpy wrote:
>[...]
>> Yes, on rereading you are correct, you did not say his proposition made
>> no sense, you disagreed with him that "putting this exit condition on
>> the top makes no sense" and claimed he had
Op 01-11-13 05:41, ru...@yahoo.com schreef:
> On 10/31/2013 02:41 AM, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
>
>> I don't know whether you are deliberately lying, or whether you're just
>> such a careless reader that you have attributed words actually written by
>> Skybuck to me, but either way I expect an apol
On Fri, Nov 1, 2013 at 6:00 PM, Steven D'Aprano
wrote:
> On Tue, 29 Oct 2013 17:22:03 +1100, Chris Angelico wrote:
>
>> On Tue, Oct 29, 2013 at 3:03 PM, wrote:
>>> Regarding esr's "smart-questions", although I acknowledge it has useful
>>> advice, I have always found it elitist and abrasive. I
On Tue, 29 Oct 2013 17:22:03 +1100, Chris Angelico wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 29, 2013 at 3:03 PM, wrote:
>> Regarding esr's "smart-questions", although I acknowledge it has useful
>> advice, I have always found it elitist and abrasive. I wish someone
>> would rewrite it without the "we are gods" att
On Thu, 31 Oct 2013 21:41:32 -0700, rurpy wrote:
> On 10/31/2013 02:41 AM, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
>> On Wed, 30 Oct 2013 19:48:55 -0700, rurpy wrote:
>>> On 10/30/2013 04:22 AM, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
Skybuck's experience at programming *is relevant* to the question of
whether or not he
On 10/31/2013 02:41 AM, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
> On Wed, 30 Oct 2013 19:48:55 -0700, rurpy wrote:
>> On 10/30/2013 04:22 AM, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
>>> Skybuck's experience at programming *is relevant* to the question of
>>> whether or not he understands what he is talking about.
>> No. You claime
Skybuck Flying wrote:
>> Because it's logical.
>
> "
> What is logical?
> "
>
> To put the exit condition at the bottom is logical.
As "logical" as to put it anywhere else inside the loop body. As long as we
write code
on machine language level, we are asked to choose the most efficient
inst
wolfgang kern wrote:
> Bernhard Schornak replied to a "Flying-Bucket-post":
>
> Methink we all know about the often not-so-logical ideas from
> Buck, they merely come from an abstracted view and are far away
> from todays hardware given opportunities.
>
> OTOH, I sometimes got to think about his
On Wed, 30 Oct 2013 19:48:55 -0700, rurpy wrote:
> On 10/30/2013 04:22 AM, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
>> Skybuck's experience at programming *is relevant* to the question of
>> whether or not he understands what he is talking about.
>
> No. You claimed his proposition "made no sense" based on your
On Thu, Oct 31, 2013 at 1:53 PM, wrote:
> Your hierarchy is particularly unappealing to me. We all
> know that such hierarchies exist in the real world, but
> there is a question: should they be promoted as a natural
> and desirable state of society to be encouraged?
>
> There are people like Ay
On 10/29/2013 12:22 AM, Chris Angelico wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 29, 2013 at 3:03 PM, wrote:
>> Regarding esr's "smart-questions", although I acknowledge
>> it has useful advice, I have always found it elitist and
>> abrasive. I wish someone would rewrite it without the
>> "we are gods" attitude.
>
On 10/30/2013 04:22 AM, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
> On Tue, 29 Oct 2013 13:00:07 -0700, rurpy wrote:
>> On Tuesday, October 29, 2013 8:08:16 AM UTC-6, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
>>> On Tue, 29 Oct 2013 12:37:36 +0100, Skybuck Flying wrote:
>>>[...]
>>> Skybuck, please excuse my question, but have you ever
On Tue, 29 Oct 2013 13:00:07 -0700, rurpy wrote:
> On Tuesday, October 29, 2013 8:08:16 AM UTC-6, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
>> On Tue, 29 Oct 2013 12:37:36 +0100, Skybuck Flying wrote:
>>[...]
>> Skybuck, please excuse my question, but have you ever done any
>> programming at all? You don't seem to h
On Tuesday, October 29, 2013 8:08:16 AM UTC-6, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
> On Tue, 29 Oct 2013 12:37:36 +0100, Skybuck Flying wrote:
>[...]
> Skybuck, please excuse my question, but have you ever done any
> programming at all? You don't seem to have any experience with actual
> programming languages
Bernhard Schornak replied to a "Flying-Bucket-post":
Methink we all know about the often not-so-logical ideas from
Buck, they merely come from an abstracted view and are far away
from todays hardware given opportunities.
OTOH, I sometimes got to think about his weird ideas, but mainly
figured th
On Tue, 29 Oct 2013 12:37:36 +0100, Skybuck Flying wrote:
> To put the exit condition at the bottom is logical.
>
> The exit condition glues the loop to the code that will be executed next
> which is also at the bottom.
Skybuck, please excuse my question, but have you ever done any
programming
Because it's logical.
"
What is logical?
"
To put the exit condition at the bottom is logical.
The exit condition glues the loop to the code that will be executed next
which is also at the bottom.
Example:
Loop
NextCode
^
Placing the exit ondition near next code makes more sense at lea
On Tue, Oct 29, 2013 at 3:03 PM, wrote:
> Regarding esr's "smart-questions", although I acknowledge
> it has useful advice, I have always found it elitist and
> abrasive. I wish someone would rewrite it without the
> "we are gods" attitude.
I find it actually pretty appropriate. The attitude co
On 10/28/2013 12:51 AM, rusi wrote:
> > On Monday, October 28, 2013 11:26:21 AM UTC+5:30, rusi wrote:
>> >> On Monday, October 28, 2013 11:10:21 AM UTC+5:30, ru...@yahoo.com
>> >> wrote:
>>> >>> I updated the page, hopefully it's an improvement?
>> >>
>> >> Otherwise ok I think
> >
> > Just looke
Due to unknown "improvements", SeaMonkey's built-in news editor meanwhile
ignores
saved changes and sends long deleted text parts rather than thwe last seen text
-
"What you See Is _Not_ What You Get"...
This is the real reply to Skybuck's posting. Please ignore the mixture of
deleted
text par
Skybuck Flying wrote:
Because it's logical.
What is logical?
If the exit condition was placed on the top, the loop would exit immediatly.
This might be the programmer's intention?
Instead the desired behaviour might be to execute the code inside the loop
first and then exit.
It
On Monday, October 28, 2013 11:26:21 AM UTC+5:30, rusi wrote:
> On Monday, October 28, 2013 11:10:21 AM UTC+5:30, ru...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > I updated the page, hopefully it's an improvement?
>
>
> Otherwise ok I think
Just looked at the general netiquette link -- its long and not much use for a
On Monday, October 28, 2013 11:10:21 AM UTC+5:30, ru...@yahoo.com wrote:
> I updated the page, hopefully it's an improvement?
Most people who top-post have no idea that they are top-posting and that there
are alternatives and they are preferred (out here)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_styl
On Sunday, October 27, 2013 1:59:05 AM UTC-6, rusi wrote:
> On Sunday, October 27, 2013 10:34:11 AM UTC+5:30, ru...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > On 10/26/2013 07:45 PM, rusi wrote:
> > > On Sunday, October 27, 2013 2:07:53 AM UTC+5:30, Peter Cacioppi wrote:
> > First, thanks (both of you) very much for the
On 10/26/2013 07:56 PM, Chris Angelico wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 27, 2013 at 12:45 PM, rusi wrote:
>> Yes... that page is longer and more confusing than necessary.
>> 1. The double-posting bit is unnecessary -- not been happening after the
>> 'new' GG.
>> 2. The missing attributions problem is new and
On Sunday, October 27, 2013 2:07:53 AM UTC+5:30, Peter Cacioppi wrote:
> Rusi said:
>
> > Users of GG are requested to read and follow these instructions
> > https://wiki.python.org/moin/GoogleGroupsPython
>
> Yes, I read those instructions and found them fairly opaque. If you want to
> instruct
On Sunday, October 27, 2013 10:34:11 AM UTC+5:30, ru...@yahoo.com wrote:
> On 10/26/2013 07:45 PM, rusi wrote:
>
> > On Sunday, October 27, 2013 2:07:53 AM UTC+5:30, Peter Cacioppi wrote:
> >> Rusi said:
> >>
> >> "Users of GG are requested to read and follow these instructions
> >> https://wiki.
On 10/26/2013 07:45 PM, rusi wrote:
> On Sunday, October 27, 2013 2:07:53 AM UTC+5:30, Peter Cacioppi wrote:
>> Rusi said:
>>
>> "Users of GG are requested to read and follow these instructions
>> https://wiki.python.org/moin/GoogleGroupsPython "
>>
>> Seriously, it's not exactly clear what prot
Rusi said :
"Please do! If I were in charge I would say "Patches welcome!"
Well, I don't really know what the GG best practice ought to be here.
What I am doing now (manually copying whatever I need to quote to give some
context) seems to be tolerable to law enforcement (I guess). But I'm mini
On Sun, Oct 27, 2013 at 12:45 PM, rusi wrote:
> Yes... that page is longer and more confusing than necessary.
> 1. The double-posting bit is unnecessary -- not been happening after the
> 'new' GG.
> 2. The missing attributions problem is new and needs to be added
> 3. The main message of that pag
On Sunday, October 27, 2013 2:07:53 AM UTC+5:30, Peter Cacioppi wrote:
> Rusi said:
>
> "Users of GG are requested to read and follow these instructions
> https://wiki.python.org/moin/GoogleGroupsPython "
>
>
> Seriously, it's not exactly clear what protocol GG users are expected follow
> to m
Rusi said:
"Users of GG are requested to read and follow these instructions
https://wiki.python.org/moin/GoogleGroupsPython "
Yes, I read those instructions and found them fairly opaque. If you want to
instruct "children" (odd that I find myself categorized that way on a CS forum,
but whateve
On Fri, 25 Oct 2013 19:57:37 +0100, Peter Cacioppi
wrote:
Some readers can discern context from the previous posts. That's sort of
what the word context means. But I understand this skill isn't universal.
Some readers are reading this "forum" as a mailing list or Usenet
newsgroup. Googl
Dave said :
"Include a quote from whomever you're responding to, and we might
actually take you seriously. And of course, make sure you don't delete
the attribution. "
This forum is working for me. One of the more frequent and sophisticated
posters emailed me saying he appreciates my contributi
On 24/10/2013 21:02, Skybuck Flying wrote:
Because it's logical.
If the exit condition was placed on the top, the loop would exit
immediatly.
Instead the desired behaviour might be to execute the code inside the
loop first and then exit.
Thus seperating logic into enter and exit conditions mak
Because it's logical.
If the exit condition was placed on the top, the loop would exit immediatly.
Instead the desired behaviour might be to execute the code inside the loop
first and then exit.
Thus seperating logic into enter and exit conditions makes sense.
Bye,
Skybuck.
--
https://ma
Skybuck Flying schrieb:
This hereby indicates problems with the while loop: it makes little sense to
put the exiting
conditions at the top.
Why?
...
dec rcx
jbe 1f
0:some
code
to
perform
...
jmp 0b
p2align 5,,31
1:continue
On 21/10/2013 17:19, Peter Cacioppi wrote:
> Just because the CPython implementation does something doesn't mean
If you're going to drop messages in here with no context, you'd be
better off just putting it in a bottle and tossing it into the sea.
Include a quote from whomever you're responding
On 17/10/2013 00:36, Skybuck Flying wrote:
Unfortunately python does not have labels and goto statements as far as
I know
http://entrian.com/goto/
--
Python is the second best programming language in the world.
But the best has yet to be invented. Christian Tismer
Mark Lawrence
--
https:/
Just because the CPython implementation does something doesn't mean that thing
is something other than risky/tricky/to-be-avoided-if-possible. Python (and
it's implementations) exist so that ordinary people can avoid doing risky stuff.
I'm not critiquing the CPython implementation here, I'm poin
On 18/10/2013 08:44, Chris Angelico wrote:
On Fri, Oct 18, 2013 at 6:40 PM, Mark Lawrence wrote:
On 18/10/2013 00:53, Peter Cacioppi wrote:
You know, I'd heard somewhere that Goto was considered harmful trying
to remember exactly where
Yep, but it's used throughout the CPython code
On 18/10/2013 01:43, Peter Cacioppi wrote:
Cmon, Skip, assuming everyone gets the "considered harmful" reference falls under the
"we're all adults here" rubric.
Context, context everywhere trying to remember exactly where
--
Roses are red,
Violets are blue,
Most poems rhyme,
But this
On Fri, Oct 18, 2013 at 6:40 PM, Mark Lawrence wrote:
> On 18/10/2013 00:53, Peter Cacioppi wrote:
>>
>> You know, I'd heard somewhere that Goto was considered harmful trying
>> to remember exactly where
>>
>
> Yep, but it's used throughout the CPython code for error handling, nothing
> wr
On 18/10/2013 00:53, Peter Cacioppi wrote:
You know, I'd heard somewhere that Goto was considered harmful trying to
remember exactly where
Yep, but it's used throughout the CPython code for error handling,
nothing wrong with that as it's crystal clear that you're going to one
place
yes it was a joke, apparently not a good one
On Thu, Oct 17, 2013 at 5:39 PM, Skip Montanaro wrote:
>
> On Oct 17, 2013 6:59 PM, "Peter Cacioppi"
> wrote:
> >
> > You know, I'd heard somewhere that Goto was considered harmful
> trying to remember exactly where
>
> I can't tell if you w
Cmon, Skip, assuming everyone gets the "considered harmful" reference falls
under the "we're all adults here" rubric.
--
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
On Oct 17, 2013 6:59 PM, "Peter Cacioppi" wrote:
>
> You know, I'd heard somewhere that Goto was considered harmful trying
to remember exactly where
I can't tell if you were kidding or not... Just in case:
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Considered_harmful
(can't grab the [2] & [3] links
You know, I'd heard somewhere that Goto was considered harmful trying to
remember exactly where
--
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
On Thu, 17 Oct 2013 01:36:36 +0200, Skybuck Flying wrote:
> Computer languages should also support labels and the goto statement so
> that code recovery from failures is more easy:
O_o
That's a very ... interesting ... statement.
Oh look, your post was cross-posted to no fewer than four newsgro
"Skybuck Flying" writes:
> version 0.01 created on 17 october 2013 by Skybuck Flying.
Thanks for writing your essay, but it's rather too long and context-free
to make a good post here.
Could you please post it on your weblog instead?
--
\ “Beware of and eschew pompous prolixity.” —Charle
One final example plus further analysis to be perfectly clear what fine code
would look like and why it's adventage:
At the bottom I come to the conclusion that the proposed loop construct with
begin and ending conditions has merit after all ! ;) =D
LoopBegin
if not BeginningCondition the
version 0.01 created on 17 october 2013 by Skybuck Flying.
(after having some experience with python which lacks repeat
until/goto/labels and programming game bots)
(the exit conditions described below prevent having to use logic inversion:
while BeginCondition and not EndCondition <- ugly logic
69 matches
Mail list logo
