On Jun 3, 11:56 am, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Alex Martelli) wrote:
> Allowing a trailing ! in method names has no such cost, because in no
> language I know is ! used as a "postfix unary operator";
Some math oriented languages use it as the factorial function. E.g.,
Mathematica:
In[1] := 10!
Out[1]=
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
George Sakkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On Jun 2, 4:58 pm, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Aahz) wrote:
>> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>> George Sakkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>
>>>- Strings being iterable; unfortunately this will stay in Py3K.
>>
>> I'll repeat the
On Jun 3, 8:56 am, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Alex Martelli) wrote:
> Allowing a trailing ! in method names has no such cost, because in no
> language I know is ! used as a "postfix unary operator"; the gain in the
> convention "mutators end with !" is not huge, but substantial. So, the
> tradeoffs are d
On Jun 2, 10:59 pm, Mark Carter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Josiah Carlson wrote:
> > Mark Carter wrote:
> >> Not that I'm particularly knowledgeable about language design issues,
> >> but maybe closures and slightly different scoping rules would be nice.
>
> > Python has had closures for years.
>
On Jun 2, 4:58 pm, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Aahz) wrote:
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> George Sakkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
>
> >I had probably stumbled on many/most of the common pitfalls usually
> >mentioned (e.g.http://www.ferg.org/projects/python_gotchas.html,
> >http://zephyrfalcon.o
Mark Carter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Alex Martelli wrote:
> > Mark Carter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Yes, GMP is a pain to compile (especially on Mac OS X), but I believe
>
> > Just mentioning this in case you want to give Scheme another chance
>
> Thanks. I'll take a look at it.
You
Mark Carter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Alex Martelli wrote:
> > Josiah Carlson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >>> pitfall of Python is knowing whether an operation is destructive or not.
> >> If it returns None, it probably changes the content of an object.
> >
> > A reasonable heuristic, bu
Alex Martelli wrote:
> Josiah Carlson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>> pitfall of Python is knowing whether an operation is destructive or not.
>> If it returns None, it probably changes the content of an object.
>
> A reasonable heuristic, but with lots of exceptions, alas:
> somedict.get(so
Alex Martelli wrote:
> Mark Carter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Yes, GMP is a pain to compile (especially on Mac OS X), but I believe
> Just mentioning this in case you want to give Scheme another chance
Thanks. I'll take a look at it.
I think I've decided to finish off my little in project in
"Mark Carter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Josiah Carlson wrote:
> > What kind of scoping did you desire?
>
> Well, I had in mind so that if you defined a function, but wanted to
> access a global var, that you didn't have to use the global keyword. Not
> much of a biggie, I guess.
You can ac
Mark Carter wrote:
> Josiah Carlson wrote:
>> What kind of scoping did you desire?
>
> Well, I had in mind so that if you defined a function, but wanted to
> access a global var, that you didn't have to use the global keyword. Not
> much of a biggie, I guess.
You already get read access to glo
Josiah Carlson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > pitfall of Python is knowing whether an operation is destructive or not.
>
> If it returns None, it probably changes the content of an object.
A reasonable heuristic, but with lots of exceptions, alas:
somedict.get(somekey)
will often return None
Mark Carter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I picked Chicken Scheme for OS X. Things started well, and even the web
...
> that; but I found that it ultimately depended on gmp, which turned out a
> pain to compile.
Yes, GMP is a pain to compile (especially on Mac OS X), but I believe
that the Univ
Josiah Carlson wrote:
> Mark Carter wrote:
>> Not that I'm particularly knowledgeable about language design issues,
>> but maybe closures and slightly different scoping rules would be nice.
>
> Python has had closures for years.
I just looked up
http://www.secnetix.de/~olli/Python/lambda_functio
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
George Sakkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>I had probably stumbled on many/most of the common pitfalls usually
>mentioned (e.g. http://www.ferg.org/projects/python_gotchas.html,
>http://zephyrfalcon.org/labs/python_pitfalls.html) while learning, but
>picked them up
Mark Carter wrote:
> Not that I'm particularly knowledgeable about language design issues,
> but maybe closures and slightly different scoping rules would be nice.
Python has had closures for years. What kind of scoping did you desire?
> A
> pitfall of Python is knowing whether an operation is
On Jun 2, 12:31 pm, Steve Howell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> --- Mark Carter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Well, I know I'm preaching to the converted - but
> > Python rocks.
> > [...]
>
> A few questions from the choir:
>
> As a recent ne
Steve Howell wrote:
> --- Mark Carter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> Well, I know I'm preaching to the converted - but
>> Python rocks.
>> [...]
>
> A few questions from the choir:
>
> As a recent newcomer to the language, did you
> encount
--- Mark Carter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Well, I know I'm preaching to the converted - but
> Python rocks.
> [...]
A few questions from the choir:
As a recent newcomer to the language, did you
encounter any traps or pitfalls while you were
learning? Also, could you si
Well, I know I'm preaching to the converted - but Python rocks.
I've been enchanted by the siren calls of Scheme, Lisp and Forth, but in
the end, I find Python much easier. I even tried a little bit of Tcl.
To give a bit of context ... I have recently switched from Windows to OS
X an
20 matches
Mail list logo
