On May 9, 2:31 am, Trent Nelson wrote:
> > What are your favorites?
>
> I think I've posted this before, but I love my
> 3-lines-if-you-ignore-the-scaffolding language translator. Not because it's
> clever code -- quite the opposite, the code is dead simple -- but because it
> encompasses one
> What are your favorites?
I think I've posted this before, but I love my
3-lines-if-you-ignore-the-scaffolding language translator. Not because it's
clever code -- quite the opposite, the code is dead simple -- but because it
encompasses one of the things I love about Python the most: it gets
On May 7, 1:29 am, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
> On Fri, 06 May 2011 12:36:09 -0600, Ian Kelly wrote:
> > The amb engine would conceptually execute this function for every
> > possible combination of a, b, and c,
>
> Which pretty much is the definition of "brute-force solver", no?
FWIW, here's one of
On Sat, May 7, 2011 at 2:29 AM, Steven D'Aprano
wrote:
>> This isn't really amb; as you said it's just a brute-force solver with
>> some weird syntax. The whole point of amb is to enable
>> non-deterministic programming, such as this:
> [...]
>> The amb engine would conceptually execute this func
On Fri, 06 May 2011 12:36:09 -0600, Ian Kelly wrote:
> On Fri, May 6, 2011 at 10:59 AM, Steven D'Aprano
> wrote:
>> As written, amb is just a brute-force solver using more magic than is
>> good for any code, but it's fun to play with.
>
> This isn't really amb; as you said it's just a brute-forc
[Steven D'Aprano]:
> As written, amb is just a brute-force solver using more magic than is
> good for any code, but it's fun to play with.
With a small change in API, much of the magic isn't needed.
from itertools import product
def amb(func, *argument_ranges):
for args in product(*argument_
On Fri, May 6, 2011 at 12:36 PM, Ian Kelly wrote:
> This is typically implemented using continuations, and I'm not sure
> whether a true amb could actually be achieved in Python without adding
> continuations or flow-control macros to the language.
I stand corrected. After poking around a bit mo
On Fri, May 6, 2011 at 10:59 AM, Steven D'Aprano
wrote:
> As written, amb is just a brute-force solver using more magic than is
> good for any code, but it's fun to play with.
This isn't really amb; as you said it's just a brute-force solver with
some weird syntax. The whole point of amb is to e
On Fri, May 6, 2011 at 9:59 AM, Steven D'Aprano
wrote:
> On Mon, 02 May 2011 10:33:31 -0700, Raymond Hettinger wrote:
>
>> I think it is time to give some visibility to some of the instructive
>> and very cool recipes in ActiveState's python cookbook.
> [...]
>> What are your favorites?
>
>
> I'm
On Mon, 02 May 2011 10:33:31 -0700, Raymond Hettinger wrote:
> I think it is time to give some visibility to some of the instructive
> and very cool recipes in ActiveState's python cookbook.
[...]
> What are your favorites?
I'm not sure if favourite is the right word, but I'm amazed by this one:
On Tuesday 03 May 2011 16:00:05 Terry Reedy wrote:
> On 5/3/2011 1:04 AM, Stefan Behnel wrote:
> > The bad thing about this recipe is that it requires quite a
> > bit of background knowledge in order to infer that the
> > code the developer is looking at is actually correct.
>
> The main math know
On May 2, 11:23 pm, Stefan Behnel wrote:
> Terry Reedy, 03.05.2011 08:00:
>
> > On 5/3/2011 1:04 AM, Stefan Behnel wrote:
>
> >> The bad thing about this recipe is that it requires quite a bit of
> >> background knowledge in order to infer that the code the developer is
> >> looking at is actually
On Tue, May 3, 2011 at 3:54 PM, Chris Angelico wrote:
> On Wed, May 4, 2011 at 2:43 AM, Raymond Hettinger wrote:
>> We should have a separate thread for the most practical, best
>> documented, least surprising, and most boring recipe ;-)
>
> a += b # Adds b to a in-place. Polymorphic - works on
On Wed, May 4, 2011 at 2:43 AM, Raymond Hettinger wrote:
> We should have a separate thread for the most practical, best
> documented, least surprising, and most boring recipe ;-)
a += b # Adds b to a in-place. Polymorphic - works on a wide variety of types.
You didn't say it had to be complic
On Tue, May 3, 2011 at 8:49 AM, Terry Reedy wrote:
> On 5/3/2011 2:29 AM, Gregory Ewing wrote:
>>
>> Terry Reedy wrote:
>>>
>>> The trick is that replacing x with j and evaluating therefore causes
>>> (in Python) all the coefficients of x (now j) to be added together
>>> separately from all the co
On May 2, 10:04 pm, Stefan Behnel wrote:
> The bad thing about this recipe is that it requires quite a bit of
> background knowledge in order to infer that the code the developer is
> looking at is actually correct. At first sight, it looks like an evil hack,
> and the lack of documentation doesn'
On May 2, 11:29 pm, Gregory Ewing wrote:
> Terry Reedy wrote:
> > The trick is that replacing x with j and evaluating
> > therefore causes (in Python) all the coefficients of x (now j) to be
> > added together separately from all the constant terms to reduce the
> > linear equation to a*x+b (= 0 i
On 5/3/2011 2:29 AM, Gregory Ewing wrote:
Terry Reedy wrote:
The trick is that replacing x with j and evaluating therefore causes
(in Python) all the coefficients of x (now j) to be added together
separately from all the constant terms to reduce the linear equation
to a*x+b (= 0 implied).
Hmmm
Terry Reedy wrote:
The trick is that replacing x with j and evaluating
therefore causes (in Python) all the coefficients of x (now j) to be
added together separately from all the constant terms to reduce the
linear equation to a*x+b (= 0 implied).
Hmmm... so if we used quaternions, could we s
Terry Reedy, 03.05.2011 08:00:
On 5/3/2011 1:04 AM, Stefan Behnel wrote:
The bad thing about this recipe is that it requires quite a bit of
background knowledge in order to infer that the code the developer is
looking at is actually correct.
The main math knowledge needed is the trivial fact
On 5/3/2011 1:04 AM, Stefan Behnel wrote:
The bad thing about this recipe is that it requires quite a bit of
background knowledge in order to infer that the code the developer is
looking at is actually correct.
The main math knowledge needed is the trivial fact that if a*x + b = 0,
then x = -
On Mon, May 2, 2011 at 11:04 PM, Stefan Behnel wrote:
> The bad thing about this recipe is that it requires quite a bit of
> background knowledge in order to infer that the code the developer is
> looking at is actually correct. At first sight, it looks like an evil hack,
> and the lack of documen
David Monaghan, 02.05.2011 23:45:
On Mon, 2 May 2011 14:58:50 -0600, Ian Kelly wrote:
On Mon, May 2, 2011 at 2:48 PM, David Monaghan wrote:
On Mon, 2 May 2011 10:33:31 -0700 (PDT), Raymond Hettinger wrote:
I think it is time to give some visibility to some of the instructive
and very cool re
On Mon, 2 May 2011 14:58:50 -0600, Ian Kelly wrote:
>On Mon, May 2, 2011 at 2:48 PM, David Monaghan
> wrote:
>> On Mon, 2 May 2011 10:33:31 -0700 (PDT), Raymond Hettinger
>> wrote:
>>
>>>I think it is time to give some visibility to some of the instructive
>>>and very cool recipes in ActiveState
On Mon, May 2, 2011 at 2:48 PM, David Monaghan
wrote:
> On Mon, 2 May 2011 10:33:31 -0700 (PDT), Raymond Hettinger
> wrote:
>
>>I think it is time to give some visibility to some of the instructive
>>and very cool recipes in ActiveState's python cookbook.
>>
>>My vote for the coolest recipe of al
On Mon, 2 May 2011 10:33:31 -0700 (PDT), Raymond Hettinger
wrote:
>I think it is time to give some visibility to some of the instructive
>and very cool recipes in ActiveState's python cookbook.
>
>My vote for the coolest recipe of all time is:
>
>
> http://code.activestate.com/recipes/365013-
26 matches
Mail list logo
