On Tue, May 31, 2011 at 21:29, Ian Kelly wrote:
> On Tue, May 31, 2011 at 11:56 AM, Dotan Cohen wrote:
>>> If you disagree, then I invite you to list one example of two
>>> different things that are compatible.
>>>
>>
>> Men and women.
>
> This is a slightly different sense of the word compatibl
On Tue, May 31, 2011 at 11:56 AM, Dotan Cohen wrote:
>> If you disagree, then I invite you to list one example of two
>> different things that are compatible.
>>
>
> Men and women.
This is a slightly different sense of the word compatible than we have
been discussing: able to work together to pe
> If you disagree, then I invite you to list one example of two
> different things that are compatible.
>
Men and women.
MS Office and Open Office.
IE6 and HTML.
--
Dotan Cohen
http://gibberish.co.il
http://what-is-what.com
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
On 31/05/2011 06:48, Ben Finney wrote:
Dennis Lee Bieber writes:
Well... He did say "find the bathroom", not ask for directions to
whatever euphemism is in current usage (water closet, W/C, loo ?)
The room which contains the bath is the bathroom.
Assuming that the toilet is in the s
Dennis Lee Bieber writes:
> Well... He did say "find the bathroom", not ask for directions to
> whatever euphemism is in current usage (water closet, W/C, loo ?)
The room which contains the bath is the bathroom.
Assuming that the toilet is in the same room as the bath is parochial.
If he
On Mon, May 30, 2011 at 10:20 PM, Dennis Lee Bieber
wrote:
> On Mon, 30 May 2011 21:34:09 -0400, Terry Reedy
> declaimed the following in gmane.comp.python.general:
>
>> On 5/30/2011 8:32 PM, harrismh777 wrote:
>>
>> > Ever tried to read Beowulf in the original? Ever tried to write Ænglisc ?
>>
>
Chris Angelico wrote:
Hmm. If you did write those two scripting languages, we would finally
be able to type "man woman" to get docs on how to talk to women...
Which just wouldn't be fair, because her use of man man would lead
her no closer to understanding how men speak... (er, think, um.
On Tue, May 31, 2011 at 11:16 AM, Ian Kelly wrote:
> On Mon, May 30, 2011 at 6:43 PM, harrismh777 wrote:
>>> If you disagree, then I invite you to list one example of two
>>> different things that are compatible.
>>
>> one man, and one woman
>
> Now you're equivocating. The discussion has
On 5/30/2011 8:32 PM, harrismh777 wrote:
However, I guarantee that if I'm dumped unaided in Piccadilly I'll be
able to hail a cab, pay my £12.00 and get myself to Liverpool Street
Station, find the bathroom, and be on the correct train just in time for
dinner, all without looking into the Engli
On 5/30/2011 8:32 PM, harrismh777 wrote:
Ever tried to read Beowulf in the original? Ever tried to write Ænglisc ?
I have, and it is a lot further from modern American than Python 2 and 3
are from each other.
--
Terry Jan Reedy
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
On Mon, May 30, 2011 at 6:43 PM, harrismh777 wrote:
>> I realize you are now asserting that compatibility is a boolean
>> condition, and that "totally incompatible" is a redundant phrase that
>> you tossed out as a joke. I don't know whether you're sincere or
>> backpedaling, but in any case this
On Tue, 31 May 2011 01:32:01 +0100, harrismh777
wrote:
Steven D'Aprano wrote:
Compatibility is inherently continuous, a matter
of degree.
Compatible by degrees is incompatible. Just 'how' incompatible
determines whether the factor(s) are utterly useless, or just difficult
to negoti
Jason Tackaberry wrote:
At least,
his arguments make more sense if I read him as arguing from the "not
completely compatible" position. It's possible he is intentionally
equivocating for dramatic effect.
yes
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Ian Kelly wrote:
You have just misrepresented Steven's argument, which is rather ironic
considering that you're the one who brought up straw-men. Steven did
not use one code snippet to demonstrate that Python 2 and Python 3 are
fully compatible. The code snippet merely demonstrated that Python
Steven D'Aprano wrote:
LOL
I invite you to consider the difference between a legally dead person
moments before being resuscitated by a paramedic,
( ... alive )
versus a chicken that
has just been beheaded and is still running around the yard,
( ... alive )
versus a
million-
On Mon, May 30, 2011 at 9:00 AM, rantingrick wrote:
> Python 2.x and Pythin 3.x are two different dialects just like Humans
> (Python 3.x) and Chimpanzees (Python 2.x) are similar (compatible) but
> very different versions of talking apes (languages). Sure humans
> (Python 3.x) and chimps (Python
On May 29, 2:28 pm, Jason Tackaberry wrote:
> On 11-05-29 04:06 AM, Ian Kelly wrote:
>
> > I realize you are now asserting that compatibility is a boolean
> > condition, and that "totally incompatible" is a redundant phrase that
> > you tossed out as a joke.
>
> As a casual lurker reading this thr
On May 28, 9:33 pm, harrismh777 wrote:
> Steven D'Aprano wrote:
> > A straw man is not when somebody points out holes in your argument, or
> > unwanted implications that you didn't realise were there. It is when
> > somebody makes claims on your behalf that you did not make to discredit
> > you, n
On 11-05-29 04:06 AM, Ian Kelly wrote:
> I realize you are now asserting that compatibility is a boolean
> condition, and that "totally incompatible" is a redundant phrase that
> you tossed out as a joke.
As a casual lurker reading this thread, I believe he is equating
"completely incompatible" wi
On Sat, 28 May 2011 21:02:47 -0500, harrismh777 wrote:
> Minor, yes, until you need to make something work--- only to be
> frustrated to find that a detail that was not expected has risen to bite
> a sensitive place... :)
Just like when migrating from Python 2.3 to 2.6. And 1.5 and 2.0
On Sat, May 28, 2011 at 8:33 PM, harrismh777 wrote:
> In this present case the straw-man was not "me," rather the straw-man was
> the python language itself. You chose a code-snippet (one small puny dangle
> that doesn't prove a thing) and used it to speak for the entire language!
> As though one
On Fri, May 27, 2011 at 23:40, harrismh777 wrote:
> You have erected a straw-man... once again.
>
I think that is a red herring, not a strawman.
> Most 2.x code *will not* run correctly in 3.x/ Most of the best
> improvements and enhancements of 3.x will not back-port to below 2.7, and
> almost
Steven D'Aprano wrote:
A straw man is not when somebody points out holes in your argument, or
unwanted implications that you didn't realise were there. It is when
somebody makes claims on your behalf that you did not make to discredit
you, not because you don't understand the implications of your
On Sun, May 29, 2011 at 12:02 PM, harrismh777 wrote:
> Chris Angelico wrote:
>> Both versions of Python are
>> the same language, because they "think" the same way;
> I see your point. But, knowing that 3.x "thinks" like 2.x is not helpful
> when we all know that languages don't think, people
Chris Angelico wrote:
Both versions of Python are
the same language, because they "think" the same way;
I appreciate your thought. And there is an obvious continuity in
philosophy between 2.x and 3.x; in fact even a cursory study of the
history of python demonstrates a concerted effort t
On 5/28/2011 2:57 PM, Uncle Ben wrote:
Just this past Tuesday, I blindly downloaded 3.1 and found that at the
level I am workloing, all it took to get my 2.7 code to run was to put
parens around the print arguments and double the slashes in integer
division. I didn't even use the 2to3 automation
On Sun, May 29, 2011 at 5:21 AM, harrismh777 wrote:
> The problem is that they "look" similar. :)
C looks like every other bracey language in the world. Is that a
problem? According to Wikipedia, there's quite a lot of them:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_programming_languages_by_categ
Ethan Furman wrote:
Um -- how can you have on the one hand "completely not compatible" and
on the other "code that can cross-execute on either version"?
Great question ! .. .it has to do with education.
... if you learn 2.x (only) and attempt to program on the 3.x platform,
(without helps, ed
On May 27, 5:33 pm, Ethan Furman wrote:
> Lew Schwartz wrote:
> > So, if I read between the lines correctly, you recommend Python 3? Does
> > the windows version install with a development environment?
>
> Dabo, last I checked, uses wxPython, which uses wxWidgets (sp?), which
> is not yet ported t
On Sat, 28 May 2011 07:06:53 +0200
Thomas Rachel
wrote:
> > "Completely incompatible"? A "lie"?
>
> Hard word, but it is true. Many things can and will fall on your feet
> when moving.
>
> There are very many subtle differences.
The space between "Completely incompatible" and "many subtle
diff
On Sat, 28 May 2011 08:38:54 +0200, Thorsten Kampe wrote:
> * Thomas Rachel (Sat, 28 May 2011 07:06:53 +0200)
>> Am 27.05.2011 17:52 schrieb Steven D'Aprano:
>> > On Fri, 27 May 2011 09:40:53 -0500, harrismh777 wrote:
>> >> 3.x is completely incompatible with 2.x (some call it a dialect, but
>> >>
* Thorsten Kampe (Sat, 28 May 2011 08:38:54 +0200)
> My experience is: unless the code is especially written with Python3
> compatability [...]
Oops, I meant "unless the code is specifically written with Python3
compatability in mind [...]"
Thorsten
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/py
On Sat, May 28, 2011 at 4:38 PM, Thorsten Kampe
wrote:
> The question is: if you want (or have) to run your code under Python3,
> how likely is that it will run unmodified? My experience is: unless the
> code is especially written with Python3 compatability or just a short
> snippet, it's actually
* Thomas Rachel (Sat, 28 May 2011 07:06:53 +0200)
> Am 27.05.2011 17:52 schrieb Steven D'Aprano:
> > On Fri, 27 May 2011 09:40:53 -0500, harrismh777 wrote:
> >> 3.x is completely incompatible with 2.x (some call it a dialect,
> >> but that is a lie).
> >
> > "Completely incompatible"? A "lie"?
>
>
On Fri, 27 May 2011 15:40:53 -0500, harrismh777 wrote:
> Steven D'Aprano wrote:
>> Would you care to revise your claims?
>
> No.
>
>
> You have erected a straw-man... once again.
You keep using that term, but it is clear to me that you don't have the
foggiest idea of what the straw-man fallac
On Fri, 27 May 2011 20:02:39 -0500, harrismh777 wrote:
> But the true picture is that 3.x is (way better) and completely
> incompatible with 2.x. Lying about this isn't helpful to anyone coming
> on board with Python. Just tell them the truth...
Take your own advice and stop accusing others of
Am 27.05.2011 17:52 schrieb Steven D'Aprano:
On Fri, 27 May 2011 09:40:53 -0500, harrismh777 wrote:
3.x is completely incompatible with 2.x (some call it a dialect,
but that is a lie).
"Completely incompatible"? A "lie"?
Hard word, but it is true. Many things can and will fall on your feet
On Fri, May 27, 2011 at 7:40 AM, harrismh777 wrote:
> Colin J. Williams wrote:
>
>> It would be safer to stick with Python 2.7 initially and then consider
>> the transition to 3.2 later.
>>
>
> I must disagree with Colin's statement. If you are a complete beginner with
> Python... then there is go
harrismh777 wrote:
Chris Angelico wrote:
To say that "most" 2.x code is
incompatible with 3.x is to deny the 2to3 utility,
all I'm
saying is that 3.x is not compatible with 2.x code (completely not
compatible)
and you're ignoring
the people who deliberately write code that can cross-execu
Chris Angelico wrote:
To say that "most" 2.x code is
incompatible with 3.x is to deny the 2to3 utility,
Oh, yes absolutely. Please don't misunderstand... anyone... I'm not
saying that code cannot be migrated... migration can usually occur
between incompatible releases and and between langu
On Sat, May 28, 2011 at 6:40 AM, harrismh777 wrote:
> Most 2.x code *will not* run correctly in 3.x/ Most of the best
> improvements and enhancements of 3.x will not back-port to below 2.7, and
> almost none of them will back-port before 2.6 (class decorations, for
> instance).
What's with the "
Lew Schwartz wrote:
So, if I read between the lines correctly, you recommend Python 3? Does
the windows version install with a development environment?
Dabo, last I checked, uses wxPython, which uses wxWidgets (sp?), which
is not yet ported to Python 3. So if you got that route you'll need to
Steven D'Aprano wrote:
Would you care to revise your claims?
No.
You have erected a straw-man... once again.
Most 2.x code *will not* run correctly in 3.x/ Most of the best
improvements and enhancements of 3.x will not back-port to below 2.7,
and almost none of them will back-port before
On Fri, 27 May 2011 09:40:53 -0500, harrismh777 wrote:
> 3.x is completely incompatible with 2.x (some call it a dialect,
> but that is a lie).
"Completely incompatible"? A "lie"?
import math
import random
my_list = [3, 5, 7, 9]
n = random.choice(my_list)
if n%3:
func = math.sin
else:
Colin J. Williams wrote:
It would be safer to stick with Python 2.7 initially and then consider
the transition to 3.2 later.
I must disagree with Colin's statement. If you are a complete beginner
with Python... then there is going to a learning curve for you... and
that curve should be 3.2---
On 25-May-11 02:22 AM, Lew Schwartz wrote:
So, if I read between the lines correctly, you recommend Python 3? Does
the windows version install with a development environment?
It would be safer to stick with Python 2.7 initially and then consider
the transition to 3.2 later.
No, there is not
Lew Schwartz wrote:
So, if I read between the lines correctly, you recommend Python 3?
Does the windows version install with a development environment?
If you want to use python 3, make sure before that all the good stuff
you need (==modules) have been ported to python 3.
If you are a complet
So, if I read between the lines correctly, you recommend Python 3? Does the
windows version install with a development environment?
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
On 05/24/2011 03:17 PM, Lew Schwartz wrote:
Here's my background:
I'm a Windows based Visual FoxPro developer, and I want to start
programming in Python. I'll be sticking to Windows (XP & 7) and my
immediate needs are to manage & display large groups of jpg's, tiff's
etc... so I need form based
49 matches
Mail list logo
