In article ,
Grant Edwards wrote:
>On 2010-03-03, Grant Edwards wrote:
>> On 2010-03-03, Gregory Ewing wrote:
>>> Grant Edwards wrote:
>>>
Just a mediocre copy of the CP/M filesystem, which was in turn
copied from DEC's RSTS or RSX.
>>>
>>> It was actually an improvement over CP/M's f
Steven D'Aprano wrote:
(a) Can we objectively judge the goodness of code, or is it subjective?
(b) Is goodness of code quantitative, or is it qualitative?
Yes, I'm not really talking about numeric vs. non-numeric,
but objective vs. subjective. The measurement doesn't have
to yield a numeric r
On Thu, 04 Mar 2010 23:38:31 +1300, Gregory Ewing wrote:
> Steven D'Aprano wrote:
>
>> True, but one can look at "best practice", or even "standard practice".
>> For Python coders, using docstrings is standard practice if not best
>> practice. Using strings as comments is not.
>
> In that partic
Gregory Ewing writes:
> However, that's only a very small part of what goes to make good code.
> Much more important are questions like: Are the comments meaningful
> and helpful? Is the code reasonably self-explanatory outside of the
> comments? Is it well modularised, and common functionality f
Steven D'Aprano wrote:
True, but one can look at "best practice", or even "standard practice".
For Python coders, using docstrings is standard practice if not best
practice. Using strings as comments is not.
In that particular case, yes, it would be possible to
objectively examine the code an
Steve Holden wrote:
Puts me in mind of Mario Wolczko's early attempts to implement SmallTalk
on a VAX 11/750. The only bitmapped display we had available was a Three
Rivers PERQ, connected by a 9600bps serial line. We left it running at
seven o'clock one evening, and by nine am the next day it h
Richard Brodie wrote:
It goes back to ancient PDP operating systems, so may well
predate Unix, depending which exact OS was the first to use it.
Yes, I think it was used in RT-11, which also had
block-oriented disk files.
There were two kinds of devices in RT-11, character
and block, and the
D'Arcy J.M. Cain wrote:
And that is why text files in MS-DOS and CP/M before it end with ^Z.
They needed a way to tell where the end of the information was. Why
they used ^Z (SUB - Substitute) instead of ^C (ETX - End of TeXt) or
even ^D (EOT - End Of Transmission) is anyone's guess.
Well, ^C
In article ,
"D'Arcy J.M. Cain" wrote:
> On Wed, 03 Mar 2010 14:42:00 +
> MRAB wrote:
> > Gregory Ewing wrote:
> > Mk14 from Science of Cambridge, a kit with hex keypad and 7-segment
> > display, which I had to solder together, and also make my own power
> > supply. I had the extra RAM and
On Wed, 03 Mar 2010 19:38:16 -, Steve Holden
wrote:
mk wrote:
D'Arcy J.M. Cain wrote:
Makes me want to go down to the basement and fire up the Altair. :-)
Please don't, or else I fire up that univ Yugoslavian copy of VAX with
Pascal compiler (where I wrote my first program) and I wi
On Wed, Mar 3, 2010 at 3:02 PM, Grant Edwards wrote:
> On 2010-03-03, mk wrote:
>
>>> That has always puzzled me to. ETX and EOT were well established, why
>>> no use one of them? I'd love to know what they were thinking.
>>
>> Probably nothing: what many people do with confronted with a problem.
On Wed, 03 Mar 2010 22:19:04 +0100 mk wrote:
> For the uncouth yobs, err, culturally-challenged:
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xe1a1wHxTyo
>
> (Four Yorkshiremen)
>
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-eDaSvRO9xA
That's the definitive version. I mean, if you're going to talk vintage,
talk vi
--- On Wed, 3/3/10, David Robinow wrote:
> From: David Robinow
> Subject: Re: Docstrings considered too complicated
> To: python-list@python.org
> Date: Wednesday, March 3, 2010, 2:54 PM
> On Wed, Mar 3, 2010 at 1:01 PM, Ed
> Keith
> wrote:
> > --- On Wed, 3/3/
Steve Holden wrote:
Puts me in mind of Mario Wolczko's early attempts to implement SmallTalk
on a VAX 11/750. The only bitmapped display we had available was a Three
Rivers PERQ, connected by a 9600bps serial line. We left it running at
seven o'clock one evening, and by nine am the next day it h
On 2010-03-03, mk wrote:
>> That has always puzzled me to. ETX and EOT were well established, why
>> no use one of them? I'd love to know what they were thinking.
>
> Probably nothing: what many people do with confronted with a problem.
>
> It reminds me of why Windows uses backslashes for path s
On Wed, Mar 3, 2010 at 1:01 PM, Ed Keith wrote:
> --- On Wed, 3/3/10, D'Arcy J.M. Cain wrote:
>
>> They needed a way to tell where the end of the information
>> was. Why
>> they used ^Z (SUB - Substitute) instead of ^C (ETX - End of
>> TeXt) or
>> even ^D (EOT - End Of Transmission) is anyone's
Ed Keith wrote:
--- On Wed, 3/3/10, D'Arcy J.M. Cain wrote:
They needed a way to tell where the end of the information
was. Why
they used ^Z (SUB - Substitute) instead of ^C (ETX - End of
TeXt) or
even ^D (EOT - End Of Transmission) is anyone's guess.
That has always puzzled me to. ETX and
mk wrote:
> D'Arcy J.M. Cain wrote:
>
>> Makes me want to go down to the basement and fire up the Altair. :-)
>
> Please don't, or else I fire up that univ Yugoslavian copy of VAX with
> Pascal compiler (where I wrote my first program) and I will start my
> first program of ping-pong.
>
> It wa
D'Arcy J.M. Cain wrote:
On Wed, 03 Mar 2010 14:42:00 +
MRAB wrote:
Gregory Ewing wrote:
Mk14 from Science of Cambridge, a kit with hex keypad and 7-segment
display, which I had to solder together, and also make my own power
supply. I had the extra RAM and the I/O chip, so that's 256B (inclu
"Ed Keith" wrote in message
news:mailman.215.1267639293.23598.python-l...@python.org...
> That has always puzzled me to. ETX and EOT were well established,
> why no use one of them? I'd love to know what they were thinking.
It goes back to ancient PDP operating systems, so may well
predate Un
D'Arcy J.M. Cain wrote:
On Wed, 3 Mar 2010 15:05:54 + (UTC)
Grant Edwards wrote:
It was actually an improvement over CP/M's file
system. CP/M didn't have hierarchical directories
Neither did the original MS-DOS filesystem.
I think that it always had a hierarchical file system although I
--- On Wed, 3/3/10, D'Arcy J.M. Cain wrote:
> They needed a way to tell where the end of the information
> was. Why
> they used ^Z (SUB - Substitute) instead of ^C (ETX - End of
> TeXt) or
> even ^D (EOT - End Of Transmission) is anyone's guess.
That has always puzzled me to. ETX and EOT were w
D'Arcy J.M. Cain wrote:
Makes me want to go down to the basement and fire up the Altair. :-)
Please don't, or else I fire up that univ Yugoslavian copy of VAX with
Pascal compiler (where I wrote my first program) and I will start my
first program of ping-pong.
It was a few hundred lines b
On 2010-03-03, D'Arcy J.M. Cain wrote:
> On Wed, 3 Mar 2010 15:05:54 + (UTC)
> Grant Edwards wrote:
>> > It was actually an improvement over CP/M's file
>> > system. CP/M didn't have hierarchical directories
>>
>> Neither did the original MS-DOS filesystem.
>
> I think that it always had a h
On Wed, 3 Mar 2010 15:05:54 + (UTC)
Grant Edwards wrote:
> > It was actually an improvement over CP/M's file
> > system. CP/M didn't have hierarchical directories
>
> Neither did the original MS-DOS filesystem.
I think that it always had a hierarchical file system although I am not
sure abou
On Wed, Mar 3, 2010 at 10:30 AM, Grant Edwards wrote:
> On 2010-03-03, Grant Edwards wrote:
> I definitely remember that old MS-DOS programs would treat
> Ctrl-Z as an EOF marker when it was read from a text file and
> would terminate a text file with a Ctrl-Z when writing one.
Actually cmd.exe
* Steven D'Aprano:
On Wed, 03 Mar 2010 15:30:36 +, Grant Edwards wrote:
I definitely remember that old MS-DOS programs would treat Ctrl-Z as an
EOF marker when it was read from a text file and would terminate a text
file with a Ctrl-Z when writing one.
I believe that Windows (at least up
On Wed, 03 Mar 2010 15:30:36 +, Grant Edwards wrote:
> I definitely remember that old MS-DOS programs would treat Ctrl-Z as an
> EOF marker when it was read from a text file and would terminate a text
> file with a Ctrl-Z when writing one.
I believe that Windows (at least up to Windows XP) st
On Wed, 03 Mar 2010 14:42:00 +
MRAB wrote:
> Gregory Ewing wrote:
> Mk14 from Science of Cambridge, a kit with hex keypad and 7-segment
> display, which I had to solder together, and also make my own power
> supply. I had the extra RAM and the I/O chip, so that's 256B (including
> the memory u
On 2010-03-03, Grant Edwards wrote:
> On 2010-03-03, Gregory Ewing wrote:
>> Grant Edwards wrote:
>>
>>> Just a mediocre copy of the CP/M filesystem, which was in turn
>>> copied from DEC's RSTS or RSX.
>>
>> It was actually an improvement over CP/M's file system. CP/M
>> didn't have hierarchical
On 2010-03-03, Gregory Ewing wrote:
> Grant Edwards wrote:
>
>> Just a mediocre copy of the CP/M filesystem, which was in turn
>> copied from DEC's RSTS or RSX.
>
> It was actually an improvement over CP/M's file
> system. CP/M didn't have hierarchical directories
Neither did the original MS-DOS
Gregory Ewing wrote:
MRAB wrote:
BTW, the first programming I did was in hexadecimal (C4xx was "LDI xx").
Hey, a SC/MP! That was my first programming language,
too. What sort of machine was it in?
Mk14 from Science of Cambridge, a kit with hex keypad and 7-segment
display, which I had to so
On 03/03/2010 04:48 PM, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
> Or one can simply use *reason*: what justification is there for putting
> comments in strings at the top of the function? The only one I can see is
> if you are writing for an embedded device, you may want to remove doc
> strings to save memory --
On Feb 24, 9:23 pm, Andreas Waldenburger
wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> a company that works with my company writes a lot of of their code in
> Python (lucky jerks). I've seen their code and it basically looks like
> this:
>
> """Function that does stuff"""
> def doStuff():
> while not wise(up):
>
On Wed, 03 Mar 2010 18:40:00 +1300, Gregory Ewing wrote:
> Ben Finney wrote:
>
>> Just as customers should demand both that a building be built to do its
>> job well, *and* that its architectural plans meet measurable, testable
>> industry standards of quality for independent re-use at some
>> in
Ben Finney wrote:
Just as customers should demand both that a building be built to do its
job well, *and* that its architectural plans meet measurable, testable
industry standards of quality for independent re-use at some
indeterminate later date.
A problem is that it's very hard to come up wi
Grant Edwards wrote:
Just a mediocre copy of the CP/M filesystem, which was in turn
copied from DEC's RSTS or RSX.
It was actually an improvement over CP/M's file
system. CP/M didn't have hierarchical directories
or timestamps and recorded file sizes in 128-byte
blocks rather than bytes.
--
G
MRAB wrote:
BTW, the first programming I did was in hexadecimal (C4xx was "LDI xx").
Hey, a SC/MP! That was my first programming language,
too. What sort of machine was it in?
--
Greg
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Andreas Waldenburger writes:
> It works. They are supposed to make it work. And that's what they do.
> Whether or not they put their docstrings in the place they should does
> not change that their code works.
No-one has been denying that.
What the quality of their source code *does* affect, th
On Tue, 02 Mar 2010 23:19:09 +0100, Andreas Waldenburger wrote:
> We demand testable quality standards, but not of their code. We demand
> it of their software. We say *what* we want, they decide *how* they'll
> do it. Noncompliance will be fined, by a contractually agreed amount.
> Everything bey
On Tue, 02 Mar 2010 22:51:56 +0100, Andreas Waldenburger wrote:
> On Tue, 02 Mar 2010 19:05:25 +0100 Jean-Michel Pichavant
> wrote:
>
>> Andreas Waldenburger wrote:
>> >
>> > I had hoped that everyone just read it, went like "Oh geez.", smiled
>> > it off with a hint of lesson learned and got b
On 2010-03-02, Albert van der Horst wrote:
> No nothing clever, nothing conscious, just reinventing the wheel
> badly.
>
> Next time you tell me that the MSDOS "file" system was well thought
> out :-)
Just a mediocre copy of the CP/M filesystem, which was in turn
copied from DEC's RSTS or RSX.
In article <20100302225156.67171...@geekmail.invalid>,
Andreas Waldenburger wrote:
>
>Sorry, you guys drained all the funny out of me.
Don't let a few nitpickers do that! I thought it was funny; after that,
just remember that every Usenet thread drifts away from *your* point.
--
Aahz (a...@pyt
In article , Mel wrote:
>Jean-Michel Pichavant wrote:
>> Andreas Waldenburger wrote:
>>> On Fri, 26 Feb 2010 09:09:36 -0600 Tim Daneliuk
>>> wrote:
Reminiscent of:
mov AX,BX ; Move the contents of BX into AX
>
>>> Well, there might be some confusion there as to what gets
On Wed, 03 Mar 2010 08:22:40 +1100 Ben Finney
wrote:
> Andreas Waldenburger writes:
>
> > Don't get me wrong; our whole system is more fragile than I find
> > comfortable. But I guess getting 10ish different parties around the
> > globe to work in complete unison is quite a feat, and I'm surpri
On Tue, 02 Mar 2010 19:05:25 +0100 Jean-Michel Pichavant
wrote:
> Andreas Waldenburger wrote:
> >
> > I had hoped that everyone just read it, went like "Oh geez.",
> > smiled it off with a hint of lesson learned and got back to
> > whatever it was they were doing. Alas, I was wrong ... and I'm
>
Andreas Waldenburger writes:
> Don't get me wrong; our whole system is more fragile than I find
> comfortable. But I guess getting 10ish different parties around the
> globe to work in complete unison is quite a feat, and I'm surprised it
> even works as it is. But it does, and I'm glad we don't
Andreas Waldenburger wrote:
On Tue, 02 Mar 2010 09:48:47 +1100 Ben Finney
wrote:
It's not our concern.
Then I don't see what that problem is.
There is none. I was griping about how stupid they are. That is a
personal problem I have with their *code* (not software), and I tho
On Tue, 02 Mar 2010 09:48:47 +1100 Ben Finney
wrote:
> > It's not our concern.
>
> Then I don't see what that problem is.
There is none. I was griping about how stupid they are. That is a
personal problem I have with their *code* (not software), and I thought
I'd just share my superiority com
On Mon, 01 Mar 2010 21:09:39 + Mark Lawrence
wrote:
> Andreas Waldenburger wrote:
> > [snip]
> > We did not buy code. If it were written in C or such, we would never
> > get to see it.
> >
> > It's not our concern.
> >
> > /W
> >
>
> From your original post.
>
>
> a company that works
In article ,
MRAB wrote:
> Ah, yes, Star Trek (the original series).
>
> If they transported down to a planet and there was a man in a red shirt
> who you'd never seen before, he'd be the one to die! :-)
Of course. Everybody knows there's an endless supply of red shirts.
--
http://mail.pytho
Andreas Waldenburger writes:
> On Mon, 01 Mar 2010 18:42:17 +0100 Jean-Michel Pichavant
> wrote:
>
> > Andreas Waldenburger wrote:
> > [snip]
> > > Back in the software world: Those guys write code that works. It
> > > does what it's supposed to do. Why should we care where they put
> > > their
Andreas Waldenburger wrote:
On Mon, 01 Mar 2010 18:42:17 +0100 Jean-Michel Pichavant
wrote:
Andreas Waldenburger wrote:
[snip]
Back in the software world: Those guys write code that works. It
does what it's supposed to do. Why should we care where they put
their comments?
If you've bought
On Mon, 01 Mar 2010 18:42:17 +0100 Jean-Michel Pichavant
wrote:
> Andreas Waldenburger wrote:
> [snip]
> > Back in the software world: Those guys write code that works. It
> > does what it's supposed to do. Why should we care where they put
> > their comments?
> >
> >
> If you've bought the co
On Mon, 01 Mar 2010 11:42:16 -0600 Robert Kern
wrote:
> On 2010-03-01 11:22 , Andreas Waldenburger wrote:
>
> > Back in the software world: Those guys write code that works. It
> > does what it's supposed to do. Why should we care where they put
> > their comments?
>
> Software usually needs to
On 2010-03-01 11:22 , Andreas Waldenburger wrote:
Back in the software world: Those guys write code that works. It does
what it's supposed to do. Why should we care where they put their
comments?
Software usually needs to be maintained and extended over the course of its
lifetime. The origina
Andreas Waldenburger wrote:
On Tue, 02 Mar 2010 03:18:30 +1100 Lie Ryan wrote:
On 03/02/10 00:09, Andreas Waldenburger wrote:
On Mon, 1 Mar 2010 05:01:49 -0800 (PST) alex23
wrote:
Andreas Waldenburger wrote:
But as I said: a) I am (we are) not in a position to imp
On Tue, 02 Mar 2010 03:18:30 +1100 Lie Ryan wrote:
> On 03/02/10 00:09, Andreas Waldenburger wrote:
> > On Mon, 1 Mar 2010 05:01:49 -0800 (PST) alex23
> > wrote:
> >
> >> Andreas Waldenburger wrote:
> >>> But as I said: a) I am (we are) not in a position to impose this
> >>> (We don't work wit
On 03/02/10 00:09, Andreas Waldenburger wrote:
> On Mon, 1 Mar 2010 05:01:49 -0800 (PST) alex23
> wrote:
>
>> Andreas Waldenburger wrote:
>>> But as I said: a) I am (we are) not in a position to impose this (We
>>> don't work with the code, we just run the software).
>>
>> I personally believe t
Jean-Michel Pichavant wrote:
MRAB wrote:
Gregory Ewing wrote:
Mel wrote:
You could think of it as a not bad use of the design principle
"Clear The Simple Stuff Out Of The Way First". Destinations are
commonly a lot simpler than sources
That's not usually true in assembly languages, though
On Mon, 1 Mar 2010 05:01:49 -0800 (PST) alex23
wrote:
> Andreas Waldenburger wrote:
> > But as I said: a) I am (we are) not in a position to impose this (We
> > don't work with the code, we just run the software).
>
> I personally believe that the end users have _every_ right to impose
> qualit
Andreas Waldenburger wrote:
> But as I said: a) I am (we are) not in a position to impose this (We
> don't work with the code, we just run the software).
I personally believe that the end users have _every_ right to impose
quality requirements on code used within their business...although I
may
MRAB wrote:
Gregory Ewing wrote:
Mel wrote:
You could think of it as a not bad use of the design principle
"Clear The Simple Stuff Out Of The Way First". Destinations are
commonly a lot simpler than sources
That's not usually true in assembly languages, though,
where the source and destina
In article <4b889e3d$0$27844$c3e8...@news.astraweb.com>,
Steven D'Aprano wrote:
>On Fri, 26 Feb 2010 21:51:17 -0600, Tim Daneliuk wrote:
>>
>> The only possible exception to this I can think of is when there is some
>> non-obvious side-effect (i.e. language and/or hardware is
>> "misfeatured"):
>
Gregory Ewing wrote:
> Mel wrote:
>
>> You could think of it as a not bad use of the design principle "Clear The
>> Simple Stuff Out Of The Way First". Destinations are commonly a lot
>> simpler than sources
Calculations for immediate values could be just about anything.
Mel.
--
htt
Gregory Ewing wrote:
Mel wrote:
You could think of it as a not bad use of the design principle "Clear
The Simple Stuff Out Of The Way First". Destinations are commonly a
lot simpler than sources
That's not usually true in assembly languages, though,
where the source and destination are both
Mel wrote:
You could think of it as a not bad use of the design principle "Clear The
Simple Stuff Out Of The Way First". Destinations are commonly a lot simpler
than sources
That's not usually true in assembly languages, though,
where the source and destination are both very restricted
and o
On Sat, 27 Feb 2010 07:29:46 -0800 (PST) John Pinner
wrote:
> A good way to control Python contractors is (given that firstly there
> are functional specifications to comply with, and tests to pass) is to
> impose the following condition:
>
> that all code delivered must reach a score of (say) 9
Steven D'Aprano writes:
> Also, some assemblies perform the move in different directions according
> to the arguments. So you might have:
>
> mv AX,BX ; move contents of BX into AX
> mv @CX,DX ; move contents of @CX into DX
>
> Horrible, yes, but apparently some assembly languages did something
On Feb 24, 8:23 pm, Andreas Waldenburger
wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> a company that works with my company writes a lot of of their code in
> Python (lucky jerks). I've seen their code and it basically looks like
> this:
>
> """Function that does stuff"""
> def doStuff():
> while not wise(up):
>
On Fri, 26 Feb 2010 21:51:17 -0600, Tim Daneliuk wrote:
> The only possible exception to this I can think of is when there is some
> non-obvious side-effect (i.e. language and/or hardware is
> "misfeatured"):
>
> mov A,B; Moving A into B also will also arm
>
On Sat, 27 Feb 2010 03:25:47 +, MRAB wrote:
>> Also, some assemblies perform the move in different directions
>> according to the arguments. So you might have:
>>
>> mv AX,BX ; move contents of BX into AX mv @CX,DX ; move contents of
>> @CX into DX
>>
>> Horrible, yes, but apparently some a
On Sat, 27 Feb 2010 00:54:53 +, MRAB wrote:
> The assembly languages of virtually all the processors that I've come
> across put the destination first, eg. x86:
Incorrect. x86 assembly has two distinct syntax branches, "Intel
syntax" (which is most common in the Windows world according to
W
On 2/26/2010 9:25 PM, MRAB wrote:
> Steven D'Aprano wrote:
>> On Fri, 26 Feb 2010 18:47:26 -0600, John Bokma wrote:
>>
>>> Steven D'Aprano writes:
>>>
On Fri, 26 Feb 2010 09:09:36 -0600, Tim Daneliuk wrote:
> Reminiscent of:
>
> mov AX,BX ; Move the contents of
On 27 Feb 2010 00:02:40 GMT
Steven D'Aprano wrote:
> On Fri, 26 Feb 2010 09:09:36 -0600, Tim Daneliuk wrote:
> > mov AX,BX ; Move the contents of BX into AX
>
> That's a *good* comment, because without it most English-speaking people
> would assume you were moving the contents of
Steven D'Aprano wrote:
On Fri, 26 Feb 2010 18:47:26 -0600, John Bokma wrote:
Steven D'Aprano writes:
On Fri, 26 Feb 2010 09:09:36 -0600, Tim Daneliuk wrote:
Reminiscent of:
mov AX,BX ; Move the contents of BX into AX
That's a *good* comment, because without it most Englis
On Fri, 26 Feb 2010 18:47:26 -0600, John Bokma wrote:
> Steven D'Aprano writes:
>
>> On Fri, 26 Feb 2010 09:09:36 -0600, Tim Daneliuk wrote:
>>
>>> Reminiscent of:
>>>
>>> mov AX,BX ; Move the contents of BX into AX
>>
>>
>> That's a *good* comment, because without it most Englis
* MRAB:
Steven D'Aprano wrote:
On Fri, 26 Feb 2010 09:09:36 -0600, Tim Daneliuk wrote:
Reminiscent of:
mov AX,BX ; Move the contents of BX into AX
That's a *good* comment, because without it most English-speaking
people would assume you were moving the contents of AX into B
Steven D'Aprano wrote:
On Fri, 26 Feb 2010 09:09:36 -0600, Tim Daneliuk wrote:
Reminiscent of:
mov AX,BX ; Move the contents of BX into AX
That's a *good* comment, because without it most English-speaking people
would assume you were moving the contents of AX into BX.
[sn
Steven D'Aprano writes:
> On Fri, 26 Feb 2010 09:09:36 -0600, Tim Daneliuk wrote:
>
>> Reminiscent of:
>>
>> mov AX,BX ; Move the contents of BX into AX
>
>
> That's a *good* comment, because without it most English-speaking people
> would assume you were moving the contents of A
On Fri, 26 Feb 2010 09:09:36 -0600, Tim Daneliuk wrote:
> Reminiscent of:
>
> mov AX,BX ; Move the contents of BX into AX
That's a *good* comment, because without it most English-speaking people
would assume you were moving the contents of AX into BX.
> And, yes, I've actually
Jean-Michel Pichavant wrote:
Andreas Waldenburger wrote:
On Fri, 26 Feb 2010 09:09:36 -0600 Tim Daneliuk
wrote:
On 2/24/2010 2:23 PM, Andreas Waldenburger wrote:
[stuff]
Reminiscent of:
mov AX,BX ; Move the contents of BX into AX
Well, there might be some
On 2010-02-26, Jean-Michel Pichavant wrote:
> Andreas Waldenburger wrote:
>> On Fri, 26 Feb 2010 09:09:36 -0600 Tim Daneliuk
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> On 2/24/2010 2:23 PM, Andreas Waldenburger wrote:
>>>
[stuff]
>>> Reminiscent of:
>>>
>>> mov AX,BX ; Move the c
Jean-Michel Pichavant wrote:
> Andreas Waldenburger wrote:
>> On Fri, 26 Feb 2010 09:09:36 -0600 Tim Daneliuk
>> wrote:
>>> Reminiscent of:
>>> mov AX,BX ; Move the contents of BX into AX
>> Well, there might be some confusion there as to what gets moved where,
>> wouldn't you say?
Roy Smith wrote:
/**
* Tracing facility. Writes the message to the specified output stream.
* If output stream is NULL, writes the message to the process log.
*
* @param msg_id The message id to use for lookup.
* @param ostrThe output stream.
* @param p1 The first substition p
Roy Smith wrote:
In article ,
Tim Daneliuk wrote:
On 2/24/2010 2:23 PM, Andreas Waldenburger wrote:
Hi all,
a company that works with my company writes a lot of of their code in
Python (lucky jerks). I've seen their code and it basically looks like
this:
"""Function that does stuff
Andreas Waldenburger wrote:
On Fri, 26 Feb 2010 09:09:36 -0600 Tim Daneliuk
wrote:
On 2/24/2010 2:23 PM, Andreas Waldenburger wrote:
[stuff]
Reminiscent of:
mov AX,BX ; Move the contents of BX into AX
Well, there might be some confusion there as to what
"Andreas Waldenburger" wrote in message
news:20100226173907.55676...@geekmail.invalid...
>> Reminiscent of:
>>
>> mov AX,BX ; Move the contents of BX into AX
>>
> Well, there might be some confusion there as to what gets moved where,
> wouldn't you say?
Depends on what assembler
Andreas Waldenburger wrote:
> """Function that does stuff"""
> def doStuff():
> while not wise(up):
> yield scorn
>
> Now my question is this: How do I kill these people without the
> authorities thinking they didn't deserve it?
Their unit tests are just as complete, illustrative, and
In article ,
Tim Daneliuk wrote:
> On 2/24/2010 2:23 PM, Andreas Waldenburger wrote:
> > Hi all,
> >
> > a company that works with my company writes a lot of of their code in
> > Python (lucky jerks). I've seen their code and it basically looks like
> > this:
> >
> > """Function that does stuf
On Fri, 26 Feb 2010 09:09:36 -0600 Tim Daneliuk
wrote:
> On 2/24/2010 2:23 PM, Andreas Waldenburger wrote:
> > [stuff]
>
> Reminiscent of:
>
> mov AX,BX ; Move the contents of BX into AX
>
Well, there might be some confusion there as to what gets moved where,
wouldn't you say? I
On Fri, 26 Feb 2010 15:50:25 +0100 Jean-Michel Pichavant
wrote:
> Andreas Waldenburger wrote:
>
> > And they use mixedCase function/method names.
> >
> and ? whatIsTheProblem ?
Thanks for proving my point. ;)
No seriously though: Let it go. I wasn't being serious. As long as it
works and I
On 2/24/2010 2:23 PM, Andreas Waldenburger wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> a company that works with my company writes a lot of of their code in
> Python (lucky jerks). I've seen their code and it basically looks like
> this:
>
> """Function that does stuff"""
> def doStuff():
> while not wise(up):
>
Andreas Waldenburger wrote:
On Thu, 25 Feb 2010 12:51:00 -0800 (PST) John Roth
wrote:
On Feb 24, 1:23 pm, Andreas Waldenburger
wrote:
a company that works with my company writes a lot of of their code
in Python (lucky jerks). I've seen their code and it basically
looks like this:
""
On Thu, 25 Feb 2010 12:51:00 -0800 (PST) John Roth
wrote:
> On Feb 24, 1:23 pm, Andreas Waldenburger
> wrote:
> > a company that works with my company writes a lot of of their code
> > in Python (lucky jerks). I've seen their code and it basically
> > looks like this:
> >
> > """Function that do
On Feb 24, 1:23 pm, Andreas Waldenburger
wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> a company that works with my company writes a lot of of their code in
> Python (lucky jerks). I've seen their code and it basically looks like
> this:
>
> """Function that does stuff"""
> def doStuff():
> while not wise(up):
>
On Wed, Feb 24, 2010 at 4:54 PM, Jonathan Gardner
wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 24, 2010 at 12:23 PM, Andreas Waldenburger
> wrote:
>>
>> Now my question is this: How do I kill these people without the
>> authorities thinking they didn't deserve it?
>>
>
> kill -9 seems to work for me.
kill -1 -1
Back i
In article ,
Steven D'Aprano wrote:
> # Function that does stuff
> def doStuff():
> while not wise(up):
> yield scorn
>
>
> which means the biggest problem is that they had the perfect opportunity
> to create a useful docstring and instead f***ed it up by turning it into
> a usel
On Wed, 24 Feb 2010 21:23:03 +0100, Andreas Waldenburger wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> a company that works with my company writes a lot of of their code in
> Python (lucky jerks). I've seen their code and it basically looks like
> this:
>
> """Function that does stuff"""
> def doStuff():
> while not
On 2/24/2010 4:54 PM, Jonathan Gardner wrote:
On Wed, Feb 24, 2010 at 12:23 PM, Andreas Waldenburger
wrote:
Hi all,
a company that works with my company writes a lot of of their code in
Python (lucky jerks). I've seen their code and it basically looks like
this:
"""Function that does stuff""
1 - 100 of 101 matches
Mail list logo
