In article ,
geremy condra wrote:
>On Wed, Jun 30, 2010 at 4:34 PM, Steven D'Aprano
> wrote:
>> On Wed, 30 Jun 2010 22:52:06 +1000, Lie Ryan wrote:
>>>
>>> That is precisely how the quick-and-dirty syntax of print statement can
>>> be justified. While debugging, you'll need to be able to quickly
On 30/06/2010 01:23 p.m., Lie Ryan wrote:
On 07/01/10 01:42, Michele Simionato wrote:
On Jun 30, 2:52 pm, Lie Ryan wrote:
On 06/27/10 11:24, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
Producing print function takes a little bit more effort than producing a
print statement.
(1) The main use-cases for prin
In article
<3f35dcf5-25ff-4aa7-820c-592cbffa4...@u26g2000yqu.googlegroups.com>,
rantingrick wrote:
> On Jun 30, 4:21 pm, geremy condra wrote:
>
> > Actually, I agree with this complaint though- it is much easier to type
> > spaces than parens.
>
> Oh Geremy please. If you're going to whine a
On Thu, Jul 1, 2010 at 1:02 AM, Ben Finney wrote:
> Steven D'Aprano writes:
>
>> On Thu, 01 Jul 2010 13:13:53 +1000, Ben Finney wrote:
>>
>> > Steven D'Aprano writes:
>> >> I suppose in principle those extra three key presses (shift-9
>> >> shift-0 vs space) could be the straw that breaks the ca
Steven D'Aprano writes:
> On Thu, 01 Jul 2010 13:13:53 +1000, Ben Finney wrote:
>
> > Steven D'Aprano writes:
> >> I suppose in principle those extra three key presses (shift-9
> >> shift-0 vs space) could be the straw that breaks the camel's back,
> >> but I doubt it.
> >
> > There's also Fitt
On Thu, 01 Jul 2010 13:13:53 +1000, Ben Finney wrote:
> Steven D'Aprano writes:
>
>> But, honestly, is there anyone here, even the most heavy users of
>> print, who would seriously expect that adding parentheses to print
>> calls will do more than add a tiny fraction to the amount of typing
>> e
Steven D'Aprano writes:
> But, honestly, is there anyone here, even the most heavy users of
> print, who would seriously expect that adding parentheses to print
> calls will do more than add a tiny fraction to the amount of typing
> effort already required to use Python? I suppose in principle th
On Wed, Jun 30, 2010 at 10:06 PM, Steven D'Aprano
wrote:
> On Wed, 30 Jun 2010 18:57:58 -0400, geremy condra wrote:
>
Actually, I agree with this complaint though- it is much easier to
type spaces than parens.
>>>
>>> Yes. And typing "p" is easier than typing "print". Perhaps we should
>
John Nagle wrote:
On 6/27/2010 1:09 PM, Martin v. Loewis wrote:
I agree that there may be not much reason to port custom proprietary
apps that are working fine and which would hardly benefit from, let
alone need, and new Py3 features.
In the long run, there will be a benefit: at some point in
On 6/30/10 6:48 PM, John Nagle wrote:
The 10th anniversary of the announcement of PERL 6 is coming
up on July 19th, and it still hasn't displaced PERL 5 as the
"primary" version.
Now, I may be totally off-base, because I do not grok perl and so have
never made much of an effort to follow perl-
On Wed, 30 Jun 2010 18:57:58 -0400, geremy condra wrote:
>>> Actually, I agree with this complaint though- it is much easier to
>>> type spaces than parens.
>>
>> Yes. And typing "p" is easier than typing "print". Perhaps we should
>> replace all Python built-ins with one letter names so that we c
On 6/27/2010 1:09 PM, Martin v. Loewis wrote:
I agree that there may be not much reason to port custom proprietary
apps that are working fine and which would hardly benefit from, let
alone need, and new Py3 features.
In the long run, there will be a benefit: at some point in the future
(surely
On Wed, Jun 30, 2010 at 8:25 PM, rantingrick wrote:
> On Jun 30, 4:21 pm, geremy condra wrote:
>
>> Actually, I agree with this complaint though- it is much easier to type
>> spaces than parens.
>
> Oh Geremy please. If you're going to whine about something at least
> find something worth whining
On Jun 30, 4:21 pm, geremy condra wrote:
> Actually, I agree with this complaint though- it is much easier to type
> spaces than parens.
Oh Geremy please. If you're going to whine about something at least
find something worth whining about! Yes a few more key strokes are
needed. But print should
On Jun 30, 9:42 am, Michele Simionato
wrote:
> Actually when debugging I use pdb which uses "p" (no parens) for
> printing, so having
> print or print() would not make any difference for me.
Perhaps you don't use CJK strings much?
p u'\u30d1\u30a4\u30c8\u30f3' give quite a different
result than
On 30/06/2010 23:30, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
[snips]
The rule against premature optimization doesn't just apply to *code*.
+1QOTW
Kindest regards.
Mark Lawrence.
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
On Wed, Jun 30, 2010 at 6:30 PM, Steven D'Aprano
wrote:
> On Wed, 30 Jun 2010 17:21:32 -0400, geremy condra wrote:
>
>> On Wed, Jun 30, 2010 at 4:34 PM, Steven D'Aprano
>> wrote:
>>> On Wed, 30 Jun 2010 22:52:06 +1000, Lie Ryan wrote:
>>>
On 06/27/10 11:24, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
>> > Pr
On Jun 30, 2010, at 8:52 , Lie Ryan wrote:
On 06/27/10 11:24, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
Producing print function takes a little bit more effort than
producing a
print statement.
(1) The main use-cases for print are quick (and usually dirty)
scripts,
interactive use, and as a debugging aid.
On Wed, 30 Jun 2010 17:21:32 -0400, geremy condra wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 30, 2010 at 4:34 PM, Steven D'Aprano
> wrote:
>> On Wed, 30 Jun 2010 22:52:06 +1000, Lie Ryan wrote:
>>
>>> On 06/27/10 11:24, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
> > Producing print function takes a little bit more effort than
> >
On Wed, Jun 30, 2010 at 4:34 PM, Steven D'Aprano
wrote:
> On Wed, 30 Jun 2010 22:52:06 +1000, Lie Ryan wrote:
>
>> On 06/27/10 11:24, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
> Producing print function takes a little bit more effort than
> producing a print statement.
>>>
>>> (1) The main use-cases for pr
On Wed, 30 Jun 2010 22:52:06 +1000, Lie Ryan wrote:
> On 06/27/10 11:24, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
>>> > Producing print function takes a little bit more effort than
>>> > producing a print statement.
>>
>> (1) The main use-cases for print are quick (and usually dirty) scripts,
>> interactive use, an
On 6/30/10 9:22 AM, Lie Ryan wrote:
On 07/01/10 01:30, Stephen Hansen wrote:
On 6/30/10 5:52 AM, Lie Ryan wrote:
On 06/27/10 11:24, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
Producing print function takes a little bit more effort than
producing a
print statement.
(1) The main use-cases for print are quick (and
On 07/01/10 01:42, Michele Simionato wrote:
> On Jun 30, 2:52 pm, Lie Ryan wrote:
>> On 06/27/10 11:24, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
>>
> Producing print function takes a little bit more effort than producing a
> print statement.
>>
>>> (1) The main use-cases for print are quick (and usually dir
On 07/01/10 01:30, Stephen Hansen wrote:
> On 6/30/10 5:52 AM, Lie Ryan wrote:
>> On 06/27/10 11:24, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
> Producing print function takes a little bit more effort than
> producing a
> print statement.
>>>
>>> (1) The main use-cases for print are quick (and usually dir
On Jun 30, 2:52 pm, Lie Ryan wrote:
> On 06/27/10 11:24, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
>
> >> > Producing print function takes a little bit more effort than producing a
> >> > print statement.
>
> > (1) The main use-cases for print are quick (and usually dirty) scripts,
> > interactive use, and as a debu
On 6/30/10 5:52 AM, Lie Ryan wrote:
On 06/27/10 11:24, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
Producing print function takes a little bit more effort than producing a
print statement.
(1) The main use-cases for print are quick (and usually dirty) scripts,
interactive use, and as a debugging aid.
That is pre
On 06/27/10 11:24, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
>> > Producing print function takes a little bit more effort than producing a
>> > print statement.
>
> (1) The main use-cases for print are quick (and usually dirty) scripts,
> interactive use, and as a debugging aid.
That is precisely how the quick-and
On Tue, 29 Jun 2010 18:56:37 +, Edward A. Falk wrote:
> Nice. Once 100% of the installed base is at 2.6, I'll finally be able
> to write code that compatible with 3.0.
What's "the installed base"?
Machines you control? Then just install 2.6 on your installed base and be
done with it. Or ev
On Tue, Jun 29, 2010 at 2:56 PM, Edward A. Falk wrote:
> In article ,
> Stephen Hansen wrote:
>>>
>>> Uhmm, just add the parenthesis to your old scripts. You can
>>> do that without breaking on 2.x.
>>
>>Only sort of. But in Python 2.6+, you only need to "from __future__
>>import print_function"
In article ,
Stephen Hansen wrote:
>>
>> Uhmm, just add the parenthesis to your old scripts. You can
>> do that without breaking on 2.x.
>
>Only sort of. But in Python 2.6+, you only need to "from __future__
>import print_function" to make code work in both 2.x and 3.x (at least
>insofar as the
On Mon, Jun 28, 2010 at 1:08 PM, Edward A. Falk wrote:
> In article ,
> Stephen Hansen wrote:
>>
>>No one said otherwise, or that print was useless and never used in such
>>contexts.
>
> I was responding to the question "Also, do you use print *that*
> much? Really?" The implication being that
> Until such time as 100% of the systems I might ever want to run my progams
> on have python 3 installed, I cannot port my programs over from python 2.
You don't have to port them from python 2, but still could it make easy
to use them with Python 3: just arrange it so that 2to3 will correctly
co
On Mon, Jun 28, 2010 at 1:52 PM, Grant Edwards wrote:
> On 2010-06-28, geremy condra wrote:
>> On Mon, Jun 28, 2010 at 1:08 PM, Edward A. Falk wrote:
>>> In article ,
>>> Stephen Hansen ? wrote:
No one said otherwise, or that print was useless and never used in such
contexts.
>>>
>>
On 6/28/10 3:09 PM, Edward A. Falk wrote:
In article,
Stephen Hansen wrote:
Any other use, I basically operate on a file object.
I use file objects all the time. I use print with them.
The 2to3 conversion script takes care of this for you.
[~]$ 2to3 foo.py
RefactoringTool: Skipping impli
On 2010-06-28, geremy condra wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 28, 2010 at 1:08 PM, Edward A. Falk wrote:
>> In article ,
>> Stephen Hansen ? wrote:
>>>
>>>No one said otherwise, or that print was useless and never used in such
>>>contexts.
>>
>> I was responding to the question "Also, do you use print *that*
On 6/28/10 1:30 PM, geremy condra wrote:
On Mon, Jun 28, 2010 at 1:08 PM, Edward A. Falk wrote:
In article,
Stephen Hansen wrote:
No one said otherwise, or that print was useless and never used in such
contexts.
I was responding to the question "Also, do you use print *that*
much? Really?"
On Mon, Jun 28, 2010 at 1:08 PM, Edward A. Falk wrote:
> In article ,
> Stephen Hansen wrote:
>>
>>No one said otherwise, or that print was useless and never used in such
>>contexts.
>
> I was responding to the question "Also, do you use print *that*
> much? Really?" The implication being that
In article ,
Stephen Hansen wrote:
>
>Any other use, I basically operate on a file object.
I use file objects all the time. I use print with them.
--
-Ed Falk, f...@despams.r.us.com
http://thespamdiaries.blogspot.com/
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
In article ,
Stephen Hansen wrote:
>
>No one said otherwise, or that print was useless and never used in such
>contexts.
I was responding to the question "Also, do you use print *that*
much? Really?" The implication being that in the majority of useful
python programs, you don't really need to
In article ,
Grant Edwards wrote:
>
>Maybe it's just me, but I find both debugging and small scripts to be
>very useful.
Ditto. I've also written a number of large scripts, and I *always*
use print in them.
--
-Ed Falk, f...@despams.r.us.com
http://thespamdiaries.blogspot.com/
On 6/28/10 9:23 AM, Thomas Jollans wrote:
Installing Linux is still a LOT easier than installing a working MSYS
since you get proper package management with proper dependency
resolution, while with MSYS, you end up downloading dozens of different
inter-dependent GNU packages one-by-one until anyt
On 06/28/2010 04:36 PM, Stephen Hansen wrote:
> On 6/28/10 2:20 AM, Thomas Jollans wrote:
>> On 06/28/2010 03:21 AM, Stephen Hansen wrote:
>>> On 6/27/10 6:11 PM, geremy condra wrote:
On Sun, Jun 27, 2010 at 8:50 PM, Grant
Edwards wrote:
> If you install a real shell on Windows, the
On 6/28/10 7:35 AM, Grant Edwards wrote:
On 2010-06-28, Stefan Behnel wrote:
Edward A. Falk, 28.06.2010 16:15:
In article,
Thomas Jollans wrote:
There is no reason for print not being a function. Also, do you use
print *that* much? Really?
I use it all the time. Who doesn't? What do you
On 6/28/10 7:15 AM, Edward A. Falk wrote:
In article,
Thomas Jollans wrote:
There is no reason for print not being a function. Also, do you use
print *that* much? Really?
I use it all the time. Who doesn't? What do you use instead?
It depends on what my purpose is.
If its debugging outp
On 2010-06-28, Stefan Behnel wrote:
> Edward A. Falk, 28.06.2010 16:15:
>> In article,
>> Thomas Jollans wrote:
>>
>>> There is no reason for print not being a function. Also, do you use
>>> print *that* much? Really?
>>
>> I use it all the time. Who doesn't? What do you use instead?
>
> Usually
On 6/28/10 2:20 AM, Thomas Jollans wrote:
On 06/28/2010 03:21 AM, Stephen Hansen wrote:
On 6/27/10 6:11 PM, geremy condra wrote:
On Sun, Jun 27, 2010 at 8:50 PM, Grant
Edwards wrote:
If you install a real shell on Windows, then the hash-bang line works
fine. :)
Might as well spare yourself
Edward A. Falk, 28.06.2010 16:15:
In article,
Thomas Jollans wrote:
There is no reason for print not being a function. Also, do you use
print *that* much? Really?
I use it all the time. Who doesn't? What do you use instead?
Usually file.write() or log.info() and friends. Since you can't r
In article ,
Thomas Jollans wrote:
>There is no reason for print not being a function. Also, do you use
>print *that* much? Really?
I use it all the time. Who doesn't? What do you use instead?
--
-Ed Falk, f...@despams.r.us.com
http://thespamdiaries.blogspot.com/
--
http://
On 2010-06-28, Thomas Jollans wrote:
> On 06/28/2010 03:21 AM, Stephen Hansen wrote:
>> On 6/27/10 6:11 PM, geremy condra wrote:
>>> On Sun, Jun 27, 2010 at 8:50 PM, Grant
>>> Edwards wrote:
If you install a real shell on Windows, then the hash-bang line works
fine. :)
>>>
>>> Might as
On Jun 26, 9:06 pm, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
>
> I didn't notice this level of angst when Python made equally significant
> changes going from 1.5 to 2.0... admittedly Python 1.5 code would work
> unchanged in 2.0, but the 2.x series introduced MUCH bigger additions to
> Python than anything 3.
On 06/28/2010 03:21 AM, Stephen Hansen wrote:
> On 6/27/10 6:11 PM, geremy condra wrote:
>> On Sun, Jun 27, 2010 at 8:50 PM, Grant
>> Edwards wrote:
>>> If you install a real shell on Windows, then the hash-bang line works
>>> fine. :)
>>
>> Might as well spare yourself the trouble and install lin
geremy condra writes:
> I'm starting to think
Great, about time.
Based on your previous reply I had the feeling you're a condescending
prick, but now I am conviced, so *ploink*!
--
John Bokma j3b
Hacking & Hiking in Mexico - http
On Mon, Jun 28, 2010 at 4:23 AM, John Bokma wrote:
> geremy condra writes:
>
>> On Sun, Jun 27, 2010 at 10:35 PM, John Bokma wrote:
>
> [..]
>
>>> I've used several operating systems over many years and each OS has its
>>> own issues. I am currently using mostly Linux and it's far from the
>>> f
On 28/06/2010 09:29, John Bokma wrote:
Tim Golden writes:
On 28/06/2010 00:03, eric_dex...@msn.com wrote:
It should be easier to have a large number of python versions on one
machine... I am realy fond of 2.5 so I am probily going to start
compiling them or just include the python2.5 exe if
Tim Golden writes:
> On 28/06/2010 00:03, eric_dex...@msn.com wrote:
>> It should be easier to have a large number of python versions on one
>> machine... I am realy fond of 2.5 so I am probily going to start
>> compiling them or just include the python2.5 exe if I port stuff and
>> settle it th
Stephen Hansen writes:
> On 6/27/10 7:35 PM, John Bokma wrote:
>> On top of that, I don't think it's that hard to make a small program
>> that one associates with .py files which checks the first line and feeds
>> the .py to the correct version of Python based on the information in the
>> aformen
geremy condra writes:
> On Sun, Jun 27, 2010 at 10:35 PM, John Bokma wrote:
[..]
>> I've used several operating systems over many years and each OS has its
>> own issues. I am currently using mostly Linux and it's far from the
>> flawless OS some people seem to think it is. While it's true tha
On 28/06/2010 00:03, eric_dex...@msn.com wrote:
It should be easier to have a large number of python versions on one
machine... I am realy fond of 2.5 so I am probily going to start
compiling them or just include the python2.5 exe if I port stuff and
settle it that way..
I have Python versions
Stefan Reich, 26.06.2010 17:59:
This has probably been talked about on your lists, but I wasn't part of
that discussion.
"I don't care to read up old arguments in one of the archives" isn't a very
convincing reason to start a discussion.
Stefan
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/pyt
On 6/27/10 7:55 PM, Paul Rubin wrote:
Terry Reedy writes:
Python3 is about finishing transitions. The last stage in a transition
that replaces something old with something new is to remove the old,..
Main problem is that by the time Python3 has stopped being disruptive,
Python4 will be underw
On Sun, 27 Jun 2010 16:03:40 -0700, eric_dex...@msn.com wrote:
> It should be easier to have a large number of python versions on one
> machine... I am realy fond of 2.5 so I am probily going to start
> compiling them or just include the python2.5 exe if I port stuff and
> settle it that way..
I
On Sun, Jun 27, 2010 at 10:35 PM, John Bokma wrote:
Might as well spare yourself the trouble and install linux or *bsd. It's
probably easier.
>>>
>>> Ah, yeah, and then run all those Windows applications one requires on
>>> Wine...
>>
>> If you're bound to a platform, use it. My advic
Terry Reedy writes:
> Python3 is about finishing transitions. The last stage in a transition
> that replaces something old with something new is to remove the old,..
Main problem is that by the time Python3 has stopped being disruptive,
Python4 will be underway. Python3 is incompatible enough wi
On 6/27/10 7:35 PM, John Bokma wrote:
On top of that, I don't think it's that hard to make a small program
that one associates with .py files which checks the first line and feeds
the .py to the correct version of Python based on the information in the
aformentioned first line.
http://effbot.or
geremy condra writes:
> On Sun, Jun 27, 2010 at 9:25 PM, John Bokma wrote:
>> geremy condra writes:
>>
>>> On Sun, Jun 27, 2010 at 8:50 PM, Grant Edwards
>>> wrote:
On 2010-06-27, Benjamin Kaplan wrote:
>> It should be easier to have a large number of python versions on one
>>>
On Sun, Jun 27, 2010 at 9:25 PM, John Bokma wrote:
> geremy condra writes:
>
>> On Sun, Jun 27, 2010 at 8:50 PM, Grant Edwards
>> wrote:
>>> On 2010-06-27, Benjamin Kaplan wrote:
>>>
> It should be easier to have a large number of python versions on one
> machine... ?I am realy fond of
Terry Reedy writes:
> On 6/27/2010 8:41 AM, David Cournapeau wrote:
> > I think one point which needs to be emphasized more is what does
> > python 3 bring to people.
[…]
> Python3 is about finishing transitions. The last stage in a transition
> that replaces something old with something new is
On 2010-06-28, geremy condra wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 27, 2010 at 8:50 PM, Grant Edwards
> wrote:
>> On 2010-06-27, Benjamin Kaplan wrote:
>>
It should be easier to have a large number of python versions on one
machine... ?I am realy fond of 2.5 so I am probily going to start
compili
geremy condra writes:
> On Sun, Jun 27, 2010 at 8:50 PM, Grant Edwards
> wrote:
>> On 2010-06-27, Benjamin Kaplan wrote:
>>
It should be easier to have a large number of python versions on one
machine... ?I am realy fond of 2.5 so I am probily going to start
compiling them or ju
On 6/27/10 6:11 PM, geremy condra wrote:
On Sun, Jun 27, 2010 at 8:50 PM, Grant Edwards wrote:
If you install a real shell on Windows, then the hash-bang line works
fine. :)
Might as well spare yourself the trouble and install linux or *bsd. It's
probably easier.
Not at all, bash via msys i
On Sun, Jun 27, 2010 at 8:50 PM, Grant Edwards wrote:
> On 2010-06-27, Benjamin Kaplan wrote:
>
>>> It should be easier to have a large number of python versions on one
>>> machine... ?I am realy fond of 2.5 so I am probily going to start
>>> compiling them or just include the python2.5 exe if I
On 2010-06-27, Benjamin Kaplan wrote:
>> It should be easier to have a large number of python versions on one
>> machine... ?I am realy fond of 2.5 so I am probily going to start
>> compiling them or just include the python2.5 exe if I port stuff and
>> settle it that way..
>
> You're on the only
Stefan Reich wrote:
>
>Consider Java as a better example: JDK 1.6 still runs and compiles
>everything written for JDK 1.0. That is proper management.
And Python has the same management. Python 2.6 still runs and compiles
everything written for Python 2.0. If there is ever a JDK 2.0, I'll wager
On 6/27/10 4:03 PM, eric_dex...@msn.com wrote:
On Jun 27, 2:09 pm, "Martin v. Loewis" wrote:
The same happened with other kinds of deprecations and removals through
the life of 2.x. Some applications where tied to a specific Python
release, or to a specific feature that had been deprecated. The
On Sun, Jun 27, 2010 at 4:03 PM, eric_dex...@msn.com
wrote:
> On Jun 27, 2:09 pm, "Martin v. Loewis" wrote:
>> > I agree that there may be not much reason to port custom proprietary
>> > apps that are working fine and which would hardly benefit from, let
>> > alone need, and new Py3 features.
>>
On Jun 27, 2:09 pm, "Martin v. Loewis" wrote:
> > I agree that there may be not much reason to port custom proprietary
> > apps that are working fine and which would hardly benefit from, let
> > alone need, and new Py3 features.
>
> In the long run, there will be a benefit: at some point in the fu
> I agree that there may be not much reason to port custom proprietary
> apps that are working fine and which would hardly benefit from, let
> alone need, and new Py3 features.
In the long run, there will be a benefit: at some point in the future
(surely years from now), /usr/bin/python will be Py
On 6/27/2010 8:41 AM, David Cournapeau wrote:
I think one point which needs to be emphasized more is what does
python 3 bring to people. The" what's new in python 3 page" gives the
impression that python 3 is about removing cruft. That's a very poor
argument to push people to switch.
Python3 i
On 6/27/10 9:26 AM, rantingrick wrote:
That being said, Stephen's statement was very broad, but I think it's
true: print is primarily used in small scripts, or script-like testing
functions/methods.
No, Stephen's comments were NOT general in any way and they where in
fact very specific... "If y
On Sun, 27 Jun 2010 02:45:37 +0100 Nobody wrote:
> On Sat, 26 Jun 2010 21:08:48 +0200, Martin v. Loewis wrote:
>
> >> I think that's not true. If enough people want to support Python 2
> >> it might be possible to advance Python 2.
> >
> > That won't be sufficient: enough people wanting support
On Jun 27, 7:16 am, Thomas Jollans wrote:
> Granted, some use print to emit warnings (aifc for example). This isn't
> perfectly clean, of course, but it's not used a whole lot either. Mostly
> rather old code too, I think.
> And some (abc for example) use print in what looks like internal
> diagn
On 6/27/10 5:16 AM, Thomas Jollans wrote:
On 06/27/2010 01:46 PM, rantingrick wrote:
P.S. Am I the only one who has never, ever, even *seen* a 'print'
statement in non-toy or non-bash-script-style code in any application
or even third-party library I looked at? Except, on occasion, for
quick a
On Sun, Jun 27, 2010 at 11:46 PM, Peter Kleiweg wrote:
> David Cournapeau schreef op de 27e dag van de zomermaand van het jaar 2010:
>
>> I doubt "porting is easier than you think" will convince many people
>> if they don't know what the gain will be. For example, porting numpy
>> and scipy to py3
David Cournapeau schreef op de 27e dag van de zomermaand van het jaar 2010:
> I doubt "porting is easier than you think" will convince many people
> if they don't know what the gain will be. For example, porting numpy
> and scipy to py3k has been easier than I thought, but besides making
> it easi
quote:
>
> I didn't notice this level of angst when Python made equally significant
> changes going from 1.5 to 2.0... admittedly Python 1.5 code would work
> unchanged in 2.0, but the 2.x series introduced MUCH bigger additions to
> Python than anything 3.0 and 3.1 have added, and anyone taking a
On Sun, Jun 27, 2010 at 4:54 PM, Martin v. Loewis wrote:
>> I didn't notice this level of angst when Python made equally significant
>> changes going from 1.5 to 2.0...
>
> I think the *level* was about the same (IIRC). People would say that
> they ignore 2.x for years, and that it is important to
On 06/27/2010 01:46 PM, rantingrick wrote:
>
>>> P.S. Am I the only one who has never, ever, even *seen* a 'print'
>>> statement in non-toy or non-bash-script-style code in any application
>>> or even third-party library I looked at? Except, on occasion, for
>>> quick and dirty debugging. Perhaps
> > P.S. Am I the only one who has never, ever, even *seen* a 'print'
> > statement in non-toy or non-bash-script-style code in any application
> > or even third-party library I looked at? Except, on occasion, for
> > quick and dirty debugging. Perhaps because I'm more used to
> > cross-platform t
> I didn't notice this level of angst when Python made equally significant
> changes going from 1.5 to 2.0...
I think the *level* was about the same (IIRC). People would say that
they ignore 2.x for years, and that it is important to continue
supporting 1.5.2 for a long time (about until 2.4 was
In message , Stefan
Reich wrote:
> My complaint is about changing the syntax of "print".
I never use print, so I don’t appreciate the problem. It seems to be useful
only for noddy I/O.
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
In article ,
Terry Reedy wrote:
>On 6/26/2010 2:55 PM, Peter Kleiweg wrote:
>>
>> Some basic text string functions seem to be working on byte
>> string functions as well, but sometimes they don't, and there's
>> no rhyme in why it does or doesn't.
>>
>> >>> 'abcd'[0] == 'abcd'[:1]
>> T
On Sun, 27 Jun 2010 01:06:12 +, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
> On Sat, 26 Jun 2010 17:02:32 -0700, Paul Rubin wrote:
[...]
> To all the Python 3.x haters
Hmmm, I just realised that it might seem that this was aimed at Paul
directly. I'm sorry, I wasn't intending to imply that he's a Python 3
hate
On Sat, 26 Jun 2010 21:08:48 +0200, Martin v. Loewis wrote:
>> I think that's not true. If enough people want to support Python 2 it
>> might be possible to advance Python 2.
>
> That won't be sufficient: enough people wanting support won't have any
> effect. People also need to want it enough to
On Sun, 27 Jun 2010 00:59:35 +0200, Laurent Verweijen wrote:
> Something I really dislike, is that the "__cmp__"-method is gone. I
> really hate to write 6 different functions, whereas I'm used to writing
> a oneliners which covers each of the 6 cases. I haven't switched to
> pyton 3 yet, but when
On 6/26/10 6:24 PM, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
On Sun, 27 Jun 2010 03:38:30 +1000, Lie Ryan wrote:
All in all, the new syntax requires 4 keystrokes, none of which are home
keys; compared with old syntax which requires 1 keystroke in thumb's
home position.
Producing print function takes a little bit
On Sat, 26 Jun 2010 18:33:02 +0200, Thomas Jollans wrote:
> * str is now unicode => unicode is no longer a pain in the a
True. Now byte strings are a pain in the arse.
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
On Sat, 26 Jun 2010 13:41:30 -0500, John Bokma wrote:
>> Done means finished: complete, not going to be advanced any further.
>
> I think that's not true. If enough people want to support Python 2 it
> might be possible to advance Python 2.
I can't see that happening. In my experience those who
On Sun, 27 Jun 2010 03:38:30 +1000, Lie Ryan wrote:
> On 06/27/10 02:33, Thomas Jollans wrote:
>>> >
>>> > And here's the disadvantages:
>>> >
>>> > -The Python 3 syntax actually requires more keystrokes.
>> Typically ONE extra character: the closing bracket. The opening bracket
>> can replace t
On Sat, 26 Jun 2010 17:02:32 -0700, Paul Rubin wrote:
> Terry Reedy writes:
>> Having completely switched from 'printf(' to 'print ', I have had a bit
>> of a problem switching back to 'print('. It is my single largest source
>> of typos. But a decent system that puts me at the site of syntax err
Terry Reedy writes:
> To make your life easier, and even save keystrokes:..
def tp(*args): print(args) # tuple print
Too much to remember, makes my life harder. If I were that organized,
I'd figure out how to use the logging module. ;)
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-
1 - 100 of 123 matches
Mail list logo
