On Fri, Nov 5, 2021 at 6:45 AM <2qdxy4rzwzuui...@potatochowder.com> wrote:
> > But since it says "box", I would start by assuming that it has four
> > elements. (They might be x1,y1,x2,y2 or x,y,w,h but it'll almost
> > always be four.) So it's not TOO fragile, when working with boxes, but
> > it i
On 2021-11-05 at 06:28:34 +1100,
Chris Angelico wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 5, 2021 at 6:23 AM <2qdxy4rzwzuui...@potatochowder.com> wrote:
> >
> > On 2021-11-04 at 14:36:48 -0400,
> > David Lowry-Duda wrote:
> >
> > > > x_increment, y_increment = (scale * i for i in srcpages.xobj_box[2:])
> > > >
> > >
On Fri, Nov 5, 2021 at 6:23 AM <2qdxy4rzwzuui...@potatochowder.com> wrote:
>
> On 2021-11-04 at 14:36:48 -0400,
> David Lowry-Duda wrote:
>
> > > x_increment, y_increment = (scale * i for i in srcpages.xobj_box[2:])
> > >
> > > (scale * i for i in srcpages.xobj_box[2:]) is a generator, a single
>
On 2021-11-04 at 14:36:48 -0400,
David Lowry-Duda wrote:
> > x_increment, y_increment = (scale * i for i in srcpages.xobj_box[2:])
> >
> > (scale * i for i in srcpages.xobj_box[2:]) is a generator, a single
> > object, it should not be possible to unpack it into 2 variables.
>
> If you know the
> x_increment, y_increment = (scale * i for i in srcpages.xobj_box[2:])
>
> (scale * i for i in srcpages.xobj_box[2:]) is a generator, a single
> object, it should not be possible to unpack it into 2 variables.
If you know the exact number of values in the generator, you can do
this. Here is an
Le 04/11/2021 à 16:41, Stefan Ram a écrit :
ast writes:
(scale * i for i in srcpages.xobj_box[2:]) is a generator, a single
object, it should not be possible to unpack it into 2 variables.
But the value of the right-hand side /always/ is a single object!
A syntax of an assignment state
On Sun, 16 Aug 2020 06:09:17 -0500
Skip Montanaro wrote:
> > Typing is not required by
> > Python. However, you may find the extra error-checking helpful...
>
> I haven't used type hints much, if at all, but my understanding is
> that the "extra error-checking" of which you speak is gotten thr
> Typing is not required by
> Python. However, you may find the extra error-checking helpful...
I haven't used type hints much, if at all, but my understanding is
that the "extra error-checking" of which you speak is gotten through
other static checkers, correct? I know the syntax was developed wi
On Sun, 16 Aug 2020 10:12:04 +0200
Klaus Jantzen wrote:
> Hi,
>
> the other day I came across the book "Classic Computer Science
> Problems in Python" by David Kopec.
>
> The function definitions in the examples like
>
> =
> def fib2(n: int) -> int:
> if n < 2: # base case
>
On 16/08/2020 20:12, Klaus Jantzen wrote:
Hi,
the other day I came across the book "Classic Computer Science Problems
in Python" by David Kopec.
The function definitions in the examples like
=
def fib2(n: int) -> int:
if n < 2: # base case
return n
return fib2(n - 2)
On 12/06/20 12:13 AM, Terry Reedy wrote:
On 6/11/2020 6:03 AM, John Weller wrote:
I have been able to find answers to most problems by Googling but
couldn't work out a suitable query for this one.
That is why I and others have made the Symbols index as complete as
possible. If anything think
On 6/11/2020 6:03 AM, John Weller wrote:
I have been able to find answers to most problems by Googling but couldn't work
out a suitable query for this one.
That is why I and others have made the Symbols index as complete as
possible. If anything thinks something is missing, say so here.
--
Neil via Python-list
Sent: 10 June 2020 22:13
To: python-list@python.org
Subject: Re: Syntax Help
On 11/06/20 4:56 AM, John Weller wrote:
> I am trying to learn python. Looking at an example on the web I found
> this
> line:
> def plot(*args, **kwargs):
> What do the stars mean
Le 10/06/2020 à 18:56, John Weller a écrit :
Hi
I am trying to learn python. Looking at an example on the web I found this
line:
def plot(*args, **kwargs):
What do the stars mean?
That, respectively, positional arguments will be packed into a
sequence of references called arg
On 6/10/2020 12:56 PM, John Weller wrote:
I am trying to learn python. Looking at an example on the web I found this
line:
def plot(*args, **kwargs):
This is function definition.
What do the stars mean?
The python docs have an index that has a Symbols page.
https://docs.python.org/3/ge
On 11/06/20 4:56 AM, John Weller wrote:
I am trying to learn python. Looking at an example on the web I found this
line:
def plot(*args, **kwargs):
What do the stars mean?
The Python "docs" are (surprisingly, for this day-and-age)
comprehensive. Try https://docs.python.org/3/tutorial/control
On 07/11/2019 13:36, Stephen Waldron wrote:
This is how it is at the moment, however it may be more agreeable, especially
if that is the only purpose of the function, for python users to be able to
define new functions inside of function calls.
No, not seeing it. Sorry, I don't think "I don'
Ok firstly, this idea was inspired specifically by a project I'm working on for
school concerning linked lists, in which I was trying to create a method that
performed a function on elements iteratively without having to navigate the
list from the head each time (of course taking the function as
On Fri, Nov 8, 2019 at 11:22 PM Antoon Pardon wrote:
>
> On 8/11/19 13:00, Chris Angelico wrote:
> > On Fri, Nov 8, 2019 at 10:57 PM Antoon Pardon wrote:
> >> On 7/11/19 18:10, Stephen Waldron wrote:
> >>> What I'm aiming for is the ability to, within a function call, pass a
> >>> suite that wou
On 8/11/19 13:00, Chris Angelico wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 8, 2019 at 10:57 PM Antoon Pardon wrote:
>> On 7/11/19 18:10, Stephen Waldron wrote:
>>> What I'm aiming for is the ability to, within a function call, pass a suite
>>> that would be there automatically defined by the compiler/interpreter.
>>
On Fri, Nov 8, 2019 at 10:57 PM Antoon Pardon wrote:
>
> On 7/11/19 18:10, Stephen Waldron wrote:
> > What I'm aiming for is the ability to, within a function call, pass a suite
> > that would be there automatically defined by the compiler/interpreter.
> > Another comment did mention lambda func
On 7/11/19 18:10, Stephen Waldron wrote:
> What I'm aiming for is the ability to, within a function call, pass a suite
> that would be there automatically defined by the compiler/interpreter.
> Another comment did mention lambda functions, which does to some degree
> provide that capability, but
Here is it rewritten using the proposal:
```
#Definition
def myFoo (str1, str2, foo, str = " "):
print( foo(str = str1), foo(str = str2) )
#Call
myFoo ("hello", "world!"):
str = list(str)[0].upper() + str[1:]
return str
```
Are you looking for multi-line l
Thanks Antoon. I do suppose that it is kind of wrong to say the only way is to
"reference its [the function's] name" as an argument, however the point I was
trying to make was that it isn't possible to pass a function that is either not
in some way previously defined or a reference to something
Thanks Antoon. I do suppose that it is kind of wrong to say the only way is to
"reference its [the function's] name" as an argument, however the point I was
trying to make was that you cannot pass a function that is either not in some
way previously defined or a reference to something previously
On 7/11/19 14:36, Stephen Waldron wrote:
> Hi, I'm new to the group and to Python, so forgive me if I make any faux-pas
> here. As I can tell, the only way to pass a function as an argument is to
> reference its name as follows:
>
> def foo1(message):
> print(message)
>
> def foo2(foo, messag
On mer., Apr 3, 2019 at 6:00 PM, python-list-requ...@python.org wrote:
On Wed, Apr 3, 2019 at 3:55 AM Alexey Muranov
wrote:
I clarified what i meant by an assignment, and i believe it to be a
usual meaning.
1. `def` is not an assignment, there is no left-hand side or
right-hand side. I w
On Wed, Apr 3, 2019 at 3:55 AM Alexey Muranov wrote:
> I clarified what i meant by an assignment, and i believe it to be a
> usual meaning.
>
> 1. `def` is not an assignment, there is no left-hand side or
> right-hand side. I was talking about the normal assignment by which
> anyone can bind any
On mar., Apr 2, 2019 at 6:00 PM, python-list-requ...@python.org wrote:
On Tue, Apr 2, 2019 at 1:43 AM Alexey Muranov
wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 1, 2019 at 3:52 PM Alexey Muranov gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > I only see a superficial analogy with `super()`, but perhaps it
is
> > because you
On Tue, Apr 2, 2019 at 1:43 AM Alexey Muranov
wrote:
>
> > On Mon, Apr 1, 2019 at 3:52 PM Alexey Muranov > gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > I only see a superficial analogy with `super()`, but perhaps it is
> > > because you did not give much details of you suggestion.
> >
> > No, it's because t
On Mon, Apr 1, 2019 at 3:52 PM Alexey Muranov gmail.com>
wrote:
>
> I only see a superficial analogy with `super()`, but perhaps it is
> because you did not give much details of you suggestion.
No, it's because the analogy was not meant to be anything more than
superficial. Both are constructs of
On Tue, Apr 2, 2019 at 6:04 PM Ian Kelly wrote:
> > Note that
> >
> > foo.bar = baz
> >
> > and
> >
> > foo[bar] = baz
>
> I wrote "directly assigned to a variable", not to an attribute or an item.
> These are not part of the suggestion.
So what's the advantage over just using def?
Chris
On Mon, Apr 1, 2019 at 3:52 PM Alexey Muranov
wrote:
>
> I only see a superficial analogy with `super()`, but perhaps it is
> because you did not give much details of you suggestion.
No, it's because the analogy was not meant to be anything more than
superficial. Both are constructs of syntactic
On lun., avril 1, 2019 at 6:00 PM, python-list-requ...@python.org wrote:
On Sun, Mar 31, 2019 at 1:09 PM Alexey Muranov
wrote:
On dim., Mar 31, 2019 at 6:00 PM, python-list-requ...@python.org
wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 30, 2019, 5:32 AM Alexey Muranov
>
> wrote:
>
>>
>> On ven., Mar 29,
, saying that it is a
generator
and describing what it does. I realize I'm calling on the programmer to
address this issue by adding doc strings. Nonetheless adding doc strings is a
good habit to get in to.
--- Joseph S.
-Original Message-----
From: Ian Kelly
Sent: Sunday, March 31,
On Sun, Mar 31, 2019 at 1:09 PM Alexey Muranov
wrote:
>
> On dim., Mar 31, 2019 at 6:00 PM, python-list-requ...@python.org wrote:
> > On Sat, Mar 30, 2019, 5:32 AM Alexey Muranov
> >
> > wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> On ven., Mar 29, 2019 at 4:51 PM, python-list-requ...@python.org
> >> wrote:
> >> >
> >
On dim., Mar 31, 2019 at 6:00 PM, python-list-requ...@python.org wrote:
On Sat, Mar 30, 2019, 5:32 AM Alexey Muranov
wrote:
On ven., Mar 29, 2019 at 4:51 PM, python-list-requ...@python.org
wrote:
>
> There could perhaps be a special case for lambda expressions such
> that,
> when the
On Sat, Mar 30, 2019, 5:32 AM Alexey Muranov
wrote:
>
> On ven., Mar 29, 2019 at 4:51 PM, python-list-requ...@python.org wrote:
> >
> > There could perhaps be a special case for lambda expressions such
> > that,
> > when they are directly assigned to a variable, Python would use the
> > variable
On ven., Mar 29, 2019 at 4:51 PM, python-list-requ...@python.org wrote:
On Thu, Mar 28, 2019 at 2:30 PM Alexey Muranov
wrote:
On jeu., mars 28, 2019 at 8:57 PM, Terry Reedy
wrote:
> Throwing the name away is foolish. Testing functions is another
> situation in which function names
On 27/03/19 09:21, Alexey Muranov wrote:
> Whey you need a simple function in Python, there is a choice between a
> normal function declaration and an assignment of a anonymous function
> (defined by a lambda-expression) to a variable:
>
> def f(x): return x*x
>
> or
>
> f = lambda x: x*x
>
>
On 3/28/2019 12:29 PM, Alexey Muranov wrote:
On jeu., Mar 28, 2019 at 5:00 PM, python-list-requ...@python.org wrote:
So my opinion is that lambda expressions should only be used within
larger expressions and never directly bound.
It would be however more convenient to be able to write inste
On Fri, Mar 29, 2019 at 7:29 AM Alexey Muranov wrote:
> My idea however was to have it as an exact synonyme of an assignment of
> a lambda. Assignment is an assignment, it should not modify the
> attributs of the value that is being assigned.
Assigning lambda functions to names generally shouldn'
On Thu, Mar 28, 2019 at 2:30 PM Alexey Muranov
wrote:
>
> On jeu., mars 28, 2019 at 8:57 PM, Terry Reedy wrote:
> > Throwing the name away is foolish. Testing functions is another
> > situation in which function names are needed for proper report.
>
> My idea however was to have it as an exact s
On jeu., mars 28, 2019 at 5:00 PM, python-list-requ...@python.org wrote:
So documentation of that syntax would 100% be required
Regarding documentation, i believe there would be 3 line to add:
() =
is a syntactic sugar for
= lambda :
Alexey.
--
https://mail.python.org/mailman
On jeu., mars 28, 2019 at 8:57 PM, Terry Reedy wrote:
On 3/28/2019 12:29 PM, Alexey Muranov wrote:
On jeu., Mar 28, 2019 at 5:00 PM, python-list-requ...@python.org
wrote:
So my opinion is that lambda expressions should only be used within
larger expressions and never directly bound.
It w
On jeu., mars 28, 2019 at 8:57 PM, Terry Reedy wrote:
But i see your point about never assigning lambdas directly, it
makes sense. But sometimes i do assign short lambdas directly to
variable.
Is the convenience and (very low) frequency of applicability worth
the inconvenience of confu
On jeu., mars 28, 2019 at 5:00 PM, python-list-requ...@python.org wrote:
On 2019-03-27 10:42 a.m., Paul Moore wrote:
On Wed, 27 Mar 2019 at 12:27, Alexey Muranov
wrote:
On mer., mars 27, 2019 at 10:10 AM, Paul Moore
wrote:
On Wed, 27 Mar 2019 at 08:25, Alexey Muranov
wrote:
Whey yo
On Wed, Mar 27, 2019 at 3:13 AM Paul Moore wrote:
>
> On Wed, 27 Mar 2019 at 08:25, Alexey Muranov
wrote:
> >
> > Whey you need a simple function in Python, there is a choice between a
> > normal function declaration and an assignment of a anonymous function
> > (defined by a lambda-expression) t
On jeu., Mar 28, 2019 at 5:00 PM, python-list-requ...@python.org wrote:
So my opinion is that lambda expressions should only be used within
larger expressions and never directly bound.
It would be however more convenient to be able to write instead just
f(x) = x*x
Given my view above,
On 27/03/19 22:25, Terry Reedy wrote:
> ...
>
> Before 3.8, I would stop here and say no to the proposal. But we now
> have assignment expressions in addition to assignment statements.
>
> >>> int(s:='42'+'742')
> 42742
> >>> s
> '42742'
>
> To me, function assignment expressions, as a enhanced re
Alexey Muranov writes:
> It would be however more convenient to be able to write instead just
>
>f(x) = x*x
That's not an anonymous function then, is it? You want to assign a name
to that function, and (to be useful in development tools, such as a
stack trace) the function needs to know its
On 3/27/2019 4:21 AM, Alexey Muranov wrote:
Whey you need a simple function in Python, there is a choice between a
normal function declaration and an assignment of a anonymous function
(defined by a lambda-expression) to a variable:
def f(x): return x*x
or
f = lambda x: x*x
PEP 8 p
On mer., Mar 27, 2019 at 5:00 PM, python-list-requ...@python.org wrote:
On 27/03/19 09:21, Alexey Muranov wrote:
Whey you need a simple function in Python, there is a choice
between a
normal function declaration and an assignment of a anonymous
function
(defined by a lambda-expression) to a
On 2019-03-27 10:42 a.m., Paul Moore wrote:
> On Wed, 27 Mar 2019 at 12:27, Alexey Muranov wrote:
>> On mer., mars 27, 2019 at 10:10 AM, Paul Moore
>> wrote:
>>> On Wed, 27 Mar 2019 at 08:25, Alexey Muranov
>>> wrote:
Whey you need a simple function in Python, there is a choice
betwee
On 27/03/2019 16:15, Bev in TX wrote:
On Mar 27, 2019, at 10:41 AM, Antoon Pardon wrote:
I don't know. Something like the following is already legal:
f(x)[n] = x * n
And it does something completly different.
Where would I find information on what this does in the documentation?
Nowhere
> On Mar 27, 2019, at 10:41 AM, Antoon Pardon wrote:
>
> I don't know. Something like the following is already legal:
>
> f(x)[n] = x * n
>
> And it does something completly different.
Where would I find information on what this does in the documentation?
Bev in TX
--
https://mail.pytho
On 27/03/19 09:21, Alexey Muranov wrote:
> Whey you need a simple function in Python, there is a choice between a
> normal function declaration and an assignment of a anonymous function
> (defined by a lambda-expression) to a variable:
>
> def f(x): return x*x
>
> or
>
> f = lambda x: x*x
>
>
On Wed, 27 Mar 2019 at 12:27, Alexey Muranov wrote:
>
> On mer., mars 27, 2019 at 10:10 AM, Paul Moore
> wrote:
> > On Wed, 27 Mar 2019 at 08:25, Alexey Muranov
> > wrote:
> >>
> >> Whey you need a simple function in Python, there is a choice
> >> between a
> >> normal function declaration and
On mer., mars 27, 2019 at 10:10 AM, Paul Moore
wrote:
On Wed, 27 Mar 2019 at 08:25, Alexey Muranov
wrote:
Whey you need a simple function in Python, there is a choice
between a
normal function declaration and an assignment of a anonymous
function
(defined by a lambda-expression) to
On Wed, 27 Mar 2019 at 08:25, Alexey Muranov wrote:
>
> Whey you need a simple function in Python, there is a choice between a
> normal function declaration and an assignment of a anonymous function
> (defined by a lambda-expression) to a variable:
>
> def f(x): return x*x
>
> or
>
> f = l
On 2018-06-25, Alister wrote:
> for i in range(len(list)): is a python anti-pattern it is almost a 100%
> guarantee that you are doing something wrong*
>
> *as with all rules of thumb there is probably at least 1
> exception that the python experts will now point out.
When you need look-ahead or
On 27/06/2018 12:42, Peter J. Holzer wrote:
On 2018-06-27 11:11:37 +1200, Gregory Ewing wrote:
Bart wrote:
x = set(range(10_000_000))
This used up 460MB of RAM (the original 100M I tried exhausted the memory).
The advantage of Pascal-style sets is that that same set will occupy
only 1.25M
On 2018-06-27 11:11:37 +1200, Gregory Ewing wrote:
> Bart wrote:
> >x = set(range(10_000_000))
> >
> > This used up 460MB of RAM (the original 100M I tried exhausted the memory).
> >
> > The advantage of Pascal-style sets is that that same set will occupy
> > only 1.25MB, as it is a bit-map.
Bart wrote:
I don't know whether there is a direct equivalent in Python (I thought
somebody would point it out)
Not built-in, but a tiny bit of googling turns this up:
https://pypi.org/project/bitarray/
"This module provides an object type which efficiently represents an array of
booleans. B
Bart wrote:
x = set(range(10_000_000))
This used up 460MB of RAM (the original 100M I tried exhausted the memory).
The advantage of Pascal-style sets is that that same set will occupy
only 1.25MB, as it is a bit-map.
That's true, but they're also extremely limited compared to
the things y
On 26/06/18 12:39, Chris Angelico wrote:
On Tue, Jun 26, 2018 at 9:30 PM, Bart wrote:
On 19/06/2018 11:33, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
On Tue, 19 Jun 2018 10:19:15 +0100, Bart wrote:
* Integer sets (Pascal-like sets)
Why do you need them if you have real sets?
I tried Python sets for the f
From: Mark Lawrence
On 25/06/18 17:15, jkn wrote:
> On Monday, June 25, 2018 at 4:23:57 PM UTC+1, Chris Angelico wrote:
>> On Mon, Jun 25, 2018 at 11:15 PM, jkn wrote:
>>> (as well as pedanticism ;-o).
>>
>> Pedantry.
>>
>> ChrisA
>> (You know I can't let that one pass.)
>
> I was chanel[l]ing t
From: Mark Lawrence
On 25/06/18 10:10, Alister via Python-list wrote:
> On Mon, 25 Jun 2018 11:36:25 +0400, Abdur-Rahmaan Janhangeer wrote:
>
>> i think he means like for a loop to iterate over a list you might do
>>
>> list = [1,2,3]
>> for i in range(len(list)):
>> print(list[i])
>>
>>
>>
From: Mark Lawrence
On 24/06/18 00:44, boB Stepp wrote:
> I imagine that the
> transition from version 2 to 3 was not undertaken halfheartedly, but
> only after much thought and discussion since it did break backwards
> compatibility.
>
So much so that a specific mailing list was set up just to
To: boB Stepp
From: "Bart"
To: boB Stepp
From: Bart
On 24/06/2018 16:37, boB Stepp wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 24, 2018 at 5:21 AM Bart wrote:
> "... And of course, you would have to know how to use Python properly in
> idiomatic style.
No. I want to program in /my/ style, one more like the pse
To: Chris Angelico
From: "Bart"
To: Chris Angelico
From: Bart
On 24/06/2018 15:46, Chris Angelico wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 24, 2018 at 8:40 PM, Steven D'Aprano
> wrote:
>> On Sun, 24 Jun 2018 11:18:37 +0100, Bart wrote:
>>
>>> I wonder why it is just me that constantly needs to justify his
>>>
To: Steven D'Aprano
From: Rick Johnson
On Monday, June 25, 2018 at 5:56:04 AM UTC-5, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
> Nearly everybody misses the fact that the Zen is a joke,
> not to be taken *too* seriously. A particularly subtle
> joke, but still a joke.
The Python Zen is not merely a joke. But it
To: Steven D'Aprano
From: "Rick Johnson"
To: Steven D'Aprano
From: Rick Johnson
On Sunday, June 24, 2018 at 10:05:14 AM UTC-5, Steven D'Aprano wrote: [...]
> Be fair. It's more like 50% of the time. Let's not dogpile
> onto Bart. He asked a question, I answered it, we don't all
> need to si
To: Steven D'Aprano
From: "Stefan Ram"
To: Steven D'Aprano
From: r...@zedat.fu-berlin.de (Stefan Ram)
Steven D'Aprano writes:
>It has been a long, long time since Python has been a "simple" language
>suitable for rank beginners, if it ever was. Python is not Scratch.
Python is simpler in
To: Ben Bacarisse
From: "Bart"
To: Ben Bacarisse
From: Bart
On 24/06/2018 01:53, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
> Bart writes:
>> Wow. (Just think of all the times you write a function containing a
>> neat bunch of local functions, every time it's called it has to create
>> a new function instances
To: boB Stepp
From: "Bart"
To: boB Stepp
From: Bart
On 24/06/2018 00:44, boB Stepp wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 23, 2018 at 5:35 PM Bart wrote:
>> I'm not a user...
>
> Then I am truly puzzled, Bart. Why do you even bother to hang out on
> this list? If you do not want to use Python and you do
To: Bart
From: "Gregory Ewing"
To: Bart
From: Gregory Ewing
Bart wrote:
> But 40 years
> ago it was just 'readln a,b,c'; it was just taken for granted.
The problem with something like that is that it's really only useful for
throwaway code. For any serious application, you need to deal wit
To: Bart
From: "Gregory Ewing"
To: Bart
From: Gregory Ewing
Bart wrote:
> Wow. (Just think of all the times you write a function containing a neat
> bunch of local functions, every time it's called it has to create a new
> function instances for each of those functions, even if they are not
To: boB Stepp
From: "Bart"
To: boB Stepp
From: Bart
On 23/06/2018 20:52, boB Stepp wrote:
> I've finally found time to examine this rather long, rambling thread.
>> There is a place for various levels of programming language. I'm saying that
Python which is always touted as a 'simple' lang
To: Bart
From: "Ben Bacarisse"
To: Bart
From: Ben Bacarisse
Bart writes:
> On 23/06/2018 23:25, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>> Bart writes:
>>
>>> On 23/06/2018 21:13, Chris Angelico wrote:
On Sat, Jun 23, 2018 at 10:41 PM, Bart wrote:
>>>
> (At what point would that happen anyway; if
To: Bart
From: "Ben Bacarisse"
To: Bart
From: Ben Bacarisse
Bart writes:
> On 23/06/2018 21:13, Chris Angelico wrote:
>> On Sat, Jun 23, 2018 at 10:41 PM, Bart wrote:
>
>>> (At what point would that happen anyway; if you do this:
>
>> NONE of your examples are taking copies of the functi
To: Ben Bacarisse
From: "Bart"
To: Ben Bacarisse
From: Bart
On 23/06/2018 23:25, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
> Bart writes:
>
>> On 23/06/2018 21:13, Chris Angelico wrote:
>>> On Sat, Jun 23, 2018 at 10:41 PM, Bart wrote:
>>
(At what point would that happen anyway; if you do this:
>>
>>> NO
To: Chris Angelico
From: "Bart"
To: Chris Angelico
From: Bart
On 23/06/2018 21:13, Chris Angelico wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 23, 2018 at 10:41 PM, Bart wrote:
>> (At what point would that happen anyway; if you do this:
> NONE of your examples are taking copies of the function. They all are
> m
To: Chris Angelico
From: jkn
On Monday, June 25, 2018 at 4:23:57 PM UTC+1, Chris Angelico wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 25, 2018 at 11:15 PM, jkn wrote:
> > (as well as pedanticism ;-o).
>
> Pedantry.
>
> ChrisA
> (You know I can't let that one pass.)
I was chanel[l]ing the TimBot, as any fule kno...
To: Mark Lawrence
From: Alister
On Mon, 25 Jun 2018 11:42:27 +0100, Mark Lawrence wrote:
> On 25/06/18 10:10, Alister via Python-list wrote:
>> On Mon, 25 Jun 2018 11:36:25 +0400, Abdur-Rahmaan Janhangeer wrote:
>>
>>> i think he means like for a loop to iterate over a list you might do
>>>
>>
From: Chris Angelico
On Mon, Jun 25, 2018 at 11:15 PM, jkn wrote:
> (as well as pedanticism ;-o).
Pedantry.
ChrisA
(You know I can't let that one pass.)
--- BBBS/Li6 v4.10 Toy-3
* Origin: Prism bbs (1:261/38)
--
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
To: Paul Moore
From: jkn
On Monday, June 25, 2018 at 12:17:29 PM UTC+1, Paul Moore wrote:
> On 25 June 2018 at 11:53, Steven D'Aprano
> wrote:
>
> > And the specific line you reference is *especially* a joke, one which
> > flies past nearly everyone's head:
> >
> > There should be one-- and p
From: Grant Edwards
On 2018-06-25, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
> And the specific line you reference is *especially* a joke, one which
> flies past nearly everyone's head:
>
> There should be one-- and preferably only one --obvious way to do it.
>
> Notice the dashes? There are *two* traditional wa
From: Steven D'Aprano
On Sun, 24 Jun 2018 10:46:09 -0700, Jim Lee wrote:
> On 06/24/2018 04:35 AM, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
>>
>> Indeed. That's one of the beauties of Python -- even when there's an
>> advanced way to do it, there's generally a simple way too.
>>
>>
> What happened to the Python m
From: Paul Moore
On 25 June 2018 at 11:53, Steven D'Aprano
wrote:
> And the specific line you reference is *especially* a joke, one which
> flies past nearly everyone's head:
>
> There should be one-- and preferably only one --obvious way to do it.
>
>
> Notice the dashes? There are *two* tradi
To: Steven D'Aprano
From: Bart
On 25/06/2018 01:52, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
> On Sun, 24 Jun 2018 21:21:57 +0100, Bart wrote:
>
>> I've had half a dozen users
>
> Come back when you've had *half a million users* then we'll take your
> experiences seriously.
That being the case with Python (mayb
To: Abdur-Rahmaan Janhangeer
From: Alister
On Mon, 25 Jun 2018 11:36:25 +0400, Abdur-Rahmaan Janhangeer wrote:
> i think he means like for a loop to iterate over a list you might do
>
> list = [1,2,3]
> for i in range(len(list)):
> print(list[i])
>
>
> but the you might as well go for the
From: Abdur-Rahmaan Janhangeer
we must maybe fibd an example where both are pythonic but one is simpler unless
my type of example was intented by @steve
Abdur-Rahmaan Janhangeer
https://github.com/Abdur-rahmaanJ
>
--- BBBS/Li6 v4.10 Toy-3
* Origin: Prism bbs (1:261/38)
--
https://mail.pyth
From: Jim Lee
On 06/24/2018 04:35 AM, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
>
> Indeed. That's one of the beauties of Python -- even when there's an
> advanced way to do it, there's generally a simple way too.
>
>
What happened to the Python maxim "There should be oneΓ ÷and preferably only
oneΓ ÷obvious way t
From: Abdur-Rahmaan Janhangeer
i think he means like for a loop to iterate over a list you might do
list = [1,2,3]
for i in range(len(list)):
print(list[i])
but the you might as well go for the simpler :
for elem in list:
print(elem)
Abdur-Rahmaan Janhangeer
https://github.com/Abd
From: Steven D'Aprano
On Sun, 24 Jun 2018 21:21:57 +0100, Bart wrote:
> I've had half a dozen users
Come back when you've had *half a million users* then we'll take your
experiences seriously.
https://blog.pythonanywhere.com/67/
https://stackoverflow.blog/2017/09/06/incredible-growth-python/
To: Steven D'Aprano
From: Bart
On 24/06/2018 20:02, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
> On Sun, 24 Jun 2018 19:37:33 +0100, Bart wrote:
>
>> I want to program in /my/ style
>
> Python is not Java, and Java is not Python either. Nor is it "Bart's
> Language", or C, or Forth, or Lisp, or bash.
>
> https://d
To: Stefan Ram
From: r...@zedat.fu-berlin.de (Stefan Ram)
r...@zedat.fu-berlin.de (Stefan Ram) writes:
>Still, one must not forget that learning Python encompasses
>all the hard work it takes to learn how to program in every
>language.
"Beginner", however, is a very vague term. A good scienti
From: Abdur-Rahmaan Janhangeer
naaa it was not meant to be python ^^
Abdur-Rahmaan Janhangeer
https://github.com/Abdur-rahmaanJ
>
>
--- BBBS/Li6 v4.10 Toy-3
* Origin: Prism bbs (1:261/38)
--
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
To: Stefan Ram
From: "Bart"
To: Stefan Ram
From: Bart
On 23/06/2018 14:32, Stefan Ram wrote:
> r...@zedat.fu-berlin.de (Stefan Ram) writes:
>> def f():
>> def g():
>> g.x += 1
>> return g.x
>> g.x = 0
>> return g
>
>Or, "for all g to share the same x":
>
>
1 - 100 of 753 matches
Mail list logo
