On Mon, Nov 27, 2017 at 3:04 PM, Rustom Mody wrote:
>> Aviators have pinned down the best solution to this, I think. A pilot
>> is not expected to be perfect; he is expected to follow checklists. A
>> preflight checklist. A departure checklist. A landing checklist.
>> Everything that needs to be d
On 27/11/2017 17:41, Chris Angelico wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 28, 2017 at 2:14 AM, bartc wrote:
>> JPEG uses lossy compression. The resulting recovered data is an
>> approximation of the original.
>
> Ah but it is a perfect representation of the JPEG stream. Any given
> compressed stream must always de
On 11/27/17 1:57 PM, bartc wrote:
> On 27/11/2017 17:41, Chris Angelico wrote:
>> On Tue, Nov 28, 2017 at 2:14 AM, bartc wrote:
>>> JPEG uses lossy compression. The resulting recovered data is an
>>> approximation of the original.
>>
>> Ah but it is a perfect representation of the JPEG stream. Any
bartc wrote:
> Testing everything comprehensively just wouldn't be useful for me who
> works on whole applications, whole concepts, not just a handful of
> functions with well-defined inputs and outputs.
I had this experience with Pyrex (the precursor to Cython). The various parts
are so interdepe
On Nov 27, 2017 7:08 AM, "Chris Angelico" wrote:
In every compiler, interpreter, and CPU that I've ever used, the remainder has
been well-defined. In what situation was it ill-defined, such that different
compilers could do different things?
In C89 the result of integer division and modulo wit
On Tue, Nov 28, 2017 at 2:14 AM, bartc wrote:
> JPEG uses lossy compression. The resulting recovered data is an
> approximation of the original.
Ah but it is a perfect representation of the JPEG stream. Any given compressed
stream must always decode to the same output. The lossiness is on the ENc
On Monday, November 27, 2017 at 2:10:56 AM UTC-8, Chris Angelico wrote:
> Or you could use the floating-point values for positive and negative
> infinity
perfecto! thank you!
peace
stm
--
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
On Mon, Nov 27, 2017 at 10:38 PM, bartc wrote:
> On 27/11/2017 03:04, Michael Torrie wrote:
>>
>> On 11/26/2017 08:39 AM, bartc wrote:
>>>
>>> The problem was traced to two lines that were in the wrong order (in the
>>> original program). I can't see how unit tests can have helped in any way
>>> a
bartc wrote:
> (Maybe it's viable if working from an exacting
> specification that someone else has already worked out.)
In my experience, for anything non-trivial that hasn't been done before, these
"exacting specifications" never exist. Even if someone handles wnat they
*think* are exact and com
On 27/11/2017 13:57, Chris Angelico wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 27, 2017 at 10:38 PM, bartc wrote:
> Your decoder was straight-up buggy, and tests would have proven this.
I created my Python version after the abysmal results from other Python
decoders I tried which didn't work at all, gave the wrong r
On Monday, November 27, 2017 at 12:12:24 PM UTC+5:30, Chris Angelico wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 27, 2017 at 3:04 PM, Rustom Mody wrote:
> >> Aviators have pinned down the best solution to this, I think. A pilot
> >> is not expected to be perfect; he is expected to follow checklists. A
> >> preflight che
On 27/11/2017 03:04, Michael Torrie wrote:
> On 11/26/2017 08:39 AM, bartc wrote:
>> The problem was traced to two lines that were in the wrong order (in the
>> original program). I can't see how unit tests can have helped in any way
>> at all, and it would probably have taken much longer.
>
> What
On Sunday, November 26, 2017 at 7:09:25 PM UTC-8, Michael Torrie wrote:
> So you are using this Infinity class as a sentinel value of some kind?
> Representing game state? There may be an easier way than a full on
> custom type. Sometimes just a sentinel object is sufficient. Or an
> enumeratio
On Mon, Nov 27, 2017 at 9:01 PM, wrote:
> On Sunday, November 26, 2017 at 7:09:25 PM UTC-8, Michael Torrie wrote:
>
>> So you are using this Infinity class as a sentinel value of some kind?
>> Representing game state? There may be an easier way than a full on
>> custom type. Sometimes just a se
On Mon, Nov 27, 2017 at 10:08 AM, Gregory Ewing
wrote:
> Chris Angelico wrote:
>
>> On Mon, Nov 27, 2017 at 1:11 AM, bartc wrote:
>
>>
>>>
>>> If I had to bother with such systematic tests as you suggest, and finish
>>> and
>>> sign off everything before proceeding further, then nothing would eve
On Monday, November 27, 2017 at 9:08:42 AM UTC+5:30, Chris Angelico wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 27, 2017 at 1:55 PM, Michael Torrie wrote:
> > On 11/26/2017 07:11 AM, bartc wrote:
> >>> You may argue that testing doesn't matter for his small game, written
> >>> for his own education and amusement. The f
Chris Angelico wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 27, 2017 at 1:11 AM, bartc wrote:
>
>>If I had to bother with such systematic tests as you suggest, and finish and
>>sign off everything before proceeding further, then nothing would ever get
>>done. (Maybe it's viable if working from an exacting specification
On Mon, Nov 27, 2017 at 1:55 PM, Michael Torrie wrote:
> On 11/26/2017 07:11 AM, bartc wrote:
>>> You may argue that testing doesn't matter for his small game, written
>>> for his own education and amusement. The fact is that software in
>>> general is of abysmal quality across the boards, and pr
On 11/26/2017 08:39 AM, bartc wrote:
> The problem was traced to two lines that were in the wrong order (in the
> original program). I can't see how unit tests can have helped in any way
> at all, and it would probably have taken much longer.
What makes you think that? Surely other decoders were
On 11/26/2017 07:11 AM, bartc wrote:
>> You may argue that testing doesn't matter for his small game, written
>> for his own education and amusement. The fact is that software in
>> general is of abysmal quality across the boards, and promoting a habit
>> of unit testing is good, even for trivial,
On 11/25/2017 12:58 PM, namenobodywa...@gmail.com wrote:
> the idea is that there should be exactly one object posinf (positive
infinity) that compares as strictly greater than any number ever considered,
and exactly one object neginf that compares as strictly less; as the code
stands now there is
On 25/11/2017 23:49, Terry Reedy wrote:
> On 11/25/2017 4:57 PM, namenobodywa...@gmail.com wrote:
>> On Saturday, November 25, 2017 at 12:48:38 AM UTC-8, Terry Reedy wrote:
>>
>>> I did, and it looks buggy to me.â The top and left frame lines are
>>> missing.â If I click a square, the bottom squa
On 25/11/2017 16:07, Michael Torrie wrote:
> On 11/25/2017 06:00 AM, bartc wrote:
>> And there's a quite lot left of the rest of the program to worry about too!
>>
>> If you add 'window()' at the end of the program, then it seems to run on
>> Python 3. I'd play around with it first before thinking
On Sat, 25 Nov 2017 12:26:52 -0800, namenobodywants wrote:
> On Friday, November 24, 2017 at 8:07:07 AM UTC-8, Chris Angelico wrote:
>
>> This is the kind of function that needs a docstring and some comments.
>> What exactly is this doing? What are the "lines" of the board? What's
>> the differenc
On 11/27/17 1:57 PM, bartc wrote:
On 27/11/2017 17:41, Chris Angelico wrote:
On Tue, Nov 28, 2017 at 2:14 AM, bartc wrote:
JPEG uses lossy compression. The resulting recovered data is an
approximation of the original.
Ah but it is a perfect representation of the JPEG stream. Any given
compre
On 27/11/2017 17:41, Chris Angelico wrote:
On Tue, Nov 28, 2017 at 2:14 AM, bartc wrote:
JPEG uses lossy compression. The resulting recovered data is an
approximation of the original.
Ah but it is a perfect representation of the JPEG stream. Any given
compressed stream must always decode to t
On Tue, Nov 28, 2017 at 2:14 AM, bartc wrote:
> JPEG uses lossy compression. The resulting recovered data is an
> approximation of the original.
Ah but it is a perfect representation of the JPEG stream. Any given
compressed stream must always decode to the same output. The lossiness
is on the ENc
On 27/11/2017 13:57, Chris Angelico wrote:
On Mon, Nov 27, 2017 at 10:38 PM, bartc wrote:
Your decoder was straight-up buggy, and tests would have proven this.
I created my Python version after the abysmal results from other Python
decoders I tried which didn't work at all, gave the wrong
On Nov 27, 2017 7:08 AM, "Chris Angelico" wrote:
In every compiler, interpreter, and CPU that I've ever used, the
remainder has been well-defined. In what situation was it ill-defined,
such that different compilers could do different things?
In C89 the result of integer division and modulo wit
On Mon, Nov 27, 2017 at 10:38 PM, bartc wrote:
> On 27/11/2017 03:04, Michael Torrie wrote:
>>
>> On 11/26/2017 08:39 AM, bartc wrote:
>>>
>>> The problem was traced to two lines that were in the wrong order (in the
>>> original program). I can't see how unit tests can have helped in any way
>>> a
On Monday, November 27, 2017 at 12:12:24 PM UTC+5:30, Chris Angelico wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 27, 2017 at 3:04 PM, Rustom Mody wrote:
> >> Aviators have pinned down the best solution to this, I think. A pilot
> >> is not expected to be perfect; he is expected to follow checklists. A
> >> preflight che
On Monday, November 27, 2017 at 2:10:56 AM UTC-8, Chris Angelico wrote:
> Or you could use the floating-point values for positive and negative
> infinity
perfecto! thank you!
peace
stm
--
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
On 27/11/2017 03:04, Michael Torrie wrote:
On 11/26/2017 08:39 AM, bartc wrote:
The problem was traced to two lines that were in the wrong order (in the
original program). I can't see how unit tests can have helped in any way
at all, and it would probably have taken much longer.
What makes you
On Mon, Nov 27, 2017 at 9:01 PM, wrote:
> On Sunday, November 26, 2017 at 7:09:25 PM UTC-8, Michael Torrie wrote:
>
>> So you are using this Infinity class as a sentinel value of some kind?
>> Representing game state? There may be an easier way than a full on
>> custom type. Sometimes just a se
On Sunday, November 26, 2017 at 7:09:25 PM UTC-8, Michael Torrie wrote:
> So you are using this Infinity class as a sentinel value of some kind?
> Representing game state? There may be an easier way than a full on
> custom type. Sometimes just a sentinel object is sufficient. Or an
> enumerati
On Mon, Nov 27, 2017 at 3:04 PM, Rustom Mody wrote:
>> Aviators have pinned down the best solution to this, I think. A pilot
>> is not expected to be perfect; he is expected to follow checklists. A
>> preflight checklist. A departure checklist. A landing checklist.
>> Everything that needs to be d
On Monday, November 27, 2017 at 9:08:42 AM UTC+5:30, Chris Angelico wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 27, 2017 at 1:55 PM, Michael Torrie wrote:
> > On 11/26/2017 07:11 AM, bartc wrote:
> >>> You may argue that testing doesn't matter for his small game, written
> >>> for his own education and amusement. The f
On Mon, Nov 27, 2017 at 1:55 PM, Michael Torrie wrote:
> On 11/26/2017 07:11 AM, bartc wrote:
>>> You may argue that testing doesn't matter for his small game, written
>>> for his own education and amusement. The fact is that software in
>>> general is of abysmal quality across the boards, and pr
On 11/25/2017 12:58 PM, namenobodywa...@gmail.com wrote:
> the idea is that there should be exactly one object posinf (positive
> infinity) that compares as strictly greater than any number ever considered,
> and exactly one object neginf that compares as strictly less; as the code
> stands now
On 11/26/2017 08:39 AM, bartc wrote:
> The problem was traced to two lines that were in the wrong order (in the
> original program). I can't see how unit tests can have helped in any way
> at all, and it would probably have taken much longer.
What makes you think that? Surely other decoders wer
On 11/26/2017 07:11 AM, bartc wrote:
>> You may argue that testing doesn't matter for his small game, written
>> for his own education and amusement. The fact is that software in
>> general is of abysmal quality across the boards, and promoting a habit
>> of unit testing is good, even for trivial,
bartc wrote:
Testing everything comprehensively just wouldn't be useful for me who
works on whole applications, whole concepts, not just a handful of
functions with well-defined inputs and outputs.
I had this experience with Pyrex (the precursor to Cython).
The various parts are so interdepend
On Mon, Nov 27, 2017 at 10:08 AM, Gregory Ewing
wrote:
> Chris Angelico wrote:
>
>> On Mon, Nov 27, 2017 at 1:11 AM, bartc wrote:
>
>>
>>>
>>> If I had to bother with such systematic tests as you suggest, and finish
>>> and
>>> sign off everything before proceeding further, then nothing would eve
Chris Angelico wrote:
On Mon, Nov 27, 2017 at 1:11 AM, bartc wrote:
>
If I had to bother with such systematic tests as you suggest, and finish and
sign off everything before proceeding further, then nothing would ever get
done. (Maybe it's viable if working from an exacting specification that
bartc wrote:
(Maybe it's viable if working from an exacting
specification that someone else has already worked out.)
In my experience, for anything non-trivial that hasn't been
done before, these "exacting specifications" never exist.
Even if someone handles wnat they *think* are exact and
comp
On 26/11/2017 14:23, Chris Angelico wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 27, 2017 at 1:11 AM, bartc wrote:
>> The way I write code isn't incrementally top down or bottom up. It's
>> backwards and forwards. Feedback from different parts means the thing
>> develops as a whole. Sometimes parts are split into distinc
On 25/11/2017 23:49, Terry Reedy wrote:
> On 11/25/2017 4:57 PM, namenobodywa...@gmail.com wrote:
>> On Saturday, November 25, 2017 at 12:48:38 AM UTC-8, Terry Reedy wrote:
>>
>>> I did, and it looks buggy to me.â The top and left frame lines are
>>> missing.â If I click a square, the bottom squa
On 25/11/2017 16:07, Michael Torrie wrote:
> On 11/25/2017 06:00 AM, bartc wrote:
>> And there's a quite lot left of the rest of the program to worry about too!
>>
>> If you add 'window()' at the end of the program, then it seems to run on
>> Python 3. I'd play around with it first before thinking
On Sat, 25 Nov 2017 12:26:52 -0800, namenobodywants wrote:
> On Friday, November 24, 2017 at 8:07:07 AM UTC-8, Chris Angelico wrote:
>
>> This is the kind of function that needs a docstring and some comments.
>> What exactly is this doing? What are the "lines" of the board? What's
>> the differenc
On 11/25/2017 4:57 PM, namenobodywa...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Saturday, November 25, 2017 at 12:48:38 AM UTC-8, Terry Reedy wrote:
>
>> I did, and it looks buggy to me. The top and left frame lines are
>> missing. If I click a square, the bottom square in the column lights
>> up. But then I have
On Saturday, November 25, 2017 at 12:48:38 AM UTC-8, Terry Reedy wrote:
> I did, and it looks buggy to me. The top and left frame lines are
> missing. If I click a square, the bottom square in the column lights
> up. But then I have no idea whether those are your intentions or not.
i hadn't no
On Friday, November 24, 2017 at 8:07:07 AM UTC-8, Chris Angelico wrote:
> This is the kind of function that needs a docstring and some comments.
> What exactly is this doing? What are the "lines" of the board? What's
> the difference between "linear" and "lines"? What exactly is it
> returning?
p
On Saturday, November 25, 2017 at 5:00:12 AM UTC-8, bartc wrote:
> Actually I've no idea what these tests are supposed to prove.
me neither; i think you guys may be getting me out of my depth now
> They are to do with one class called 'infinity', which is never used in the
rest
> of the program
On 11/25/2017 06:00 AM, bartc wrote:
> And there's a quite lot left of the rest of the program to worry about too!
>
> If you add 'window()' at the end of the program, then it seems to run on
> Python 3. I'd play around with it first before thinking up strategies
> for testing it.
Actually, no. U
On Mon, Nov 27, 2017 at 1:11 AM, bartc wrote:
> The way I write code isn't incrementally top down or bottom up. It's
> backwards and forwards. Feedback from different parts means the thing
> develops as a whole. Sometimes parts are split into distinct sections,
> sometimes different parts are merg
On 25/11/2017 23:49, Terry Reedy wrote:
> On 11/25/2017 4:57 PM, namenobodywa...@gmail.com wrote:
>> On Saturday, November 25, 2017 at 12:48:38 AM UTC-8, Terry Reedy wrote:
>>
>>> I did, and it looks buggy to me.â The top and left frame lines are
>>> missing.â If I click a square, the bottom squa
On Sat, 25 Nov 2017 12:26:52 -0800, namenobodywants wrote:
> On Friday, November 24, 2017 at 8:07:07 AM UTC-8, Chris Angelico wrote:
>
>> This is the kind of function that needs a docstring and some comments.
>> What exactly is this doing? What are the "lines" of the board? What's
>> the differenc
On 26/11/2017 14:23, Chris Angelico wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 27, 2017 at 1:11 AM, bartc wrote:
>> The way I write code isn't incrementally top down or bottom up. It's
>> backwards and forwards. Feedback from different parts means the thing
>> develops as a whole. Sometimes parts are split into distinc
On 25/11/2017 16:07, Michael Torrie wrote:
> On 11/25/2017 06:00 AM, bartc wrote:
>> And there's a quite lot left of the rest of the program to worry about too!
>>
>> If you add 'window()' at the end of the program, then it seems to run on
>> Python 3. I'd play around with it first before thinking
On 11/25/2017 4:57 PM, namenobodywa...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Saturday, November 25, 2017 at 12:48:38 AM UTC-8, Terry Reedy wrote:
>
>> I did, and it looks buggy to me. The top and left frame lines are
>> missing. If I click a square, the bottom square in the column lights
>> up. But then I have
On Saturday, November 25, 2017 at 12:48:38 AM UTC-8, Terry Reedy wrote:
> I did, and it looks buggy to me. The top and left frame lines are
> missing. If I click a square, the bottom square in the column lights
> up. But then I have no idea whether those are your intentions or not.
i hadn't no
On Saturday, November 25, 2017 at 5:00:12 AM UTC-8, bartc wrote:
> Actually I've no idea what these tests are supposed to prove.
me neither; i think you guys may be getting me out of my depth now
> They are to do with one class called 'infinity', which is never used in the
rest
> of the program
On 11/25/2017 06:00 AM, bartc wrote:
> And there's a quite lot left of the rest of the program to worry about too!
>
> If you add 'window()' at the end of the program, then it seems to run on
> Python 3. I'd play around with it first before thinking up strategies
> for testing it.
Actually, no. U
On Friday, November 24, 2017 at 8:07:07 AM UTC-8, Chris Angelico wrote:
> This is the kind of function that needs a docstring and some comments.
> What exactly is this doing? What are the "lines" of the board? What's
> the difference between "linear" and "lines"? What exactly is it
> returning?
p
On 26/11/2017 14:23, Chris Angelico wrote:
On Mon, Nov 27, 2017 at 1:11 AM, bartc wrote:
The way I write code isn't incrementally top down or bottom up. It's
backwards and forwards. Feedback from different parts means the thing
develops as a whole. Sometimes parts are split into distinct sectio
On Mon, Nov 27, 2017 at 1:11 AM, bartc wrote:
> The way I write code isn't incrementally top down or bottom up. It's
> backwards and forwards. Feedback from different parts means the thing
> develops as a whole. Sometimes parts are split into distinct sections,
> sometimes different parts are merg
On 25/11/2017 23:49, Terry Reedy wrote:
On 11/25/2017 4:57 PM, namenobodywa...@gmail.com wrote:
On Saturday, November 25, 2017 at 12:48:38 AM UTC-8, Terry Reedy wrote:
I did, and it looks buggy to me. The top and left frame lines are
missing. If I click a square, the bottom square in the col
On 25/11/2017 16:07, Michael Torrie wrote:
On 11/25/2017 06:00 AM, bartc wrote:
And there's a quite lot left of the rest of the program to worry about too!
If you add 'window()' at the end of the program, then it seems to run on
Python 3. I'd play around with it first before thinking up strateg
On Sat, 25 Nov 2017 12:26:52 -0800, namenobodywants wrote:
> On Friday, November 24, 2017 at 8:07:07 AM UTC-8, Chris Angelico wrote:
>
>> This is the kind of function that needs a docstring and some comments.
>> What exactly is this doing? What are the "lines" of the board? What's
>> the differen
On 11/25/2017 4:57 PM, namenobodywa...@gmail.com wrote:
On Saturday, November 25, 2017 at 12:48:38 AM UTC-8, Terry Reedy wrote:
I did, and it looks buggy to me. The top and left frame lines are
missing. If I click a square, the bottom square in the column lights
up. But then I have no idea w
On Saturday, November 25, 2017 at 12:48:38 AM UTC-8, Terry Reedy wrote:
> I did, and it looks buggy to me. The top and left frame lines are
> missing. If I click a square, the bottom square in the column lights
> up. But then I have no idea whether those are your intentions or not.
i hadn't
On Friday, November 24, 2017 at 8:07:07 AM UTC-8, Chris Angelico wrote:
> This is the kind of function that needs a docstring and some comments.
> What exactly is this doing? What are the "lines" of the board? What's
> the difference between "linear" and "lines"? What exactly is it
> returning?
p
On Saturday, November 25, 2017 at 5:00:12 AM UTC-8, bartc wrote:
> Actually I've no idea what these tests are supposed to prove.
me neither; i think you guys may be getting me out of my depth now
> They are to do with one class called 'infinity', which is never used in the
> rest
> of the pr
On 11/25/2017 06:00 AM, bartc wrote:
> And there's a quite lot left of the rest of the program to worry about too!
>
> If you add 'window()' at the end of the program, then it seems to run on
> Python 3. I'd play around with it first before thinking up strategies
> for testing it.
Actually, no.
On Nov 25, 2017, at 9:16 AM, Ian Kelly wrote:
>
>> On Sat, Nov 25, 2017 at 10:02 AM, Chris Angelico wrote:
>>> On Sun, Nov 26, 2017 at 3:36 AM, Ian Kelly wrote:
On Sat, Nov 25, 2017 at 6:00 AM, bartc wrote:
Where are your unittests for these unittests?
>>>
>>> No, the point of havin
On Sat, Nov 25, 2017 at 10:02 AM, Chris Angelico wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 26, 2017 at 3:36 AM, Ian Kelly wrote:
>> On Sat, Nov 25, 2017 at 6:00 AM, bartc wrote:
>>> Where are your unittests for these unittests?
>>
>> No, the point of having unit tests is to build confidence that the
>> code in quest
On Sun, Nov 26, 2017 at 3:36 AM, Ian Kelly wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 25, 2017 at 6:00 AM, bartc wrote:
>> Where are your unittests for these unittests?
>
> No, the point of having unit tests is to build confidence that the
> code in question works correctly. It's *possible* that the code is
> broken,
On Sat, Nov 25, 2017 at 6:00 AM, bartc wrote:
> Where are your unittests for these unittests?
Taking this question more seriously than it deserves: the tests for
the unittest module itself are at
https://hg.python.org/cpython/file/tip/Lib/unittest/test. Yes,
unittest has tests of itself.
As for
On 25/11/2017 04:43, Ian Kelly wrote:
On Fri, Nov 24, 2017 at 7:05 PM, wrote:
On Friday, November 24, 2017 at 12:13:18 PM UTC-8, Terry Reedy wrote:
Since you did not start with tests or write tests as you wrote code, ...
why on earth would you assume that? instantiate "window" and you'll s
On 11/24/2017 9:05 PM, namenobodywa...@gmail.com wrote:
On Friday, November 24, 2017 at 12:13:18 PM UTC-8, Terry Reedy wrote:
Since you did not start with tests or write tests as you wrote code, ...
that I could tell ...
I agree that I should have stuck in a qualifier, such as 'apparently'.
On Fri, Nov 24, 2017 at 7:05 PM, wrote:
> On Friday, November 24, 2017 at 12:13:18 PM UTC-8, Terry Reedy wrote:
>
>> Since you did not start with tests or write tests as you wrote code, ...
>
> why on earth would you assume that? instantiate "window" and you'll see it
> works exactly as i intend
On Sat, Nov 25, 2017 at 1:05 PM, wrote:
> On Friday, November 24, 2017 at 12:13:18 PM UTC-8, Terry Reedy wrote:
>
>> Since you did not start with tests or write tests as you wrote code, ...
>
> why on earth would you assume that? instantiate "window" and you'll see it
> works exactly as i intend
On Friday, November 24, 2017 at 12:13:18 PM UTC-8, Terry Reedy wrote:
> Since you did not start with tests or write tests as you wrote code, ...
why on earth would you assume that? instantiate "window" and you'll see it
works exactly as i intended; nobody's asking you to debug code for free; i'm
On 11/24/2017 10:33 AM, namenobodywa...@gmail.com wrote:
hi all
i've just finished my first excursion into artificial intelligence with a game
less trivial than tictactoe, and here it is in case anybody can offer
criticism/suggestions/etc
Since you did not start with tests or write tests as
On Sat, Nov 25, 2017 at 2:33 AM, wrote:
> hi all
>
> i've just finished my first excursion into artificial intelligence with a
> game less trivial than tictactoe, and here it is in case anybody can offer
> criticism/suggestions/etc
>
Hi!
You don't have a lot of comments or docstrings or anyth
85 matches
Mail list logo
