On 4/15/21 7:58 PM, Jorge Conforte wrote:
Hi,
I'm using xarray to read netcdf data and I had to time in my data the
values:
xarray.DataArray 'time' (time: 507)>
array(['1979-01-01T00:00:00.0', '1979-02-01T00:00:00.0',
'1979-03-01T00:00:00.0', ...,
'2021-01
On 15/04/2021 20:20, Chris Angelico wrote:
On Fri, Apr 16, 2021 at 4:16 AM Jorge Conforte wrote:
I'm using xarray to read netcdf data and I had to time in my data the
values:
xarray.DataArray 'time' (time: 507)>
array(['1979-01-01T00:00:00.0', '1979-02-01T00:00:00.0',
On Fri, Apr 16, 2021 at 4:16 AM Jorge Conforte wrote:
> I'm using xarray to read netcdf data and I had to time in my data the
> values:
>
> xarray.DataArray 'time' (time: 507)>
> array(['1979-01-01T00:00:00.0', '1979-02-01T00:00:00.0',
> '1979-03-01T00:00:00.0', ...
On 04Nov2020 18:02, Steve wrote:
>The text File entry is:
> BPd 2020-11-04 17:28:03.352027 66
>
>I bring it into the program using:
>with open("_TIME-DATE.txt" , 'r') as infile:
> for lineEQN in infile: # loop to find each line in the file for that
>dose
>and set it in a variable as follows
On 2020-11-04 23:02, Steve wrote:
The text File entry is:
BPd 2020-11-04 17:28:03.352027 66
I bring it into the program using:
with open("_TIME-DATE.txt" , 'r') as infile:
for lineEQN in infile: # loop to find each line in the file for that
dose
and set it in a variable as follows:
It
On Wed, Nov 4, 2020 at 6:21 PM Steve wrote:
>
> The text File entry is:
>BPd 2020-11-04 17:28:03.352027 66
>
> I bring it into the program using:
> with open("_TIME-DATE.txt" , 'r') as infile:
> for lineEQN in infile: # loop to find each line in the file for that
> dose
> and set it in a
Andrew Z wrote:
> well, yeah, it's unidirectional and final destination is always the same
> and have little to do with the question.
>
> Say, i have a dict:
>
> fut_suffix ={ 1 : 'F',
> 2 : 'G',
> 3 : 'H',
> 4 : 'J',
> 5 : 'K',
>
Thank you for your input, gentlemen.
I'm thinking about the following approach:
import datetime
from dateutil import relativedelta
fut_suffix ={ 1 : 'F',
2 : 'G',
3 : 'H',
4 : 'J',
5 : 'K',
6 : 'M',
7 : 'N',
On Tuesday, November 14, 2017 at 1:44:17 PM UTC-6, Ben Finney wrote:
> Andrew Z writes:
>
> > Now i want to get certain number of months. Say, i need 3 months duration
> > starting from any month in dict.
> >
> > so if i start @ 7th:
> > my_choice =7
> > for mnth, value in fut_suffix:
> > i
Ben Finney writes:
> import itertools
>
> month_values = sorted(list(fut_suffix.keys()))
> month_cycle = itertools.cycle(month_values)
>
> month_choice = 7
> three_months_starting_at_choice = []
> while len(three_months_starting_at_choice) < 3:
> this_month = next(
Andrew Z writes:
> Now i want to get certain number of months. Say, i need 3 months duration
> starting from any month in dict.
>
> so if i start @ 7th:
> my_choice =7
> for mnth, value in fut_suffix:
> if my_choice >= mnth
># life is great
> but if :
> my_choice = 12 then my "time
My implied solution is incorrect.
I should start with using the date type and, for example, dateutil package
for date manipulation and building the dictionary of needed dates/months.
And only after that, map against the fut_suffix.
On Tue, Nov 14, 2017 at 12:56 AM, Andrew Z wrote:
> well, yea
On Saturday, June 10, 2017 at 1:53:07 AM UTC+5:30, Paul Barry wrote:
> This is a strange statement. Python 3 doesn't even clash with Python 2, so
> I can't think of how it might cause problems with Java. I've run 2 and 3
> on Windows 7, Vista, and 10 without any issues.
>
> Paul.
>
> On 9 June
This is a strange statement. Python 3 doesn't even clash with Python 2, so
I can't think of how it might cause problems with Java. I've run 2 and 3
on Windows 7, Vista, and 10 without any issues.
Paul.
On 9 June 2017 at 20:14, wrote:
> On Friday, June 9, 2017 at 1:18:35 PM UTC+5:30, Lawrence
On Friday, June 9, 2017 at 1:18:35 PM UTC+5:30, Lawrence D’Oliveiro wrote:
> On Thursday, June 8, 2017 at 9:57:40 AM UTC+12, subhaba...@gmail.com wrote:
> > ... (with Python2.7 on MS-Windows 7) ...
>
> Why?
Are you asking why not Python3? My Java based colleagues say it clashes with
Java, so we
input/ldompel...@casema.nl:
> Yes, I would like seconds since start of program.
> Can I not doing something like time()=0 only this gives an error.
Here:
class MyReckoning:
def __init__(self):
self.the_beginning = time.time()
def time(self):
return ti
> Ambiguous requirement: any normal counter starts from zero... But what
> "zero" represents may differ... Seconds since Jan 1 1970? Seconds since
> midnight? Seconds since start of program?
Thanks for the reply
Yes, I would like seconds since start of program.
Can I not doing something like tim
On 07Nov2015 21:27, input/ldompel...@casema.nl
wrote:
I like to have a function that prints time in seconds.
I am looking for something for example that seconds count from zero.
I search the internet for time module in python but could not found anathing
usefull.
Here:
https://docs.python.
> What are your best time saving tips when programming Python?
* Use the REPL. Write small chunks of code and test them as you go
* Know what's available in the standard library (sets, Counter, deque ...)
* Learn how to pick good packages from PyPI (community, last commit ...)
* import this
--
htt
On Thursday, June 18, 2015 at 6:11:11 AM UTC-4, Productivi .co wrote:
> What are your best time saving tips when programming Python?
PyCharm!
--
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
On Fri, Mar 27, 2015 at 6:31 PM, Jinghui Niu wrote:
> On Wednesday, March 25, 2015 at 2:17:03 PM UTC-7, Jinghui Niu wrote:
>> I am learning python programming. One thing that gives me a lot of confusion
>> is the division of labours between the time module and the datetime module.
>>
>> As it tur
On Wednesday, March 25, 2015 at 2:17:03 PM UTC-7, Jinghui Niu wrote:
> I am learning python programming. One thing that gives me a lot of confusion
> is the division of labours between the time module and the datetime module.
>
> As it turns out to be, time module is not only about time, it's abo
On 25/03/2015 23:49, Ian Kelly wrote:
On Wed, Mar 25, 2015 at 3:16 PM, Jinghui Niu wrote:
I am learning python programming. One thing that gives me a lot of confusion is
the division of labours between the time module and the datetime module.
As it turns out to be, time module is not only abo
On Wed, Mar 25, 2015 at 3:16 PM, Jinghui Niu wrote:
> I am learning python programming. One thing that gives me a lot of confusion
> is the division of labours between the time module and the datetime module.
>
> As it turns out to be, time module is not only about time, it's about date
> too. A
On Thu, 26 Mar 2015 08:16 am, Jinghui Niu wrote:
> I am learning python programming. One thing that gives me a lot of
> confusion is the division of labours between the time module and the
> datetime module.
>
> As it turns out to be, time module is not only about time, it's about date
> too. And
On Thu, Mar 27, 2014 at 1:32 AM, Ian Kelly wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 7:36 AM, Steven D'Aprano
> wrote:
>> Yes, Python could have changed the meaning of {} to mean the empty set.
>> But you know what? The empty set is not that important. Sets are not
>> fundamental to Python. Python didn't
On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 7:36 AM, Steven D'Aprano
wrote:
> Yes, Python could have changed the meaning of {} to mean the empty set.
> But you know what? The empty set is not that important. Sets are not
> fundamental to Python. Python didn't even have sets until 2.3, and at
> first they were just a
On Wed, 26 Mar 2014 20:44:17 -0400, Terry Reedy wrote:
> I agree that we have not been understanding each other.
>
> From you original post that I responded to:
>> The thing is, we can't just create a ∑ function, because it doesn't
>> work the way the summation operator works. The proble
On Thursday, March 27, 2014 5:13:21 AM UTC+5:30, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
> On Thu, 27 Mar 2014 09:24:49 +1100, Chris Angelico wrote:
> > wrote:
> >> Now actual python
> >> def sumjensen(i_get, i_set,lower,upper,exp):
> >> tot = 0
> >> i_set(lower)
> >> while i_get() <= upper:
> >>
On Thu, Mar 27, 2014 at 12:16 PM, Rhodri James wrote:
> It's not quite that simple, sadly (for me). I have mild dyscalculia, which
> in my case is another way of saying that collections of digits *aren't*
> tokens to me unless I ascribe a specific meaning to them. I don't work with
> day-level t
On Tue, 25 Mar 2014 06:12:50 -, Chris Angelico
wrote:
Because the shorter symbols lend themselves better to the
"super-tokenization" where you don't read the individual parts but the
whole. The difference between "40" and "forty" is minimal, but the
difference between "86400" and "eighty-
I agree that we have not been understanding each other.
From you original post that I responded to:
The thing is, we can't just create a ∑ function, because it doesn't
work the way the summation operator works. The problem is that we
would want syntactic support, so we could write something like
On Thu, 27 Mar 2014 09:24:49 +1100, Chris Angelico wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 27, 2014 at 4:32 AM, Rustom Mody
> wrote:
>> Now actual python
>>
>> def sumjensen(i_get, i_set,lower,upper,exp):
>> tot = 0
>> i_set(lower)
>> while i_get() <= upper:
>> tot += exp_get()
>> i_set(
On Thu, Mar 27, 2014 at 4:32 AM, Rustom Mody wrote:
> Now actual python
>
> def sumjensen(i_get, i_set,lower,upper,exp):
> tot = 0
> i_set(lower)
> while i_get() <= upper:
> tot += exp_get()
> i_set(i_get() + 1)
> return tot
>
>
> i=0
> a=[3,4,5]
> i_get = lambda :
On Wednesday, March 26, 2014 11:02:04 PM UTC+5:30, Rustom Mody wrote:
> On Wednesday, March 26, 2014 9:35:53 PM UTC+5:30, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
> > On Wed, 26 Mar 2014 00:30:21 -0400, Terry Reedy wrote:
> > > One passes an unquoted expression in code by quoting it with either
> > > lambda, paired
On Wednesday, March 26, 2014 9:35:53 PM UTC+5:30, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
> On Wed, 26 Mar 2014 00:30:21 -0400, Terry Reedy wrote:
> > On 3/25/2014 8:12 PM, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
> >> On Tue, 25 Mar 2014 19:55:39 -0400, Terry Reedy wrote:
> >>> On 3/25/2014 11:18 AM, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
>
On Wed, 26 Mar 2014 00:30:21 -0400, Terry Reedy wrote:
> On 3/25/2014 8:12 PM, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
>> On Tue, 25 Mar 2014 19:55:39 -0400, Terry Reedy wrote:
>>
>>> On 3/25/2014 11:18 AM, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
>>>
The thing is, we can't just create a ∑ function, because it doesn't
wor
On 26-03-14 01:24, Terry Reedy wrote:
> The other fact that Chris noted, that '{}' would have been valid but
> with different meanings in Py1/2 versus Py3, was a factor on the cost
> side. We generally try to avoid such ambiguities.
>
> Except for this last point, I was in favor of the switch.
On Wednesday, March 26, 2014 10:00:21 AM UTC+5:30, Terry Reedy wrote:
> On 3/25/2014 8:12 PM, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
> > On Tue, 25 Mar 2014 19:55:39 -0400, Terry Reedy wrote:
> >> On 3/25/2014 11:18 AM, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
> >>> The thing is, we can't just create a ∑ function, because it doesn'
On 3/25/2014 8:12 PM, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
On Tue, 25 Mar 2014 19:55:39 -0400, Terry Reedy wrote:
On 3/25/2014 11:18 AM, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
The thing is, we can't just create a ∑ function, because it doesn't
work the way the summation operator works. The problem is that we would
want sy
On Wed, Mar 26, 2014 at 1:10 PM, Terry Reedy wrote:
>> dicts are more fundamental than sets.
>
> One can easily implement floats from complex numbers by making the .imag
> part always 0. It would be much harder to implement complex numbers from
> floats, for the same reasons that it would be hard
On 3/25/2014 9:36 AM, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
Yes, Python could have changed the meaning of {} to mean the empty set.
But you know what? The empty set is not that important. Sets are not
fundamental to Python. Python didn't even have sets until 2.3, and at
first they were just a standard library
On Tue, 25 Mar 2014 18:24:10 +0100, Chris “Kwpolska” Warrick wrote:
> Oh: and speaking of fancy Unicode characters that are worthless
> ~duplicates, spot the difference here:
>
> µ μ
I take exception to your description of them as *worthless* duplicates.
"Unfortunate" would be a better choice o
On 3/25/2014 8:07 AM, Antoon Pardon wrote:
On 25-03-14 12:12, Chris Angelico wrote:
On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 9:24 PM, Antoon Pardon
wrote:
No they didn't have to. With the transition to python3, the developers
could have opted for empty braces to mean an empty set. And if they
wanted a literal
On Tue, 25 Mar 2014 19:55:39 -0400, Terry Reedy wrote:
> On 3/25/2014 11:18 AM, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
>
>> The thing is, we can't just create a ∑ function, because it doesn't
>> work the way the summation operator works. The problem is that we would
>> want syntactic support, so we could write s
On 3/25/2014 11:18 AM, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
The thing is, we can't just create a ∑ function, because it doesn't work
the way the summation operator works. The problem is that we would want
syntactic support, so we could write something like this:
p = 2
∑(n, 1, 10, n**p)
Of course
On 3/25/2014 2:50 AM, Chris Angelico wrote:
On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 5:41 PM, Rustom Mody wrote:
ALl of which is isomorphic to Steven's point that forty is less
eyeballable than 40
And mine that ∅ is more eyeballable than set([])
I don't disagree that it is; the short tokens are easier to rea
On 25/03/2014 20:21, Gregory Ewing wrote:
Roy Smith wrote:
Doors that open automatically as you approach them are now routine.
Star Trek doors seem to be a bit smarter, though.
Captain Kirk never had to stop in front of a door
and wait for it to sluggishly slide open. Also the
doors never open
Chris Angelico wrote:
Hey look, we have a rogue AI... "CONSOLE!"...
Except that any rogue AI who's at all serious about
the matter would take care of that little loophole
at an early stage.
"Open the pod bay doors, HAL."
"I'm afraid I can't do that, Dave."
"CONSOLE!"
"Sorry, Dave. Nice try,
Chris Angelico wrote:
But you can't do the same for braces. You'd have to eschew *both*
literal-ish notations and use explicit constructors everywhere. Not
clean.
This could have been dealt with by giving Python 2.7
a "from __future__ import braces_mean_sets" option or
something like that.
But
Rustom Mody wrote:
÷ for some reason seems inappropriate
(some vague recollection that its an only English; Europeans dont use it??)
To me it's something you learn in primary school and
then grow out of when you start doing "real" mathematics.
The "/" is actually a better approximation of what
On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 4:21 PM, Gregory Ewing
wrote:
> Roy Smith wrote:
>
>> Doors that open automatically as you approach them are now routine.
>>
>
> Star Trek doors seem to be a bit smarter, though.
> Captain Kirk never had to stop in front of a door
> and wait for it to sluggishly slide open.
Roy Smith wrote:
Doors that open automatically as you approach them are now
routine.
Star Trek doors seem to be a bit smarter, though.
Captain Kirk never had to stop in front of a door
and wait for it to sluggishly slide open. Also the
doors never open when you're just walking past and
not inte
On Wed, Mar 26, 2014 at 4:24 AM, Chris “Kwpolska” Warrick
wrote:
> “If you can type an N-ARY PRODUCT, you can type a GREEK SMALL LETTER
> PI, unless there’s something very weird going on.”
>
> …like, the user is in the past and is using ISO 8859-7 (instead of a
> 21st-century encoding, like UTF-8)
On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 9:05 AM, Marko Rauhamaa wrote:
> Chris Angelico :
>
>> On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 4:14 PM, Mark H Harris wrote:
>> Π¹ = pi
>>
>> That's good! (Although typing Π¹ quicker than pi is majorly pushing it.
>
> It don't think that's good. The lower-case letter π² should be used
On 3/25/14 7:36 AM, Roy Smith wrote:
(we're on one tiny planet, you know?)
Speak for yourself.
Are others on this list, um, on a different planet? Or, am I the only
one who knows its tiny?
Yes, we're on a tiny planet revolving around a speck of a star, at the
edge of an insignificant
On Tuesday, March 25, 2014 7:53:23 PM UTC+5:30, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
> On Tue, 25 Mar 2014 05:53:45 -0700, Rustom Mody wrote:
> > And if we had hyphen '‐' distinguished from minus '-' then we could have
> > lispish names like call‐with‐current‐continuation properly spelt. And
> > then generation
On Tue, 25 Mar 2014 05:09:20 -0700, Rustom Mody wrote:
> Two completely separate questions
>
> 1. Symbols outside of US-104-keyboard/ASCII used for python
>functions/constants
> 2. Non-linear math notation
>
> It goes back not just to the first programming languages but to Turing's
> paper t
On Wed, Mar 26, 2014 at 1:13 AM, Steven D'Aprano
wrote:
> On Tue, 25 Mar 2014 08:35:02 -0400, Roy Smith wrote:
>
>> In article <281c8ce1-4f03-4e93-b5cd-d45b85e89...@googlegroups.com>,
>> Rustom Mody wrote:
>>
>>> And Chris is right in (rephrasing) we may have unicode-happy OSes and
>>> languages
On Tue, 25 Mar 2014 05:53:45 -0700, Rustom Mody wrote:
> And if we had hyphen '‐' distinguished from minus '-' then we could have
> lispish names like call‐with‐current‐continuation properly spelt. And
> then generations of programmers will thank us for increasing their
> debugging overtime!!
:-)
On Tue, 25 Mar 2014 08:35:02 -0400, Roy Smith wrote:
> In article <281c8ce1-4f03-4e93-b5cd-d45b85e89...@googlegroups.com>,
> Rustom Mody wrote:
>
>> And Chris is right in (rephrasing) we may have unicode-happy OSes and
>> languages. We cant reasonably have unicode-happy keyboards. [What would
>
On Tuesday, March 25, 2014 7:26:47 PM UTC+5:30, Chris Angelico wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 26, 2014 at 12:43 AM, Antoon Pardon
> >> It doesn't bother me. IIRC in primary school before fractions were
> >> introduced,
> >> a colon was used to indicate division.
> The way I learned it, a colon was for a ra
On 25-03-14 14:36, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
> On Tue, 25 Mar 2014 08:21:19 -0400, Roy Smith wrote:
>
>> In article ,
>> Antoon Pardon wrote:
>>
>>> Come on. The problem isn't that both set and dictionary literal use
>>> braces. That doesn't seem to be a problem in python3. The only question
>>> was
On Wed, Mar 26, 2014 at 12:07 AM, Rustom Mody wrote:
> What you are answering (2) is somewhat different from what Anton is asking
> (1).
>
> 1. Use a tool (2to3 inspired) to help move programs to the the new lexicon
> 2. Use 2to3 to (help) write code that is backward-compatible
>
> It is an invar
On Wed, Mar 26, 2014 at 12:43 AM, Antoon Pardon
wrote:
>> It doesn't bother me. IIRC in primary school before fractions were
>> introduced,
>> a colon was used to indicate division.
The way I learned it, a colon was for a ratio, and a horizontal line
was for a fraction. Both of them effectively
On Tuesday, March 25, 2014 7:13:09 PM UTC+5:30, Antoon Pardon wrote:
> On 25-03-14 13:53, Rustom Mody wrote:
> > On Tuesday, March 25, 2014 4:08:38 PM UTC+5:30, Antoon Pardon wrote:
> >> So? We do use + -, so why shouldn't we use × for multiplication. Would
> >> such a use already indicate I should
On 25-03-14 13:53, Rustom Mody wrote:
> On Tuesday, March 25, 2014 4:08:38 PM UTC+5:30, Antoon Pardon wrote:
>> So? We do use + -, so why shouldn't we use × for multiplication. Would
>> such a use already indicate I should use a mathematical front-end?
>> When a programming language is borrowing co
On Tue, 25 Mar 2014 08:21:19 -0400, Roy Smith wrote:
> In article ,
> Antoon Pardon wrote:
>
>> Come on. The problem isn't that both set and dictionary literal use
>> braces. That doesn't seem to be a problem in python3. The only question
>> was what should {} represent and how do we get an emp
On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 11:35 PM, Roy Smith wrote:
> When's the last time you saw somebody typing commands to a computer on
> Star Trek?
That's more like what comes up in Cars 2. "It's voice activated... but
then, everything is these days!"
ChrisA
--
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/pyt
On Tuesday, March 25, 2014 6:15:16 PM UTC+5:30, Chris Angelico wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 11:07 PM, Antoon Pardon
> > On 25-03-14 12:12, Chris Angelico wrote:
> >> On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 9:24 PM, Antoon Pardon
> >>> No they didn't have to. With the transition to python3, the developers
> >>>
On 25-03-14 13:45, Chris Angelico wrote:
> It makes the same notation mean different things, in ways that are
> hard to render clearly. You can write a Py3 program and put this at
> the top for Py2:
>
> try:
> input = raw_input
> range = xrange
> except NameError:
> # We're running on
On Tuesday, March 25, 2014 4:08:38 PM UTC+5:30, Antoon Pardon wrote:
> So? We do use + -, so why shouldn't we use × for multiplication. Would
> such a use already indicate I should use a mathematical front-end?
> When a programming language is borrowing concepts from mathematics,
> I see no reason
In article <281c8ce1-4f03-4e93-b5cd-d45b85e89...@googlegroups.com>,
Rustom Mody wrote:
> And Chris is right in (rephrasing) we may have unicode-happy OSes and
> languages. We cant reasonably have unicode-happy keyboards.
> [What would a million-key keyboard look like? Lets leave the cost aside..
On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 11:07 PM, Antoon Pardon
wrote:
> On 25-03-14 12:12, Chris Angelico wrote:
>
>> On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 9:24 PM, Antoon Pardon
>> wrote:
>>> No they didn't have to. With the transition to python3, the developers
>>> could have opted for empty braces to mean an empty set. An
In article ,
Mark H Harris wrote:
> (we're on one tiny planet, you know?)
Speak for yourself.
--
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
In article ,
Mark H Harris wrote:
> On 3/24/14 10:51 PM, Chris Angelico wrote:
> > Supporting both may look tempting, but you effectively create two ways
> > of spelling the exact same thing; it'd be like C's trigraphs. Do you
> > know what ??= is,
>
> This was a fit for me, back in the day IBM
In article ,
Antoon Pardon wrote:
> Come on. The problem isn't that both set and dictionary literal use
> braces. That doesn't seem to be a problem in python3. The only question
> was what should {} represent and how do we get an empty collection of
> the other kind. If {} had been an empty set,
On Tuesday, March 25, 2014 5:16:14 PM UTC+5:30, Antoon Pardon wrote:
> On 25-03-14 12:14, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
> >> Would
> >> such a use already indicate I should use a mathematical front-end?
> >> When a programming language is borrowing concepts from mathematics, I
> >> see no reason not to b
On 25-03-14 12:12, Chris Angelico wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 9:24 PM, Antoon Pardon
> wrote:
>> No they didn't have to. With the transition to python3, the developers
>> could have opted for empty braces to mean an empty set. And if they
>> wanted a literal for an empty dictionary, they mig
On 25-03-14 12:14, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
> On Tue, 25 Mar 2014 11:38:38 +0100, Antoon Pardon wrote:
>
>> On 25-03-14 10:54, Chris Angelico wrote:
>>> On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 8:43 PM, Antoon Pardon
>>> wrote:
I thought programs were read more than written. So if writing is made
a bit mor
On Tue, 25 Mar 2014 11:38:38 +0100, Antoon Pardon wrote:
> On 25-03-14 10:54, Chris Angelico wrote:
>> On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 8:43 PM, Antoon Pardon
>> wrote:
>>> I thought programs were read more than written. So if writing is made
>>> a bit more problematic but the result is more readable beca
On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 9:24 PM, Antoon Pardon
wrote:
> No they didn't have to. With the transition to python3, the developers
> could have opted for empty braces to mean an empty set. And if they
> wanted a literal for an empty dictionary, they might have chosen {:}.
> Backward-compatibility was
On 25-03-14 10:54, Chris Angelico wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 8:43 PM, Antoon Pardon
> wrote:
>> I thought programs were read more than written. So if writing is made
>> a bit more problematic but the result is more readable because we are
>> able to use symbols that are already familiar from
On 25-03-14 05:14, Chris Angelico wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 2:56 PM, Rustom Mody >> I don't know about the difference between {} in set theory and Python,
>>> but the multiple uses of () actually boil down to two:
>> In set theory {} makes sets
>> In python {} makes dictionaries
> That's a b
On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 8:43 PM, Antoon Pardon
wrote:
> I thought programs were read more than written. So if writing is made
> a bit more problematic but the result is more readable because we are
> able to use symbols that are already familiar from other contexts, I
> would say it is worth it.
On 25-03-14 06:08, Chris Angelico wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 4:00 PM, Rustom Mody wrote:
>> Its already there -- and even easier
>> Switch to cyrillic-jis-russian (whatever that is!)
>> and I get л from k Л from K
> How quickly can you switch, type one letter (to generate one Cyrillic
> cha
On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 7:59 PM, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
> On Tue, 25 Mar 2014 19:23:45 +1100, Chris Angelico wrote:
>
>> I was trying to avoid nit-picking
>
> What, on comp.lang.python? What's wrong with you?
>
>
> :-)
I know, it's like refraining from bike-shedding on python-ideas or not
reading
On Tue, 25 Mar 2014 19:23:45 +1100, Chris Angelico wrote:
> I was trying to avoid nit-picking
What, on comp.lang.python? What's wrong with you?
:-)
--
Steven
--
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 7:05 PM, Marko Rauhamaa wrote:
> Chris Angelico :
>
>> On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 4:14 PM, Mark H Harris wrote:
>> Π = pi
>>
>> That's good! (Although typing Π quicker than pi is majorly pushing it.
>
> It don't think that's good. The lower-case letter π should be used. T
Chris Angelico :
> On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 4:14 PM, Mark H Harris wrote:
> Π = pi
>
> That's good! (Although typing Π quicker than pi is majorly pushing it.
It don't think that's good. The lower-case letter π should be used. The
upper-case letter is used for a product, although unicode dedic
On Tuesday, March 25, 2014 12:33:49 PM UTC+5:30, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
> On Mon, 24 Mar 2014 20:56:19 -0700, Rustom Mody wrote:
> > Paren vs tuples: why do we need to write (x,) not (x)
> You don't. You can write x, without the brackets:
> py> t = 23,
> py> type(t)
> It's the comma that makes
On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 6:03 PM, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
> On Tue, 25 Mar 2014 17:19:10 +1100, Chris Angelico wrote:
>
>> I'll write today's date as 20140325 in some contexts.) Of them,
>> y/m/d is both the clearest and the least commonly used; with a
>> four-digit year, there's no way it could be
On Tue, 25 Mar 2014 17:19:10 +1100, Chris Angelico wrote:
> I'll write today's date as 20140325 in some contexts.) Of them,
> y/m/d is both the clearest and the least commonly used; with a
> four-digit year, there's no way it could be confused for anything else.
Shame on you Chris! Don't you know
On Mon, 24 Mar 2014 20:56:19 -0700, Rustom Mody wrote:
> Paren vs tuples: why do we need to write (x,) not (x)
You don't. You can write x, without the brackets:
py> t = 23,
py> type(t)
It's the comma that makes tuples, not the brackets.
--
Steven
--
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listin
On Tuesday, March 25, 2014 12:15:11 PM UTC+5:30, Chris Angelico wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 5:35 PM, Rustom Mody wrote:
> > I dont think we are anywhere near making real suggestions for real changes
> > which would need to talk of compatibility, portability, editor support
> > and all such oth
On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 5:41 PM, Rustom Mody wrote:
> ALl of which is isomorphic to Steven's point that forty is less
> eyeballable than 40
>
> And mine that ∅ is more eyeballable than set([])
I don't disagree that it is; the short tokens are easier to read in
quantity. I just don't think that it
On 3/25/14 12:08 AM, Chris Angelico wrote:
How quickly can you switch, type one letter (to generate one Cyrillic
character), and switch back?
Ok.. after installing Ukelete from Summer Institute of Linguistics SIL I
can now edit the installed keymaps and select them from input sources at
the t
On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 5:35 PM, Rustom Mody wrote:
> I dont think we are anywhere near making real suggestions for real changes
> which would need to talk of compatibility, portability, editor support
> and all such other good stuff.
>
> Just a bit of brainstorming to see how an alternative pytho
On Tuesday, March 25, 2014 12:03:24 PM UTC+5:30, Chris Angelico wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 5:10 PM, Rustom Mody wrote:
> > Something that Chris may relate to:
> > You type a music score into lilypond
> > Then call lilypond to convert it into standard western staff notation
> > Why not put up
On Tuesday, March 25, 2014 11:42:50 AM UTC+5:30, Chris Angelico wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 4:47 PM, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
> > On Tue, 25 Mar 2014 14:57:02 +1100, Chris Angelico wrote:
> >> No, I'm not missing that. But the human brain is a tokenizer, just as
> >> Python is. Once you know wha
1 - 100 of 342 matches
Mail list logo
