In message , Steven
D'Aprano wrote:
> Everybody understands what you mean when you say something is tasty, even
> though everyone's understanding of tasty is different. You don't need to
> agree on what tasty *is* to agree that something *isn't* tasty
But you do if you want to describe somethin
On Mon, 20 Apr 2009 21:30:20 -0700, Aahz wrote:
> In article
> <37d39064-b73d-4e47-9e1e-d07c14bfc...@z8g2000prd.googlegroups.com>,
> alex23 wrote:
>>On Apr 21, 1:18 pm, Tim Wintle wrote:
>>>
>>> There was some suggestion about introducing synonyms that followed
>>> PEP8 and introducing deprecat
In article <37d39064-b73d-4e47-9e1e-d07c14bfc...@z8g2000prd.googlegroups.com>,
alex23 wrote:
>On Apr 21, 1:18 pm, Tim Wintle wrote:
>>
>> There was some suggestion about introducing synonyms that followed PEP8
>> and introducing deprecation warnings as you suggested, but I can't
>> remember the
On Apr 21, 1:18 pm, Tim Wintle wrote:
> There was some suggestion about introducing synonyms that followed PEP8
> and introducing deprecation warnings as you suggested, but I can't
> remember the outcome. I'd suggest checking the dev archives.
What about the possibility of offering an additional,
On Sun, 2009-04-19 at 18:43 +0200, Emmanuel Surleau wrote:
> Hi there,
>
> Exploring the Python standard library, I was surprised to see that several
> packages (ConfigParser, logging...) use mixed case for methods all over the
> place. I assume that they were written back when the Python stylin
On Mon, 20 Apr 2009 06:18:17 -0700, Scott David Daniels wrote:
> Steven D'Aprano wrote:
>> ... There's an accepted definition for "objected oriented programming
>> language": a language which provides "objects", which are constructs
>> encapsulating both data and routines to operate on that data i
On Mon, Apr 20, 2009 at 9:31 AM, George Sakkis wrote:
> On Apr 19, 6:01 pm, "Martin P. Hellwig"
>
> > Besides, calling Python Object-Orientated is a bit of an insult :-). I
> > would say that Python is Ego-Orientated, it allows me to do what I want.
>
> +1 QOTW
>
So true.
+1 QOTW
--
-Brandon S
On Monday 20 April 2009 10:55:19 Steven D'Aprano wrote:
> On Mon, 20 Apr 2009 08:05:01 +0200, Emmanuel Surleau wrote:
> > On Monday 20 April 2009 01:48:04 Steven D'Aprano wrote:
> >> It also depends on whether you see the length of a data structure as a
> >> property of the data, or the result of a
Emmanuel Surleau wrote:
Hi there,
Exploring the Python standard library, I was surprised to see that several
packages (ConfigParser, logging...) use mixed case for methods all over the
place. I assume that they were written back when the Python styling
guidelines were not well-defined.
Give
On Mon, Apr 20, 2009 at 2:18 PM, Scott David Daniels
wrote:
> Steven D'Aprano wrote:
>
>> ... There's an accepted definition for "objected oriented programming
>> language": a language which provides "objects", which are constructs
>> encapsulating both data and routines to operate on that data in
On Apr 19, 6:01 pm, "Martin P. Hellwig"
> Besides, calling Python Object-Orientated is a bit of an insult :-). I
> would say that Python is Ego-Orientated, it allows me to do what I want.
+1 QOTW
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Steven D'Aprano wrote:
... There's an accepted definition for "objected oriented programming
language": a language which provides "objects", which are constructs
encapsulating both data and routines to operate on that data in a single
item.
Says you. Roger King wrote a book entitled "My Cat is
In article ,
Steven D'Aprano wrote:
>On Mon, 20 Apr 2009 03:44:59 -0400, Terry Reedy wrote:
>> Steven D'Aprano wrote:
>>> On Mon, 20 Apr 2009 19:18:23 +1200, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
In message , Aahz wrote:
>
> What kind of OO language allows you to do this:
>
> def square
On Mon, 20 Apr 2009 08:05:01 +0200, Emmanuel Surleau wrote:
> On Monday 20 April 2009 01:48:04 Steven D'Aprano wrote:
>
>> It also depends on whether you see the length of a data structure as a
>> property of the data, or the result of an operation ("counting") on the
>> data structure. We often
On Mon, 20 Apr 2009 19:15:51 +1200, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
> In message ,
> Christian Heimes wrote:
>
>> Neither Java nor Python are pure object oriented languages.
>
> That's like saying the Soviet Union was never a pure communist country,
> or that the US is not a pure capitalist country.
On Mon, 20 Apr 2009 03:44:59 -0400, Terry Reedy wrote:
> Steven D'Aprano wrote:
>> On Mon, 20 Apr 2009 19:18:23 +1200, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>>
>>> In message , Aahz wrote:
>>>
What kind of OO language allows you to do this:
def square(x):
return x*x
for i i
Steven D'Aprano wrote:
On Mon, 20 Apr 2009 19:18:23 +1200, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
In message , Aahz wrote:
What kind of OO language allows you to do this:
def square(x):
return x*x
for i in range(10):
print square(x)
Take out the "OO" qualifier, and the answer is still "none":
On Mon, 20 Apr 2009 19:18:23 +1200, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
> In message , Aahz wrote:
>
>> What kind of OO language allows you to do this:
>>
>> def square(x):
>> return x*x
>>
>> for i in range(10):
>> print square(x)
>
> Take out the "OO" qualifier, and the answer is still "none"
In message , Aahz wrote:
> What kind of OO language allows you to do this:
>
> def square(x):
> return x*x
>
> for i in range(10):
> print square(x)
Take out the "OO" qualifier, and the answer is still "none":
Traceback (most recent call last):
File "", line 2, in
NameEr
In message , Christian
Heimes wrote:
> Neither Java nor Python are pure object oriented languages.
That's like saying the Soviet Union was never a pure communist country, or
that the US is not a pure capitalist country. "Pure", it seems, can be
endlessly redefined to exclude any example you mi
Emmanuel Surleau:
> On an unrelated note, it would be *really* nice to have a length property on
> strings. Even Java has that!
Once you have written a good amount of Python code you can understand
that a len() function, that calls the __len__ method of objects, is
better. It allows you to write:
> > Also, my code sample was itself a trick question. Python has *dynamic*
> > object orientation (just as the blurb says), and square() will work
> > on any object with a __mul__() method (through the ``*`` syntax), just as
> > len() works on any object with a __len__() method. So my code
> > d
> >Allowing for procedural-style programming does not mean that a
language
> >does not implement (even imperfectly) an OO paradigm.
>
> "Allowing" is the wrong term here. Python absolutely encourages a
> straightforward procedural style when appropriate; unlike Java, there is
> no attempt to forc
On Monday 20 April 2009 01:48:04 Steven D'Aprano wrote:
> The problem is, I believe, that people wrongly imagine that there is One
> True Way of a language being "object-oriented", and worse, that the OTW
> is the way Java does it. (If it were Smalltalk, they'd at least be able
> to make the argum
[BTW, please make sure to retain attributions for quotes]
In article ,
Emmanuel Surleau wrote:
>Aahz:
>>
>> What makes you think Python is "an OO language"?
>
>Python is a dynamic object-oriented programming language that can be used
>for many kinds of software development.
>
>First line on th
On Sun, 19 Apr 2009 13:46:23 -0700, Aahz wrote:
> What makes you think Python is "an OO language"?
The fact that everything in Python is an object is a good hint.
> What kind of OO language allows you to do this:
>
> def square(x):
> return x*x
>
> for i in range(10):
> print square
On Sun, 19 Apr 2009 18:43:10 +0200, Emmanuel Surleau wrote:
> On an unrelated note, it would be *really* nice to have a length
> property on strings. Even Java has that!
And even in Java, they have sin(x) rather than x.sin().
Dan
--
Dan Sommers A death spiral
Emmanuel Surleau wrote:
What makes you think Python is "an OO language"?
Python is a dynamic object-oriented programming language that can be used
for many kinds of software development.
First line on the Python official website. Was this a trick question?
What kind of OO
language allows y
> What makes you think Python is "an OO language"?
Python is a dynamic object-oriented programming language that can be used
for many kinds of software development.
First line on the Python official website. Was this a trick question?
> What kind of OO
> language allows you to do this:
>
> def
On Sunday 19 April 2009 21:46:46 Christian Heimes wrote:
> Emmanuel Surleau wrote:
> > First off, it's pretty commonplace in OO languages. Secondly, given the
> > number of methods available for the string objects, it is only natural to
> > assume that dir("a") would show me a len() or length() or
> Perhaps in statically typed languages. Python is dynamic, so a x.length()
> requires a method lookup and that's expensive. len(x) on the contrary, can
> be optimized on a case by case basis -- it DOESN'T translate to
> x.__len__() as some might think.
> See
> http://www.python.org/doc/faq/general
In article ,
Emmanuel Surleau wrote:
>On Sunday 19 April 2009 19:37:59 Gabriel Genellina wrote:
>> En Sun, 19 Apr 2009 13:43:10 -0300, Emmanuel Surleau
>> escribi=F3:
>>>
>>> On an unrelated note, it would be *really* nice to have a length
>>> property on strings. Even Java has that!
>>
>> Why
On Apr 19, 11:41 am, Emmanuel Surleau
wrote:
> First off, it's pretty commonplace in OO languages. Secondly, given the
> number of methods available for the string objects, it is only natural to
> assume that dir("a") would show me a len() or length() or size() method.
> Having to use a function f
En Sun, 19 Apr 2009 15:41:02 -0300, Emmanuel Surleau
escribió:
On Sunday 19 April 2009 19:37:59 Gabriel Genellina wrote:
En Sun, 19 Apr 2009 13:43:10 -0300, Emmanuel Surleau
> On an unrelated note, it would be *really* nice to have a length
> property on
> strings. Even Java has that!
Wh
Emmanuel Surleau wrote:
> First off, it's pretty commonplace in OO languages. Secondly, given the
> number of methods available for the string objects, it is only natural to
> assume that dir("a") would show me a len() or length() or size() method.
> Having to use a function for such a mundane o
On Sunday 19 April 2009 19:37:59 Gabriel Genellina wrote:
> En Sun, 19 Apr 2009 13:43:10 -0300, Emmanuel Surleau
>
> escribió:
> > Exploring the Python standard library, I was surprised to see that
> > several
> > packages (ConfigParser, logging...) use mixed case for methods all over
> > the
> >
En Sun, 19 Apr 2009 14:52:23 -0300, Paul Hankin
escribió:
On Apr 19, 7:37 pm, "Gabriel Genellina"
wrote:
The threading module has such aliases, but there are no plans for mass
renaming all the stdlib that I know of. You'll have to live with this
inconsistency.
It's been fixed in Pytho
On Apr 19, 7:37 pm, "Gabriel Genellina"
wrote:
> The threading module has such aliases, but there are no plans for mass
> renaming all the stdlib that I know of. You'll have to live with this
> inconsistency.
It's been fixed in Python 3.0!
--
Paul Hankin
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/lis
En Sun, 19 Apr 2009 13:43:10 -0300, Emmanuel Surleau
escribió:
Exploring the Python standard library, I was surprised to see that
several
packages (ConfigParser, logging...) use mixed case for methods all over
the
place. I assume that they were written back when the Python styling
guideli
I agree that there are still some styling inconsistencies in python
stdlib, but I'm not advocating a cleaning because I've always found
camelCase much prettier than those multi_underscore_methods :p
Concerning the length property of strings, isn't the __len__() method
sufficient ?
I know they'
Hi there,
Exploring the Python standard library, I was surprised to see that several
packages (ConfigParser, logging...) use mixed case for methods all over the
place. I assume that they were written back when the Python styling
guidelines were not well-defined.
Given that it's rather irritati
41 matches
Mail list logo
