On approximately 11/3/2008 11:55 AM, came the following characters from
the keyboard of Tim Chase:
For making a literal tuple, parentheses are irrelevant; only the
commas matter:
I don't think I'd go so far as to say that the parentheses around
tuples are *irrelevant*...maybe just relevant in se
For making a literal tuple, parentheses are irrelevant; only the
commas matter:
I don't think I'd go so far as to say that the parentheses around tuples
are *irrelevant*...maybe just relevant in select contexts
>>> def foo(*args):
... for i, arg in enumerate(args):
... print
Arnaud Delobelle:
>And introduces some new inconsistencies for newcomers, e.g.
> s = {1, 2, 3} # A set with 3 elements
> s = {1} # A set with one element
> s = {} # Surely, this should be an empty set!!
Are you able to list other inconsistencies?
Python3 introduces one or two warts, but removes
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> Steve Holden:
>> While this kind of beginner
>> mistake is common it isn't one that's frequently repeated once the
>> learner understands the syntax.
>
> You may be right, but I don't have to like it.
> When you teach programming to people that have never done it before
Tim Chase wrote:
For making a literal tuple, parentheses are irrelevant; only the
commas matter:
I don't think I'd go so far as to say that the parentheses around tuples
are *irrelevant*...maybe just relevant in select contexts
>>> def foo(*args):
... for i, arg in enumerate(args):
..
Steve Holden:
> While this kind of beginner
> mistake is common it isn't one that's frequently repeated once the
> learner understands the syntax.
You may be right, but I don't have to like it.
When you teach programming to people that have never done it before,
and you use Python, they spot simil
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[...]
> Where OR, AND, XOR, NOT, SHL, SHR are the bitwise operators.
> Having to type (| |) often is less handy, for example this code:
Which is precisely why bare parentheses are used. And remember, you
often don't need to put the parentheses in. While this kind of beginn
TP:
> This is actually the length of a bracketed string, not a tuple.
> Tuple's are defined by the existence of a comma...try:
> >>> len(('foo',))
> 1
Time ago I have suggested to change the tuple literal, to avoid the
warts of the singleton and empty tuple, that may lead to bugs. But
using ASCII
For making a literal tuple, parentheses are irrelevant; only the
commas matter:
I don't think I'd go so far as to say that the parentheses around
tuples are *irrelevant*...maybe just relevant in select contexts
>>> def foo(*args):
... for i, arg in enumerate(args):
... prin
TP <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Hi everybody,
>
> I have a question about the difference of behavior of "len" when
> applied on tuples or on lists. I mean:
>
> $ len( ( 'foo', 'bar' ) )
> 2
> $ len( ( 'foo' ) )
> 3
> $ len( [ 'foo', 'bar' ] )
> 2
> $ len( [ 'foo' ] )
> 1
For making a literal t
On Nov 3, 9:08 pm, TP <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I have a question about the difference of behavior of "len" when applied on
> tuples or on lists. I mean:
> $ len( ( 'foo' ) )
> 3
This is actually the length of a bracketed string, not a tuple.
Tuple's are defined by the existence of a comma...tr
Hi everybody,
I have a question about the difference of behavior of "len" when applied on
tuples or on lists. I mean:
$ len( ( 'foo', 'bar' ) )
2
$ len( ( 'foo' ) )
3
$ len( [ 'foo', 'bar' ] )
2
$ len( [ 'foo' ] )
1
Why this behavior for the length computation of a tuple?
For my application, I p
12 matches
Mail list logo
