Re: Subprocess with a Python Session?

"Paul Boddie" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Fredrik Lundh wrote: > > Paul Boddie wrote: > > > > > This is one of the more reliable methods since upon receiving a packet > > > "delimiter" the receiver knows that the data is complete. > > > > and for people who want RELIABLE and not just "at least

Re: merits of Lisp vs Python

Steven D'Aprano wrote: > On Fri, 08 Dec 2006 08:50:41 -0800, George Sakkis wrote: > > >>André Thieme wrote: >> >> >>>On the other hand can I see difficulties in adding macros to Python, >>>or inventing a new object system, or adding new keywords without >>>changing the sources of Python itself.

Re: merits of Lisp vs Python

I was the one mentioning triple-quotes because it was one of the few Python features i could think of that was better than Lisps. > For me python is 'strong OOP' scripting language in first place. > Inheritance, generalization and every kind of abstractions togeteher > with clean and simple syntax

Re: merits of Lisp vs Python

This is from the perspective of an aerospace engineer who passed through python several years ago on the way to lisp. Futhermore, this is a 2 glass of wine response. Nota Bene: All references to lisp in this response imply common lisp. Mark Tarver wrote: > How do you compare Python to Lisp? What

Re: merits of Lisp vs Python

Steven D'Aprano wrote: > On Fri, 08 Dec 2006 14:52:33 -0500, Ken Tilton wrote: > > >> >>Aahz wrote: >> >>>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, >>>Mark Tarver <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>> >>> I'm looking at Python and I see that the syntax would appeal to a newbie. Its clearer than ML whic

Re: merits of Lisp vs Python

On Fri, 08 Dec 2006 16:14:44 -0800, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >> There is (IMO) some truth to that, but the flavor of Python >> programming is not that much like Lisp any more. Especially with >> recent Python releases (postdating that Norvig article) using iterator >> and generator objects (basic

Re: merits of Lisp vs Python

tmh wrote: > Time for some more wine. ...and then just cut and paste the snipped bit into: http://wiki.alu.org/The_Road_to_Lisp_Survey ...if you are not there already. The survey questions are optional and what you wrote is perfect as is. Tough call on what goes in: http://wiki.alu

Re: merits of Lisp vs Python

Ken Tilton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Not sure I understand why, unless you mean folks were raving about > Lisp in the 60s. Today's raving is about a much different language, > though the core elegance remains, and is as much about the contrast > with other languages as it is about the pleasure

Re: merits of Lisp vs Python

"Wolfram Fenske" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > with a couple of macros. I. e. if Common Lisp didn't have CLOS, its > object system, I could write my own as a library and it would be just > as powerful and just as easy to use as the system Common Lisp already > provides. Stuff like this is impossi

Re: merits of Lisp vs Python

Steven D'Aprano wrote: > On Fri, 08 Dec 2006 08:50:41 -0800, George Sakkis wrote: > Why is that a difficulty? Like Guido, I think that's an ADVANTAGE. > > > "Programmable syntax is not in Python's future -- or at least it's not > > for Python 3000. The problem IMO is that everybody will abuse it to

Re: merits of Lisp vs Python

"tmh" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > I've been writing code for engineering solutions for 15 years in > various languages. I've gained more insight into coding in the last 6 > months then in the previous 15 years. Since lisp allows you to employ > any and every programming technique, it actually req

Re: merits of Lisp vs Python

On Sat, 09 Dec 2006 02:29:56 -0500, Ken Tilton wrote: > > > David Lees wrote: > Those raving about > Lisp are quite accomplished at all those other languages, and know about > what they are talking. Such a sweeping generalization. Every person who raves about Lisp is also accomplished wit

Re: merits of Lisp vs Python

Paul Rubin writes: >http://www.math.chalmers.se/~rjmh/Papers/whyfp.html > > The examples in it are pretty easy to do in Python or Scheme, but I > think not so easy in CL. Hmm, well I guess they can be done in CL too, about the same way as in Scheme, but I'd say you

Re: merits of Lisp vs Python

(message (Hello 'Kay) (you :wrote :on '(8 Dec 2006 12:25:09 -0800)) ( KS> O.K. I agree with what you said about the generic function vs per KS> object dictionary dispatch. KS> But do the performance differences vanish when only builtin types and KS> functions are used to express Python algori

Re: Snake references just as ok as Monty Python jokes/references inpython community? :)

<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Problem is I don't know that anyone born after Elvis died gets any of > these Monty Python jokes. But hey - Elvis is not dead! - that is just a conspiracy theory that was originated by the Cliff Richard's fan club... - Hendrik -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/l

Re: merits of Lisp vs Python

On Fri, 08 Dec 2006 23:38:02 -0800, Wolfram Fenske wrote: > if Common Lisp didn't have CLOS, its object system, I could write my own > as a library and it would be just as powerful and just as easy to use as > the system Common Lisp already provides. Stuff like this is impossible > in other langu

Re: merits of Lisp vs Python

Steven D'Aprano wrote: > It is a good thing that not every > hare-brained idea that some random programmer comes up with can be > implemented as part of the core language. Well, that's the FUD/strawman, but nothing more. Just a hobgoblin to keep the Pythonistas from straying. But you have an e

Re: merits of Lisp vs Python

Paul Rubin wrote: > > Do you know the Paul Graham piece "Beating the Averages"? It's at: > >http://www.paulgraham.com/avg.html > > The error in it is that Lisp is really just another Blub. > > http://weblog.raganwald.com/2006/10/are-we-blub-programmers.html > There we find: "But whe

Re: merits of Lisp vs Python

(message (Hello 'Paul) (you :wrote :on '(08 Dec 2006 17:15:32 -0800)) ( PR> Huh? Are you saying Lisp systems never release new versions? And you PR> can't implement Python generators as Lisp macros in any reasonable PR> way. You could do them in Scheme using call-with-current-continuation

Re: merits of Lisp vs Python

On 08 Dec 2006 19:56:42 -0800, Paul Rubin <"http://phr.cx"@nospam.invalid> wrote: (...) > Lisp just seems hopelessly old-fashioned to me these days. A > modernized version would be cool, but I think the more serious > Lisp-like language designers have moved on to newer ideas. Paul, I find most

Re: merits of Lisp vs Python

Alex Mizrahi wrote: ... > so we can see PyDict access. moreover, it's inlined, since it's very > performance-critical function. > but even inlined PyDict access is not fast at all. ma_lookup is a long and > hairy function containing the loop. I once had a crazy idea about the lookup speed prob

Re: merits of Lisp vs Python

On Fri, 08 Dec 2006 22:02:59 +0200, Alex Mizrahi wrote: > you have an expression 3 + 4 which yields 7. > you have an expression 4 * 1 which yields 4. > if you paste 3 + 4 in place of 1, you'll have 4 * 3 + 4 = 16. as we know, * > is commutative, but 3 + 4 * 4 = 19. > so result depends on implicit

Re: merits of Lisp vs Python

Steven D'Aprano wrote: > Anything any language can do is possible in any other language Not true. Concurrency, for example. > Lisp developers so often gloss over that: "Oh, > feature X is *easy*, I could write it in a couple of macros. Two or three. > Maybe thirty. Or forty, max. And they would

Re: merits of Lisp vs Python

(message (Hello 'Steven) (you :wrote :on '(Sat, 09 Dec 2006 20:02:06 +1100)) ( SD> It is a good thing that when Fred decides to stop contributing to an SD> open source project (or leave the company), other people can read his SD> code without having to learn his Uber-Special Custom Macro Exten

Re: merits of Lisp vs Python

(message (Hello 'Ken) (you :wrote :on '(Sat, 09 Dec 2006 04:26:02 -0500)) ( KT> keep the Pythonistas from straying. But you have an excuse: Lispniks KT> always /talk/ about macros giving us the ability to create a DSL. But KT> no one does. :) certainly there's no reason to make a new DSL each

Re: merits of Lisp vs Python

Ken Tilton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > What is up the power continuum from Lisp? These days I've been fooling with Haskell. Mozart/Oz is also interesting. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list

Re: merits of Lisp vs Python

Mark Tarver wrote: > How do you compare Python to Lisp? What specific advantages do you > think that one has over the other? > > Note I'm not a Python person and I have no axes to grind here. This is > just a question for my general education. >From my point of view as neither a Lisp nor Python

Re: merits of Lisp vs Python

Ken Tilton wrote: > What is up the power continuum from Lisp? 3-Lisp. ;) Pascal -- My website: http://p-cos.net Common Lisp Document Repository: http://cdr.eurolisp.org Closer to MOP & ContextL: http://common-lisp.net/project/closer/ -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list

Re: merits of Lisp vs Python

Paul Rubin wrote: > "Alex Mizrahi" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> we can implement Scheme's call-with-current-continuation first :) >> it's relatively easy -- just a code walker that coverts everyting into CPS. > > It's not enough to convert to CPS, you have to be able to actually > save the conti

Re: merits of Lisp vs Python

(message (Hello 'Andrea) (you :wrote :on '(Sat, 09 Dec 2006 11:08:34 +0100)) ( ??>> so we can see PyDict access. moreover, it's inlined, since it's very ??>> performance-critical function. ??>> but even inlined PyDict access is not fast at all. ma_lookup is a long ??>> and hairy function containi

Re: merits of Lisp vs Python

"Ramon Diaz-Uriarte" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > a) "old-fashioned"? Is that supposed to be an argument? I guess > addition and multiplication are old-fashioned, and so is calculus;so? > I think "old-fashioned" should only carry a negative connotation in > the fashion world, not in programming.

Shed Skin 0.0.15

Hi all, After getting bogged down with work for a few months, I'm finally back to Shed Skin development. I have just released 0.0.15, with the following changes: -python2.5 support/compatibility -any, all, conditional expression support -moved libs to 'lib' dir; made it easier to add modules (see

Re: merits of Lisp vs Python

"Alex Mizrahi" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > we can implement Scheme's call-with-current-continuation first :) > it's relatively easy -- just a code walker that coverts everyting into CPS. It's not enough to convert to CPS, you have to be able to actually save the continuation when you switch to a

Re: merits of Lisp vs Python

samantha wrote: > What are you? A pointy haired boss? What are you? A 12 year old that has just learned to use Google Groups? 8) Regards, Björn Xpost cll,clp Fup2 poster -- BOFH excuse #211: Lightning strikes. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list

Re: Logging output from python

Cameron Walsh schrieb: > > If it's on linux you can just redirect the screen output to a file: > > python initialfile.py 1>stdout.txt 2>stderr.txt > As for windows, I'll test it now... > > It turns out you can at least redirect the output to a file, I'm not > sure what it does with standard er

Re: merits of Lisp vs Python

Ken Tilton wrote: > Note also that after any amount of dicing I simply hit a magic key > combo and the editor reindents everything. In a sense, Lisp is the > language that handles indentation best. Erm ... because there's an editor for it that indents automatically? Or did I miss the point? Rega

Re: Automatic debugging of copy by reference errors?

Gabriel Genellina wrote: > I think you got in trouble with something and you're trying to avoid it > again - but perhaps this is not the right way. Could you provide some > example? I have been using scipy for some time now, but in the beginning I made a few mistakes with copying by reference. The

Re: merits of Lisp vs Python

On Sat, 09 Dec 2006 00:56:35 -0800, Paul Rubin wrote: > The syntax is a pretty superficial thing. The reaction from outsiders > to Lisp's parentheses and Python's indentation-based structure is > about the same. You get used to it either way. I don't agree. Syntax is significant for human reade

Re: merits of Lisp vs Python

Paul Rubin writes: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Rob Warnock) writes: > > Weird. This is exactly why I use *Lisp* -- because it stays > > completely readable even if you don't use it on a daily basis!!! > > Hmm. I haven't used Lisp in a while and no longer find it so > readable

Re: merits of Lisp vs Python

Andrea Griffini>Is this worth investigation or it has already been suggested/tried ?< Recently some people around the net have discussed about similar ideas as a possible way to speed up Ruby interpreters a lot. Bye, bearophile -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list

Re: merits of Lisp vs Python

Steven D'Aprano <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: +--- | Wolfram Fenske wrote: | > if Common Lisp didn't have CLOS, its object system, I could write my own | > as a library and it would be just as powerful and just as easy to use as | > the system Common Lisp already provides. Stuff like thi

Re: Automatic debugging of copy by reference errors?

In <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Niels L Ellegaard wrote: > I have been using scipy for some time now, but in the beginning I made > a few mistakes with copying by reference. But "copying by reference" is the way Python works. Python never copies objects unless you explicitly ask for it. So what you wan

Re: Using Py_InitModule3 -> [Linker Error] Unresolved external '_Py_InitModule4TraceRefs'

Fredrik Lundh schrieb: > > you've mixed components compiled with Py_TRACE_REFS with components that > aren't compiled with Py_TRACE_REFS. don't do that. > H'm does this mean I have to write something like #define Py_TRACE_REFS befor I include > (what is it with you C programmers these days, btw

Re: merits of Lisp vs Python

Steven D'Aprano <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > I don't agree. Syntax is significant for human readers, who are the vast > majority of programmers. > > Yes, people will get used to most syntax, eventually. But "used to" > doesn't necessarily mean "can read it efficiently". I did a lot of FORTH > cod

Re: merits of Lisp vs Python

On Sat, 09 Dec 2006 12:43:34 +0100, Bjoern Schliessmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> tried to confuse everyone with this message: >samantha wrote: > >> What are you? A pointy haired boss? > >What are you? A 12 year old that has just learned to use Google >Groups? 8) Says a person with a 13-line sig. --

Re: Automatic debugging of copy by reference errors?

Marc 'BlackJack' Rintsch wrote: > In <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Niels L > Ellegaard wrote: > > I have been using scipy for some time now, but in the beginning I made > > a few mistakes with copying by reference. > But "copying by reference" is the way Python works. Python never copies > objects unless y

Re: merits of Lisp vs Python

On Sat, 09 Dec 2006 20:36:02 +1100, Steven D'Aprano <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> tried to confuse everyone with this message: >On Fri, 08 Dec 2006 23:38:02 -0800, Wolfram Fenske wrote: > >> if Common Lisp didn't have CLOS, its object system, I could write my own >> as a library and it would be just as powe

Re: Automatic debugging of copy by reference errors?

Niels L Ellegaard wrote: > I wanted a each object to know whether or not it was being referred to > by a living object, and I wanted to warn the user whenever he tried to > change an object that was being refered to by a living object. As far > as I can see the garbage collector module would al

Re: merits of Lisp vs Python

Steven D'Aprano <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: [Extensibility of syntax (via Lisp like macros)] > In the real world, programmers aren't lone wolves stalking the > programming landscape doing their own thing. Whether we're talking > open source projects maintained by volunteers, or commercial > softwa

Re: merits of Lisp vs Python

Paul Rubin writes: > Python is more readable than Lisp because it stays readable even if > you don't use it on a daily basis. Girls, this is really bullshit! None programming language is readable. I teach programming to complete beginners and I tried some languages --

Re: merits of Lisp vs Python

Stefan Nobis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > So why do you think, Common Lisp or Macros are a bad thing? What's the > difference (from the perspective of understanding) between a function > foo and a macro bar? Both just transform their inputs. It's just > another form of abstraction and from time to

Re: merits of Lisp vs Python

Stefan Nobis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Intuitive interfaces (GUI, languages,...) are an urban legend, pure > illusion. You have to do hard work and practice to understand them. Well if you write enough code in general, the principles stick with you. What I found with Perl was that after not u

Re: merits of Lisp vs Python

(message (Hello 'Paul) (you :wrote :on '(09 Dec 2006 02:55:49 -0800)) ( PR> "Alex Mizrahi" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: ??>> we can implement Scheme's call-with-current-continuation first :) ??>> it's relatively easy -- just a code walker that coverts everyting into ??>> CPS. PR> It's not en

Re: merits of Lisp vs Python

On Sat, 09 Dec 2006 20:36:02 +1100, Steven D'Aprano wrote: > On Fri, 08 Dec 2006 23:38:02 -0800, Wolfram Fenske wrote: > >> if Common Lisp didn't have CLOS, its object system, I could write my own >> as a library and it would be just as powerful and just as easy to use as >> the system Common Lis

Re: merits of Lisp vs Python

Python doesn't annoyingly rip you out of the real world to code in it. Anyone looking at a python script can get a sense of where it's going. --Blair -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list

py2exe Problem with cairo

Hi, I have problem with my py2exe. When I want to run my compiled exe, then i get error information like that: Trackback (most recent call last): File "mysql_gui.py", line 2 in ? File "gtk\__int__.pyc", line 12, in ? File "gtk\_gtk.pyc", line 12, in ? File "gtk\_gtk.pyc", line 10,

py2exe Problem with cairo

Hi, I have problem with my py2exe. When I want to run my compiled exe, then i get error information like that: Trackback (most recent call last): File "mysql_gui.py", line 2 in ? File "gtk\__int__.pyc", line 12, in ? File "gtk\_gtk.pyc", line 12, in ? File "gtk\_gtk.pyc", line 10,

Re: merits of Lisp vs Python

Steven D'Aprano wrote: > On Fri, 08 Dec 2006 23:38:02 -0800, Wolfram Fenske wrote: > > >>if Common Lisp didn't have CLOS, its object system, I could write my own >>as a library and it would be just as powerful and just as easy to use as >>the system Common Lisp already provides. Stuff like thi

Re: py2exe Problem with cairo

Michax wrote: > Hi, > > I have problem with my py2exe. When I want to run my compiled exe, then > i get error information like that: > > Trackback (most recent call last): > File "mysql_gui.py", line 2 in ? > File "gtk\__int__.pyc", line 12, in ? > File "gtk\_gtk.pyc", line 12, in ? >

Re: merits of Lisp vs Python

Steven D'Aprano wrote: > On Fri, 08 Dec 2006 22:02:59 +0200, Alex Mizrahi wrote: > > >>you have an expression 3 + 4 which yields 7. >>you have an expression 4 * 1 which yields 4. >>if you paste 3 + 4 in place of 1, you'll have 4 * 3 + 4 = 16. as we know, * >>is commutative, but 3 + 4 * 4 = 19.

Re: py2exe Problem with cairo

> seen this: > > http://www.py2exe.org/index.cgi/Py2exeAndPyGTK Thanks ,I will check this one . Sorry for double post. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list

Re: Driver selection

On Fri, 08 Dec 2006 21:35:41 -0800, Gabriel Genellina wrote: > On 9 dic, 00:53, "Stuart D. Gathman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Or you can modify the source to "from drivermodule import DNSLookup". >> >> What is the friendliest way to make this configurable? Currently, users >> are modifying t

Re: merits of Lisp vs Python

Steven D'Aprano wrote: > On Fri, 08 Dec 2006 23:38:02 -0800, Wolfram Fenske wrote: > > >>if Common Lisp didn't have CLOS, its object system, I could write my own >>as a library and it would be just as powerful and just as easy to use as >>the system Common Lisp already provides. Stuff like thi

Re: len() and PEP 3000

Giovanni Bajo wrote: > Thomas Guettler wrote: > >> I have read the FAQ to the len function: >> http://www.python.org/doc/faq/general/#why-does-python-use-methods-for-some-functionality-e-g-list-index-but-functions-for-other-e-g-len-list > > Outdated. You want to read the new FAQ, here: > http://e

Re: merits of Lisp vs Python

Paul Rubin wrote: > Forth was always unreadable to me but I never did much. I thought its > aficionados were silly. Yes if you have a complicated math expression > in Lisp, you have to sit there for a moment rearranging it in infix in > your mind to figure out what it says. The point is that s

Re: Automatic debugging of copy by reference errors?

On Sat, 09 Dec 2006 05:58:22 -0800, Niels L Ellegaard wrote: > I wanted a each object to know whether or not it was being referred to > by a living object, and I wanted to warn the user whenever he tried to > change an object that was being refered to by a living object. As far > as I can see th

Re: merits of Lisp vs Python

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Okay, since everyone ignored the FAQ, I guess I can too... > > Mark Tarver wrote: >> How do you compare Python to Lisp? What specific advantages do you >> think that one has over the other? > > (Common) Lisp is the only industrial strength language with both pure > co

Re: merits of Lisp vs Python

Steven D'Aprano wrote: > On Sat, 09 Dec 2006 02:29:56 -0500, Ken Tilton wrote: > > >> >>David Lees wrote: > > >>Those raving about >>Lisp are quite accomplished at all those other languages, and know about >> what they are talking. > > > Such a sweeping generalization. Every person who

Re: merits of Lisp vs Python

Alex Mizrahi wrote: > (message (Hello 'Ken) > (you :wrote :on '(Sat, 09 Dec 2006 04:26:02 -0500)) > ( > > KT> keep the Pythonistas from straying. But you have an excuse: Lispniks > KT> always /talk/ about macros giving us the ability to create a DSL. But > KT> no one does. :) > > certainly

Re: merits of Lisp vs Python

Bjoern Schliessmann wrote: > Ken Tilton wrote: > > >>Note also that after any amount of dicing I simply hit a magic key >>combo and the editor reindents everything. In a sense, Lisp is the >>language that handles indentation best. > > > Erm ... because there's an editor for it that indents au

Re: merits of Lisp vs Python

On Sat, 09 Dec 2006 14:00:10 +, Timofei Shatrov wrote: > On Sat, 09 Dec 2006 20:36:02 +1100, Steven D'Aprano > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> tried to confuse everyone with this > message: > >>On Fri, 08 Dec 2006 23:38:02 -0800, Wolfram Fenske wrote: >> >>> if Common Lisp didn't have CLOS, its object sy

Re: merits of Lisp vs Python

tmh wrote: > This is from the perspective of an aerospace engineer who passed > through python several years ago on the way to lisp. Futhermore, this > is a 2 glass of wine response. > Thanks for the comments. I think it is great that you took a "harder and less travelled way". It may be that

Error: unbound method in Tkinter class

I am trying to structure a Tkinter application with classes instead of just with simple functions, but I'm not sure how to call methods from my main class. My main class is packetstreamApp(). Within that class I call various methods, including drawGUI() and authorizeDump(). My problem comes when I

Python Programmers...

Salam If you are a Python programmer, you are fond of python, or you want to learn and start using Python, please join the new group: Iranian Python Programmers http://groups.yahoo.com/group/iranianpythonprogrammers thanks -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list

finalization signal for an object with ZODB involved?

I have (large) disk files connected with ZODB objects and want the disk files to be removed when the Python/ZODB object all finalizes. Is it possible to get a kind of reliable __del__ signal for that? Robert -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list

Re: Error: unbound method in Tkinter class

Kevin Walzer wrote: > I am trying to structure a Tkinter application with classes instead of > just with simple functions, but I'm not sure how to call methods from my > main class. > > My main class is packetstreamApp(). Within that class I call various > methods, including drawGUI() and authori

Re: merits of Lisp vs Python

Steven D'Aprano wrote: > > But Lisp's syntax is so unlike most written natural languages that that it > is a whole different story. Yes, the human brain is amazingly flexible, > and people can learn extremely complex syntax and grammars (especially if > they start young enough) so I'm not surpr

Re: merits of Lisp vs Python

Carl Banks wrote: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > Okay, since everyone ignored the FAQ, I guess I can too... > [snip] > > What Python has is stupid slogans > > ("It fits your brain." "Only one way to do things.") and an infinite > > community of flies that, for some inexplicable reason, believe thes

Re: merits of Lisp vs Python

Steven D'Aprano wrote: > Some languages are too expressive. :) > Look, all snarkiness aside, it just isn't true that "stuff like this is > impossible in other languages". If Wolfram Fenske had said "stuff like > this isn't easy in many other languages" he would have been right. Remember, Lisp

Re: merits of Lisp vs Python

Thankfully folks (including me) seem to be starting to cool off, so perhaps we can disucss this in somewhat calmer register. I think that Kenny unintentionally sold macros short by implying that they are merely window-dressing for boilerplate, and you seem to have a misunderstanding of macros, whic

Re: dict.has_key(x) versus 'x in dict'

> "Hendrik" == Hendrik van Rooyen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Hendrik> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Hendrik> - as long as it works, and is fast enough, its not broken, so Hendrik> don't fix it... >> That's the rub. It wasn't fast enough. I only realized that had >> been a

Re: Interacting with keyboard LEDs

Jonathan Curran wrote: > Spur of the moment answer: call setleds program from within your program > > better answer (fox X11): > http://python-xlib.sourceforge.net/doc/html/python-xlib_16.html > > Take a look at get_keyboard_control() and change_keyboard_control(). As far as > knowing how to proper

Re: merits of Lisp vs Python

Mark Tarver wrote: > How do you compare Python to Lisp? What specific advantages do you > think that one has over the other? > > Note I'm not a Python person and I have no axes to grind here. This is > just a question for my general education. > > Mark Advantages of Python: 1). More and better

Re: merits of Lisp vs Python

On Sun, 10 Dec 2006 04:24:43 +1100, Steven D'Aprano <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> tried to confuse everyone with this message: >On Sat, 09 Dec 2006 14:00:10 +, Timofei Shatrov wrote: > >> On Sat, 09 Dec 2006 20:36:02 +1100, Steven D'Aprano >> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> tried to confuse everyone with this >> me

Re: merits of Lisp vs Python

Steven D'Aprano wrote: > With Lisp macros, even that isn't guaranteed. Now, if Lispers would say > "Oh yes, macros give you great power, and with great power comes great > responsibility. Be careful." then, no doubt, we'd take you guys more > seriously. Who are "we"? I was a heavy Python and Java

Re: len() and PEP 3000

Colin J. Williams: > Why not replace the __len__ method with a len property for strings, > lists, tuples, dictionaries etc. __len__ is not very special and the > property len eliminates the redundant parentheses. You mean something like: >>> "ab".len, [1, 2, 3].len (2, 3) In the given page Guido

Re: merits of Lisp vs Python

Steven D'Aprano <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > I've read all the arguments against significant indents/whitespace, or > in favour of braces, and while there are a few minor good points they > make, a few edge cases where Python's significant indentation is > sub-optimal, overall I believe that the

Re: merits of Lisp vs Python

Steven D'Aprano <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Fri, 08 Dec 2006 23:38:02 -0800, Wolfram Fenske wrote: > >> if Common Lisp didn't have CLOS, its object system, I could write my own >> as a library and it would be just as powerful and just as easy to use as >> the system Common Lisp already provid

Re: merits of Lisp vs Python

"mystilleef" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Mark Tarver wrote: >> How do you compare Python to Lisp? What specific advantages do you >> think that one has over the other? >> >> Note I'm not a Python person and I have no axes to grind here. This is >> just a question for my general education. >> >

Re: merits of Lisp vs Python

Steven D'Aprano <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Dude. Turing Complete. Don't you Lisp developers know anything about > computer science? "Can you imagine if carpenters were like computer scientists? Some of them would argue that it's not necessary to own a hammer because the butt of a screwdri

Re: len() and PEP 3000

> __len__ is not very special and the > property len eliminates the redundant parentheses. One might say the current syntax eliminates the redundant dot. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list

Re: merits of Lisp vs Python

(message (Hello 'Paul) (you :wrote :on '(09 Dec 2006 01:01:14 -0800)) ( PR> If Common Lisp didn't have lexically scoped variables (most Lisp PR> dialects before Scheme didn't have them) then it would be very PR> difficult to add that with macros. i think there's some way to hack that. for exa

Re: merits of Lisp vs Python

Paul Rubin writes: > There is just not that much boilerplate in Python code, so there's > not so much need to hide it. Well, of course there is. There are always going to be patterns in the code you write that could be collapsed. Language has nothing to do with it; Li

Re: Interacting with keyboard LEDs

Chris, I googled for {xlib caps led} and the first link was to a forum post: http://forums.whirlpool.net.au/forum-replies-archive.cfm/619126.html The third post down, the guy made a program to set the LED of his scroll lock key. The C source is at http://members.optusnet.com.au/foonly/hddled.c

Re: merits of Lisp vs Python

Steven D'Aprano <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > With Lisp macros, even that isn't guaranteed. Now, if Lispers would say > "Oh yes, macros give you great power, and with great power comes great > responsibility. Be careful." then, no doubt, we'd take you guys more > seriously. But we don't hear that

Re: len() and PEP 3000

tac-tics wrote: >> __len__ is not very special and the >> property len eliminates the redundant parentheses. > > One might say the current syntax eliminates the redundant dot. > touché On the other hand, one can argue that, since len is intimately associated with an object, it's better treated

Re: len() and PEP 3000

Colin J. Williams wrote: > On the other hand, one can argue that, since len is intimately > associated with an object, it's better treated as an attribute/property > than to have an unconnected function out in namespace. "unconnected" ??? -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-li

Re: merits of Lisp vs Python

Bill Atkins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > "every corner of the language"? Please. Why are you so post-happy > when it's quite obvious that you don't know enough about Lisp to > attack it? In addition to macros that define classes or methods, a common macro is the WITH-* macro, which sets up som

Re: merits of Lisp vs Python

In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "mystilleef" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 1). More and better mature standard libraries (Languages don't matter, > libraries do). > On Lisp Macros: > > I think they are overrated, and in general cause more harm than good. > It's the reason I find Lisp-like pr

Re: merits of Lisp vs Python

Kirk Sluder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, > "mystilleef" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> 1). More and better mature standard libraries (Languages don't matter, >> libraries do). > >> On Lisp Macros: >> >> I think they are overrated, and in general cause more

  1   2   3   >