Re: Crazy what-if idea for function/method calling syntax

2011-07-17 Thread Cameron Simpson
On 17Jul2011 15:54, ΤΖΩΤΖΙΟΥ wrote: | What if a construct | |xx(*args1, **kwargs1)yy(*args2, **kwargs2) | | was interpreted as | | xxyy(*(args1+args2), **(kwargs1+kwargs2)) | | (Note: with **(kwargs1+kwargs2) I mean “put keyword arguments in the | order given”, since dicts can't be added

Using argparse to call method in various Classes?

2011-07-17 Thread Victor Hooi
Hi, I'm attempting to use argparse to write a simple script to perform operations on various types of servers: manage_servers.py Operations are things like check, build, deploy, configure, verify etc. Types of server are just different types of inhouse servers we use. We have a generic ser

Re: Crazy what-if idea for function/method calling syntax

2011-07-17 Thread Ian Kelly
2011/7/17 ΤΖΩΤΖΙΟΥ : > Jumping in: > > What if a construct > > xx(*args1, **kwargs1)yy(*args2, **kwargs2) > > was interpreted as > > xxyy(*(args1+args2), **(kwargs1+kwargs2)) > > (Note: with **(kwargs1+kwargs2) I mean "put keyword arguments in the > order given", since dicts can't be added) > >

Re: Looking for general advice on complex program

2011-07-17 Thread Josh English
Chris, I got my solution working, at least on my local machine. I'm trying to bundle it for testing on location. I've thought about the server-client model and one day I may have the guts to tackle that, but I don't think it's this project. Sadly, I'm the type of guy who almost has to re-inve

Re: Ordered list question

2011-07-17 Thread jyoung79
Thank you Chris, Dan and Thomas for your replies. I really appreciate your insight, and I will look into the information you have given me. Dan, I've never heard of a "treap" or "red-black tree", so I'll be interested to research these. Thomas, Thanks very much for giving me further knowledg

Re: Crazy what-if idea for function/method calling syntax

2011-07-17 Thread Steven D'Aprano
On Mon, 18 Jul 2011 08:54 am ΤΖΩΤΖΙΟΥ wrote: > Jumping in: > > What if a construct > >xx(*args1, **kwargs1)yy(*args2, **kwargs2) > > was interpreted as > > xxyy(*(args1+args2), **(kwargs1+kwargs2)) > > (Note: with **(kwargs1+kwargs2) I mean “put keyword arguments in the > order given”,

Re: Tabs -vs- Spaces: Tabs should have won.

2011-07-17 Thread Teemu Likonen
* 2011-07-18T10:54:40+10:00 * Steven D'Aprano wrote: > Back in 2007, a n00b calling himself "TheFlyingDutchman" who I am > *reasonably* sure was Rick decided to fork Python: > > http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-list/2007-September/1127123.html I don't know if they are the same person but q

Re: Tabs -vs- Spaces: Tabs should have won.

2011-07-17 Thread Gregory Ewing
Steven D'Aprano wrote: Why 78? Because it's one less than 79, as mandated by PEP 8, and two less than 80, the hoary old standard. There's another possible reason for the number 78, although hopefully it doesn't still apply today. There's an application I work with that stores free text in dat

<    1   2