On 29.06.12 17:44, Littlefield, Tyler wrote:
On 6/29/2012 2:14 AM, Serhiy Storchaka wrote:
The project page is at:
http://code.google.com/p/pymud
Any information is greatly appreciated.
Do you mean
No, I mean http://code.google.com/p/pymud
Then you probably should choose another name.
--
h
On Sat, 30 Jun 2012 02:28:52 +, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
> On Fri, 29 Jun 2012 19:41:11 +, Alister wrote:
>
>> also this section in main strikes me as a bit odd and convoluted
>>
>> w = world()
>> serv = server(client)
>> w.server = serv serv.world = w
>>
>> I think you are cr
On Fri, 29 Jun 2012 14:49:11 -0600, Littlefield, Tyler wrote:
> I am no expert but from what have picked up so far from x import is
> frowned upon in most cases also this section in main strikes me as a bit
> odd and convoluted w = world() serv = server(client) w.server = serv
> serv.world = w I t
On Sat, 30 Jun 2012 09:31:53 +, Alister wrote:
> On Fri, 29 Jun 2012 14:49:11 -0600, Littlefield, Tyler wrote:
>
>> I am no expert but from what have picked up so far from x import is
>> frowned upon in most cases also this section in main strikes me as a
>> bit odd and convoluted w = world()
On Fri, 29 Jun 2012 09:03:22 -0600, Littlefield, Tyler wrote:
> On 6/29/2012 1:31 AM, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
>> On Thu, 28 Jun 2012 20:58:15 -0700, alex23 wrote:
>>
>>> On Jun 29, 12:57 pm, "Littlefield, Tyler" wrote:
I was curious if someone wouldn't mind poking at some code. The
proje
Alister wrote:
> I think I may be on firmer grounds with the next few:
>
> isValidPassword can be simplified to
>
> def isValidPassword(password:
> count=len(password)
> return count>= mud.minpass and count<= mud.maxpass
>
> ( I used count to save finding the length of password
Tiffany - Read/Write Multipage-Tiff with PIL without PIL
Tiffany stands for any tiff. The tiny module solves a large set of
problems, has no dependencies and just works wherever Python works.
Tiffany was developed in the course of the *DiDo
On Wed, May 23, 2012 at 5:06 PM, Wanderer wrote:
> I have two versions of Python and Ipython; Python 2.6.6 with Ipython
> 0.11 and Python 2.7.3 with Ipython 0.12. When I run the Eclipse PyDev
> console for the Python 2.7.3 it says it is using Ipython 0.11 as the
> interpreter. Ipython 0.11 should
Christian,
I should have several larger Tiff files, but I would have to search a
bi. I used tilded tiffs ack in the early 90-s as a solution to mapping
large images onto raytraced surfaces on machines with only 20Mb of memory.
I will have to search though and I am now travelling. If I fail to c
Christian Tismer writes:
> Tiffany stands for any tiff. The tiny module solves a large set of
> problems, has no dependencies and just works wherever Python works.
> Tiffany was developed in the course of the *DiDoCa* project and will
> always appear on PyPi.
This sounds pretty neat. I didn't co
Hi all,
on behalf of the IPython development team, and just in time for the
imminent Debian freeze and SciPy 2012, I'm thrilled to announce, after
an intense 6 months of work, the official release of IPython 0.13.
This version contains several major new features, as well as a large
amount of bug
Peter Otten wrote:
> If you spell it
>
> def is_valid_password(password):
> return mud.minpass <= len(password) <= mud.maxpass
>
> it is even easier to see that you are performing an interval check.
This is probably a tautology around here, but *what* *a* *great*
*programming* *language*.
On 06/30/2012 08:39 PM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> Peter Otten wrote:
>
>> If you spell it
>>
>> def is_valid_password(password):
>> return mud.minpass <= len(password) <= mud.maxpass
>>
>> it is even easier to see that you are performing an interval check.
>
> This is probably a taut
On Sat, 30 Jun 2012 12:29:31 +0200, Peter Otten wrote:
> Alister wrote:
>
>> I think I may be on firmer grounds with the next few:
>>
>> isValidPassword can be simplified to
>>
>> def isValidPassword(password:
>> count=len(password)
>> return count>= mud.minpass and count<= mud.
On Sat, 30 Jun 2012 21:38:58 +0200, Thomas Jollans wrote:
> On 06/30/2012 08:39 PM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>> Peter Otten wrote:
>>
>>> If you spell it
>>>
>>> def is_valid_password(password):
>>> return mud.minpass <= len(password) <= mud.maxpass
>>>
>>> it is even easier to see th
On 06/30/2012 10:30 PM, Alister wrote:
> On Sat, 30 Jun 2012 21:38:58 +0200, Thomas Jollans wrote:
>
>> On 06/30/2012 08:39 PM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>>> Peter Otten wrote:
>>>
If you spell it
def is_valid_password(password):
return mud.minpass <= len(password) <
Thomas Jollans writes:
> def is_valid_password(password):
> return mud.minpass <= len(password) <= mud.maxpass
> Which of the two comparisons is done first anyway?
> "In the face of ambiguity, refuse the temptation to guess."
There is no ambiguity. See the language reference:
"Form
On 06/30/2012 11:07 PM, Alain Ketterlin wrote:
> Thomas Jollans writes:
>
>> def is_valid_password(password):
>> return mud.minpass <= len(password) <= mud.maxpass
>
>> Which of the two comparisons is done first anyway?
>> "In the face of ambiguity, refuse the temptation to guess."
>
Am 30.06.2012 18:25, schrieb Paul Rubin:
> Christian Tismer writes:
>> Tiffany stands for any tiff. The tiny module solves a large set of
>> problems, has no dependencies and just works wherever Python works.
>> Tiffany was developed in the course of the *DiDoCa* project and will
>> always appear
On 6/30/2012 5:35 PM, Thomas Jollans wrote:
On 06/30/2012 11:07 PM, Alain Ketterlin wrote:
Thomas Jollans writes:
def is_valid_password(password):
return mud.minpass <= len(password) <= mud.maxpass
Which of the two comparisons is done first anyway?
"In the face of ambiguity, refuse th
On Saturday, 30 June 2012 21:30:45 UTC+1, Alister wrote:
> On Sat, 30 Jun 2012 21:38:58 +0200, Thomas Jollans wrote:
>
> > On 06/30/2012 08:39 PM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> >> Peter Otten wrote:
> >>
> >>> If you spell it
> >>>
> >>> def is_valid_password(password):
> >>> return mud
On 06/30/2012 11:47 PM, Terry Reedy wrote:
> On 6/30/2012 5:35 PM, Thomas Jollans wrote:
>> On 06/30/2012 11:07 PM, Alain Ketterlin wrote:
>>> Thomas Jollans writes:
>>>
def is_valid_password(password):
return mud.minpass <= len(password) <= mud.maxpass
>>>
Which of the
Thomas Jollans writes:
> On 06/30/2012 11:47 PM, Terry Reedy wrote:
> def is_valid_password(password):
> return mud.minpass <= len(password) <= mud.maxpass
> Which of the two comparisons is done first anyway?
> "In the face of ambiguity, refuse the temptation to
On Sun, Jul 1, 2012 at 8:05 AM, Thomas Jollans wrote:
> Yes. My sole point, really, is that "normally", one would expect these
> two expressions to be equivalent:
>
> a < b < c
> (a < b) < c
>
> This is clearly not true.
Python has quite a few things like that, actually. The most noticeable
for C
On 07/01/2012 01:25 AM, Chris Angelico wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 1, 2012 at 8:05 AM, Thomas Jollans wrote:
>> Yes. My sole point, really, is that "normally", one would expect these
>> two expressions to be equivalent:
>>
>> a < b < c
>> (a < b) < c
>>
>> This is clearly not true.
>
> Python has quite
Thomas Jollans writes:
> My sole point, really, is that "normally", one would expect these two
> expressions to be equivalent:
>
> a < b < c
> (a < b) < c
What norm gives you that expectation? That's not how those operators
work in mathematical notation. I know of no programming language that
wo
On Sun, Jul 1, 2012 at 10:08 AM, Ben Finney wrote:
> Thomas Jollans writes:
>
>> My sole point, really, is that "normally", one would expect these two
>> expressions to be equivalent:
>>
>> a < b < c
>> (a < b) < c
>
> What norm gives you that expectation? That's not how those operators
> work in
On Sun, 01 Jul 2012 00:05:26 +0200, Thomas Jollans wrote:
> Yes. My sole point, really, is that "normally", one would expect these
> two expressions to be equivalent:
>
> a < b < c
> (a < b) < c
Good grief. Why would you expect that?
You can't just arbitrarily stick parentheses around parts of
On Sun, Jul 1, 2012 at 12:06 PM, Steven D'Aprano
wrote:
> You can't just arbitrarily stick parentheses around parts of expressions
> and expect the result to remain unchanged. Order of evaluation matters:
>
> 2**3**4 != (2**3)**4
But that's because ** binds right to left. It _is_ valid to say:
2
On Jul 1, 3:05 am, Thomas Jollans wrote:
> Yes. My sole point, really, is that "normally", one would expect these
> two expressions to be equivalent:
>
> a < b < c
> (a < b) < c
>
> This is clearly not true. That's the inconsistency here
I dont see the inconsistency with the specific example
On Sun, 01 Jul 2012 10:37:05 +1000, Chris Angelico wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 1, 2012 at 10:08 AM, Ben Finney
> wrote:
>> Thomas Jollans writes:
>>
>>> My sole point, really, is that "normally", one would expect these two
>>> expressions to be equivalent:
>>>
>>> a < b < c
>>> (a < b) < c
>>
>> What n
On Sun, Jul 1, 2012 at 1:23 PM, Steven D'Aprano
wrote:
> All the worse for those languages, since they violate the semantics of
> mathematical notation.
Not so. It simply means that booleans are nothing special. In REXX,
there are no data types at all, and "1" and "0" are your booleans. In
C, boo
On Jul 1, 8:23 am, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
> On Sun, 01 Jul 2012 10:37:05 +1000, Chris Angelico wrote:
> > On Sun, Jul 1, 2012 at 10:08 AM, Ben Finney
> > wrote:
> >> Thomas Jollans writes:
>
> >>> My sole point, really, is that "normally", one would expect these two
> >>> expressions to be equiv
On Sun, 01 Jul 2012 12:20:52 +1000, Chris Angelico wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 1, 2012 at 12:06 PM, Steven D'Aprano
> wrote:
>> You can't just arbitrarily stick parentheses around parts of
>> expressions and expect the result to remain unchanged. Order of
>> evaluation matters:
>>
>> 2**3**4 != (2**3)**
On Sun, Jul 1, 2012 at 2:17 PM, Steven D'Aprano
wrote:
> Nonsense. Of course parens change the evaluation of the expression.
> That's what parens are for!
The whole point of my example was that it wouldn't.
ChrisA
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
On Sun, Jul 1, 2012 at 2:07 PM, rusi wrote:
> Kernighan and Ritchie admit they made a design mistake with their
> operator precedences:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C_%28programming_language%29#Criticism
>
The examples given there have nothing to do with the chaining of
comparisons and how it
tiger@ocean:~$ python3.2
Python 3.2.3 (default, Jul 1 2012, 11:07:14)
[GCC 4.4.5] on linux2
Type "help", "copyright", "credits" or "license" for more information.
>>> import tkinter
Traceback (most recent call last):
File "", line 1, in
File "/usr/local/lib/python3.2/tkinter/__init__.py", lin
On 6/30/2012 19:37, Chris Angelico wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 1, 2012 at 10:08 AM, Ben Finney
> wrote:
>> I know of no programming language that
>> would give a newcomer to Python that expectation. So where is the norm
>> you're referring to?
>
> C, SQL, REXX, and many other languages.
Some others: L
On 6/30/2012 23:45, Evan Driscoll wrote:
> You may also
> want to put Java in there as well, as < is effectively not commutative
> in that language. (I didn't try C#.)
I guess you could actually put Lua and Ruby into the roughly same
category as Java too.
But things get a little nastier in ==, as
On 7/1/2012 12:25 AM, contro opinion wrote:
I am on Windows, but...
tiger@ocean:~$ python3.2
Python 3.2.3 (default, Jul 1 2012, 11:07:14)
[GCC 4.4.5] on linux2
Type "help", "copyright", "credits" or "license" for more information.
>>> import tkinter
Traceback (most recent call last):
File
On Sun, 01 Jul 2012 14:23:36 +1000, Chris Angelico wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 1, 2012 at 2:17 PM, Steven D'Aprano
> wrote:
>> Nonsense. Of course parens change the evaluation of the expression.
>> That's what parens are for!
>
> The whole point of my example was that it wouldn't.
Yes, you can find sp
On Sun, Jul 1, 2012 at 4:27 PM, Steven D'Aprano
wrote:
> Yes, you can find specially crafted examples where adding parentheses in
> certain places, but not others, doesn't change the overall evaluation of
> the expression.
My point was that adding parentheses around the tightest-binding
operator
On Sun, 01 Jul 2012 13:48:04 +1000, Chris Angelico wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 1, 2012 at 1:23 PM, Steven D'Aprano
> wrote:
>> All the worse for those languages, since they violate the semantics of
>> mathematical notation.
>
> Not so. It simply means that booleans are nothing special. In REXX,
> there
43 matches
Mail list logo
