On 10 October 2017 at 21:37, Michael Cuddehe wrote:
> I have tried multiple versions, 32 & 64 bit. Same problem.
>
> "This app can't run on your PC. To find a version for your PC, check with
> the software publisher."
It's difficult to know what to say - it runs fine for me (Windows 10,
Python 3.
Agreed. I was being lazy and didn't check precisely which exception
was raised before writing the code. "Making this code production ready
is left as an exercise for the reader" :-)
On 11 October 2017 at 01:59, Steve D'Aprano wrote:
> On Wed, 11 Oct 2017 02:15 am, Paul Moore wrote:
>
>> These are
On 2017-10-10 13:09, Bill wrote:
> (at least based upon "The C++ Programming Language", 3rd ed.)
My impression when I read "The C++ Programming Language" as a teenager
(many years ago) was that the 1st edition was an excellent, if somewhat
dense book, while the 3rd edition was completely impenetra
On 2017-10-10 22:37, Michael Cuddehe wrote:
> I have tried multiple versions, 32 & 64 bit. Same problem.
>
> "This app can't run on your PC. To find a version for your PC, check with
> the software publisher."
>
You're going to have to give us some more information for anybody to be
able to real
Oh never mind it, after so many trial and error, i did make months
format with success, thanks!!!
Sincerely, Byung-Hee.
--
^고맙습니다 _救濟蒼生_ 감사합니다_^))//
--
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
On 11/10/17 01:48, Bill wrote:
Steve D'Aprano wrote:
On Tue, 10 Oct 2017 06:06 am, Stefan Ram wrote:
In his book about programming, Bjarne Stroustrup writes:
|We try hard to avoid "white lies"; that is, we refrain from
|oversimplified explanations that are clear and easy to
|understand, but n
Rhodri James :
> C++ is designed, true, but well designed? It has a fundamental flaw;
> it wants to be both a high-level language and compatible with C, under
> the mistaken impression that C is a high level language. Since C is
> actually an excellent macro-assembler, this dooms the exercise from
On 2017-10-11, Bill wrote:
> [...] I'm not here to "cast stones", I like Python. I just think
> that you shouldn't cast stones at C/C++.
Not while PHP exists. There aren't enough stones in the world...
--
Grant Edwards grant.b.edwardsYow! Is it 1974? What's
On Thu, Oct 12, 2017 at 12:16 AM, Marko Rauhamaa wrote:
> Rhodri James :
>
>> C++ is designed, true, but well designed? It has a fundamental flaw;
>> it wants to be both a high-level language and compatible with C, under
>> the mistaken impression that C is a high level language. Since C is
>> act
On 11/10/2017 14:16, Marko Rauhamaa wrote:
C++'s main problem is that it tries to solve the wrong problem. A C++
compiler seeks to make sure your program doesn't have bugs. That noble
(but futile) goal makes it painful to program in C++.
It's painful to program for lots of reasons, I don't thi
On Thu, Oct 12, 2017 at 1:14 AM, bartc wrote:
> Python, maybe. C syntax isn't as painful as C++ but I still have a lot of
> trouble with it. (Eg. the variable declaration 'char(*(*x[3])())[5]'. The
> name of the variable can be found lurking in that lot somewhere, but what's
> the type?) Not so co
- What exactly did you install?
>> Latest install: Python 3.5.4 (v3.5.4:3f56838, Aug 8 2017, 02:17:05) [MSC
v.1900 64 bit (AMD64)] on win32
>> Downloaded from python.org.
- Can you start the Python interpreter?
>> Yes...works fine.
* How exactly did you go about this
>> ??
- How exactly do
On 11 October 2017 at 15:46, Michael Cuddehe wrote:
> - What exactly did you install?
>>> Latest install: Python 3.5.4 (v3.5.4:3f56838, Aug 8 2017, 02:17:05) [MSC
> v.1900 64 bit (AMD64)] on win32
>>> Downloaded from python.org.
> - Can you start the Python interpreter?
>>> Yes...works fine.
>
Chris Angelico :
> The places where C++ is not a superset of C are mostly things you
> wouldn't want to be doing anyway. You can generally take C code and
> compile it with a C++ compiler, and it'll have the same semantics.
Here's a C/C++ program:
On 2017-10-11, Marko Rauhamaa wrote:
> Bill :
>> Steve D'Aprano wrote:
>>> Bjarne Stroustrup is famous for designing one of the most
>>> heavyweight, baraque, hard-to-understand, difficult-to-use
>>> programming languages in common use. While C++ has many excellent
>>> features, and is constrained
On 11/10/2017 15:52, breamore...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wednesday, October 11, 2017 at 3:14:51 PM UTC+1, bartc wrote:
On 11/10/2017 14:16, Marko Rauhamaa wrote:
Python and C don't try to protect you. In return, you get syntactic
convenience that probably enhances the quality of your programs.
P
"Access is denied" sounds like you've installed Python for all users
(i.e. in C:\Program Files) and you're not using an elevated prompt to
run pip. If you have Python in C:\Program Files, you either need to
install modules in your user environment (via pip install --user)
which means they'll only b
On 10/11/2017 08:46 AM, Michael Cuddehe wrote:
> - What exactly did you install?
>>> Latest install: Python 3.5.4 (v3.5.4:3f56838, Aug 8 2017, 02:17:05) [MSC
> v.1900 64 bit (AMD64)] on win32
^^^
So your OS is 32 bit? If so, you can't run 64-bit software on it.
This v
On 11/10/2017 15:36, Chris Angelico wrote:
On Thu, Oct 12, 2017 at 1:14 AM, bartc wrote:
Python, maybe. C syntax isn't as painful as C++ but I still have a lot of
trouble with it. (Eg. the variable declaration 'char(*(*x[3])())[5]'. The
name of the variable can be found lurking in that lot some
Grant Edwards wrote:
On 2017-10-11, Bill wrote:
[...] I'm not here to "cast stones", I like Python. I just think
that you shouldn't cast stones at C/C++.
Not while PHP exists. There aren't enough stones in the world...
PHP seems (seemed?) popular for laying out web pages. Are their vast
> >> [...] I'm not here to "cast stones", I like Python. I just think
> >> that you shouldn't cast stones at C/C++.
> > Not while PHP exists. There aren't enough stones in the world...
> >
>
> PHP seems (seemed?) popular for laying out web pages. Are their vastly
> superior options?
Python? Supe
On Thu, Oct 12, 2017 at 2:43 AM, Marko Rauhamaa wrote:
> Chris Angelico :
>
>> The places where C++ is not a superset of C are mostly things you
>> wouldn't want to be doing anyway. You can generally take C code and
>> compile it with a C++ compiler, and it'll have the same semantics.
>
> Here's a
On 10/11/2017 11:54 AM, Michael Torrie wrote:
On 10/11/2017 08:46 AM, Michael Cuddehe wrote:
- What exactly did you install?
Latest install: Python 3.5.4 (v3.5.4:3f56838, Aug 8 2017, 02:17:05) [MSC
v.1900 64 bit (AMD64)] on win32
^^^
This is exactly what I see
On 10/11/2017 10:46 AM, Michael Cuddehe wrote:
- What exactly did you install?
Latest install: Python 3.5.4 (v3.5.4:3f56838, Aug 8 2017, 02:17:05) [MSC
v.1900 64 bit (AMD64)] on win32
Downloaded from python.org.
- Can you start the Python interpreter?
Yes...works fine.
* How exactly
On 2017-10-11, bartc wrote:
> On 11/10/2017 15:36, Chris Angelico wrote:
>> On Thu, Oct 12, 2017 at 1:14 AM, bartc wrote:
>>> Python, maybe. C syntax isn't as painful as C++ but I still have a lot of
>>> trouble with it. (Eg. the variable declaration 'char(*(*x[3])())[5]'. The
>>> name of the var
On Wed, 2017-10-11 at 15:14 +0100, bartc wrote:
> On 11/10/2017 14:16, Marko Rauhamaa wrote:
> > Python and C don't try to protect you. In return, you get syntactic
> > convenience that probably enhances the quality of your programs.
>
> Python, maybe. C syntax isn't as painful as C++ but I still
On Wednesday, October 11, 2017 at 3:14:51 PM UTC+1, bartc wrote:
> On 11/10/2017 14:16, Marko Rauhamaa wrote:
>
> > Python and C don't try to protect you. In return, you get syntactic
> > convenience that probably enhances the quality of your programs.
>
> Python, maybe. C syntax isn't as painful
On 2017-10-11, Bill wrote:
> Grant Edwards wrote:
>> On 2017-10-11, Bill wrote:
>>
>>
>>> [...] I'm not here to "cast stones", I like Python. I just think
>>> that you shouldn't cast stones at C/C++.
>> Not while PHP exists. There aren't enough stones in the world...
>>
>
> PHP seems (seemed?) p
On Thu, Oct 12, 2017 at 5:22 AM, Grant Edwards
wrote:
> On 2017-10-11, bartc wrote:
>> On 11/10/2017 15:36, Chris Angelico wrote:
>>> On Thu, Oct 12, 2017 at 1:14 AM, bartc wrote:
Python, maybe. C syntax isn't as painful as C++ but I still have a lot of
trouble with it. (Eg. the variab
Chris Angelico :
> On Thu, Oct 12, 2017 at 2:43 AM, Marko Rauhamaa wrote:
>> That is not immediately all that significant but points to subtle
>> incompatibilities between the data models of C and C++.
>
> Indeed - their handling of empty structs is different. But that
> doesn't invalidate my poi
On Thu, Oct 12, 2017 at 5:35 AM, Marko Rauhamaa wrote:
> Chris Angelico :
>
>> On Thu, Oct 12, 2017 at 2:43 AM, Marko Rauhamaa wrote:
>>> That is not immediately all that significant but points to subtle
>>> incompatibilities between the data models of C and C++.
>>
>> Indeed - their handling of
On 11/10/17 15:36, Chris Angelico wrote:
On Thu, Oct 12, 2017 at 1:14 AM, bartc wrote:
Python, maybe. C syntax isn't as painful as C++ but I still have a lot of
trouble with it. (Eg. the variable declaration 'char(*(*x[3])())[5]'. The
name of the variable can be found lurking in that lot somewh
On 11/10/2017 17:16, Jonathan Cast wrote:
On Wed, 2017-10-11 at 15:14 +0100, bartc wrote:
On 11/10/2017 14:16, Marko Rauhamaa wrote:
Python and C don't try to protect you. In return, you get syntactic
convenience that probably enhances the quality of your programs.
Python, maybe. C syntax isn
On Thu, Oct 12, 2017 at 3:29 AM, Rhodri James wrote:
> On 11/10/17 15:36, Chris Angelico wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, Oct 12, 2017 at 1:14 AM, bartc wrote:
>>>
>>> Python, maybe. C syntax isn't as painful as C++ but I still have a lot of
>>> trouble with it. (Eg. the variable declaration 'char(*(*x[3])()
On 11/10/2017 19:30, Chris Angelico wrote:
On Thu, Oct 12, 2017 at 5:22 AM, Grant Edwards
The easiest way to make stuff like that readable is to unroll them
into a sequence of typedefs. But, a lot of people never really
learn how to do that...
The most complexity you'll usually see is a fun
On 11/10/2017 20:30, Chris Angelico wrote:
On Thu, Oct 12, 2017 at 3:29 AM, Rhodri James wrote:
On 11/10/17 15:36, Chris Angelico wrote:
That's only really one level more complex than declarations I use fairly
regularly (I am an embedded system programmer most of the time). On the
other han
Mikhail V wrote:
[...] I'm not here to "cast stones", I like Python. I just think
that you shouldn't cast stones at C/C++.
Not while PHP exists. There aren't enough stones in the world...
PHP seems (seemed?) popular for laying out web pages. Are their vastly
superior options?
Python? Superi
Grant Edwards wrote:
On 2017-10-11, Bill wrote:
Grant Edwards wrote:
On 2017-10-11, Bill wrote:
[...] I'm not here to "cast stones", I like Python. I just think
that you shouldn't cast stones at C/C++.
Not while PHP exists. There aren't enough stones in the world...
PHP seems (seemed?)
On 2017-10-11, Bill wrote:
> Mikhail V wrote:
> [...] I'm not here to "cast stones", I like Python. I just think
> that you shouldn't cast stones at C/C++.
Not while PHP exists. There aren't enough stones in the world...
>>> PHP seems (seemed?) popular for laying out web pages.
On Thu, Oct 12, 2017 at 7:07 AM, Bill wrote:
> Mikhail V wrote:
>
> [...] I'm not here to "cast stones", I like Python. I just think
> that you shouldn't cast stones at C/C++.
Not while PHP exists. There aren't enough stones in the world...
>>> PHP seems (seemed?) popul
Bill writes:
> Mikhail V wrote:
> [...] I'm not here to "cast stones", I like Python. I just think
> that you shouldn't cast stones at C/C++.
Not while PHP exists. There aren't enough stones in the world...
>>> PHP seems (seemed?) popular for laying out web pages. Are their va
On Thu, Oct 12, 2017 at 7:42 AM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
> Bill writes:
>
>> Mikhail V wrote:
>> [...] I'm not here to "cast stones", I like Python. I just think
>> that you shouldn't cast stones at C/C++.
> Not while PHP exists. There aren't enough stones in the world...
>
PHP
On Wednesday, October 11, 2017 at 4:47:43 PM UTC+1, bartc wrote:
> On 11/10/2017 15:52, wrote:
> > On Wednesday, October 11, 2017 at 3:14:51 PM UTC+1, bartc wrote:
> >> On 11/10/2017 14:16, Marko Rauhamaa wrote:
> >>
> >>> Python and C don't try to protect you. In return, you get syntactic
> >>> co
On 11/10/2017 21:52, breamore...@gmail.com wrote:
>> More importantly is the fact that due to your magnificent
performance recently you have
been promoted to be the General Manager of my Dream Team.
Thanks, I guess.
You can of course cement your place when you explain how, in your language,
Bill wrote:
> Mikhail V wrote:
> > Python? Superior syntax for sure
>
> I believe that. What accounts for the popularity of PHP then?
I can't tell for PHP for sure... As in many cases in software world, there is
a principle of "who was the first there to solve some task".
Probably also it was bu
bartc wrote:
While on the subject of C syntax, here are some fun ambiguities:
f(x);// call function with arg x, or declare x of type f?
a*b; // multiply a by b, or declare b of type pointer to a?
(a)*b// multiply a by b, or cast *b to type a?
Technically these are not ambiguous i
bartc wrote:
tokenrec * (*)[]
>
the original source and that type is written like this:
ref [] ref tokenrec
The idiomatic way to write that type in C would be
tokenrec **
--
Greg
--
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Neil Cerutti wrote:
I dig
const qualifiers, even though I'm comletely fine with their
absence from Python.
Out of curiosity, do you have any insights into why you
like them in C++, if you don't miss them in Python?
--
Greg
--
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
On 11/10/2017 23:03, Gregory Ewing wrote:
bartc wrote:
tokenrec * (*)[]
>
the original source and that type is written like this:
ref [] ref tokenrec
The idiomatic way to write that type in C would be
tokenrec **
The original has an extra pointer so idiomatic C might be mor
Chris Angelico writes:
> On Thu, Oct 12, 2017 at 7:42 AM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>> Bill writes:
>>
>>> Mikhail V wrote:
>>> [...] I'm not here to "cast stones", I like Python. I just think
>>> that you shouldn't cast stones at C/C++.
>> Not while PHP exists. There aren't enough ston
Gregory Ewing writes:
> bartc wrote:
>
>> tokenrec * (*)[]
>>
>> the original source and that type is written like this:
>>
>> ref [] ref tokenrec
>
> The idiomatic way to write that type in C would be
>
>tokenrec **
That's a different type. I think you mean that a human writing C
(
On Oct 11, 2017, at 9:07 AM, Bill wrote:
>
> Grant Edwards wrote:
>> On 2017-10-11, Bill wrote:
>>
>>
>>> [...] I'm not here to "cast stones", I like Python. I just think
>>> that you shouldn't cast stones at C/C++.
>> Not while PHP exists. There aren't enough stones in the world...
>>
>
>
On Thu, Oct 12, 2017 at 9:44 AM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
> Chris Angelico writes:
>> Check out Django and Flask, the two most popular ways. I quite like
>> Flask.
>
> I see. Both appear to be frameworks (I'd heard of Django). Do you know
> if they widely available on low-cost hosting packages? (I
r...@zedat.fu-berlin.de (Stefan Ram) writes:
> Ben Bacarisse writes:
>>That's a different type. I think you mean that a human writing C
>>(rather than bartc's code generator) would probably design the code to
>>use tokenrec ** then I agree, but the latter is not just a different way
>>to write t
On Wed, Oct 11, 2017 at 4:45 PM, Mikhail V wrote:
>
> PS Off-topic:
> I have a related observation regarding popularity of software.
> There is such a program "VLC", which is a video player. Some would
> think it is sort of best free player, etc. I was also under impression,
> but then I've found
On Thu, Oct 12, 2017 at 11:38 AM, boB Stepp wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 11, 2017 at 4:45 PM, Mikhail V wrote:
>
>>
>> PS Off-topic:
>> I have a related observation regarding popularity of software.
>> There is such a program "VLC", which is a video player. Some would
>> think it is sort of best free pla
Chris Angelico writes:
> On Thu, Oct 12, 2017 at 9:44 AM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>> Chris Angelico writes:
>>> Check out Django and Flask, the two most popular ways. I quite like
>>> Flask.
>>
>> I see. Both appear to be frameworks (I'd heard of Django). Do you know
>> if they widely available
On Thu, Oct 12, 2017 at 11:55 AM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
> Chris Angelico writes:
>> it binds your URLs to
>> the concrete file system. That may not seem like too much of a
>> problem, but it's a pretty big limitation; you can't have URLs like
>> "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foo"; without some he
Chris Angelico writes:
> On Thu, Oct 12, 2017 at 11:55 AM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>> Chris Angelico writes:
>>> it binds your URLs to
>>> the concrete file system. That may not seem like too much of a
>>> problem, but it's a pretty big limitation; you can't have URLs like
>>> "https://en.wikipedi
On Thu, 12 Oct 2017 02:43 am, Marko Rauhamaa wrote:
> Chris Angelico :
>
>> The places where C++ is not a superset of C are mostly things you
>> wouldn't want to be doing anyway. You can generally take C code and
>> compile it with a C++ compiler, and it'll have the same semantics.
>
> Here's a
On Wednesday, July 12, 2017 at 5:15:39 PM UTC-4, Test Banks wrote:
> Greetings,
>
> You can get Test Bank for " Introduction to Sociology 10th Edition by Anthony
> Giddens, Mitchell Duneier, Richard P. Appelbaum, Deborah Carr " at very
> reasonable price. Our team is available 24/7 and 365 days
On Wed, 11 Oct 2017 10:57 pm, Stefan Ram wrote:
> FWIW, in is book "Touch of Class" (2009) Bertrand Meyer writes:
>
> |Such instructions are just the old goto in sheep's clothing.
> |Treat them the same way as the original:
> |
> |/Touch of Methodology/:
> | Sticking to one-entry, one-exit build
Steve D'Aprano writes:
> On Thu, 12 Oct 2017 02:43 am, Marko Rauhamaa wrote:
>
>> Chris Angelico :
>>
>>> The places where C++ is not a superset of C are mostly things you
>>> wouldn't want to be doing anyway. You can generally take C code and
>>> compile it with a C++ compiler, and it'll have t
Hello,
apparently my reading comprehension is nose diving these days. After
reading python cookbook and a few other tutorials i still can't get a
simple logging from a few files to work.
I suspected my file organization - all files are in the same directory,
causing problem. But it appears it is
if i change print statements in both files to print out "__name__":
__main__
test1.test
On Wed, Oct 11, 2017 at 10:02 PM, Andrew Z wrote:
> Hello,
>
> apparently my reading comprehension is nose diving these days. After
> reading python cookbook and a few other tutorials i still can't get a
> s
aha. So the issue is that main.py's __name__ attribute == "__main__" and
test.py is "test1.test".
if i manually assign names:
main.py - >
log = logging.getLogger("MAIN")
test.py - >
log = logging.getLogger("MAIN.test1.test")
then logging is working perfectly well.
This brings me to the question
Actually, FORTRAN and COBOL and Algol (for its control structures)
Trying to support both of the first two was entertaining --
when you declared a variable, it wasn't enough to say it was an Integer:
you had to also declare whether it was represented in Binary or Decimal,
and also specify the desir
On 11Oct2017 22:27, Andrew Z wrote:
aha. So the issue is that main.py's __name__ attribute == "__main__" and
test.py is "test1.test".
Yeah. If you invoke a module as "python -m module_name" its __name__ field is
"__main__". That makes the boilerplate work, but breaks your expectation that
__
On Thu, Oct 12, 2017 at 12:19 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
> Chris Angelico writes:
>
>> On Thu, Oct 12, 2017 at 11:55 AM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>> Chris Angelico writes:
it binds your URLs to
the concrete file system. That may not seem like too much of a
problem, but it's a pretty b
On 2017-10-11, Chris Angelico wrote:
> But since it's the lowest-end sites that have traditionally driven
> that demand for PHP, there's a general tendency for low-grade
> programmers to gravitate to it, so there's a lot of really REALLY bad
> code out there.
And there are a lot of people provid
On 2017-10-11, Gregory Ewing wrote:
> Neil Cerutti wrote:
>> I dig
>> const qualifiers, even though I'm comletely fine with their
>> absence from Python.
>
> Out of curiosity, do you have any insights into why you
> like them in C++, if you don't miss them in Python?
I like them in C because it a
On 2017-10-12, Steve D'Aprano wrote:
> I don't think anyone should expect that platform specific details like the
> size of a char should be precisely the same between C and C++.
I don't knwo about that.
> Even two
> different C compilers could return different values.
Nope. If sizeof char is
bartc wrote:
The original has an extra pointer so idiomatic C might be more:
tokenrec ***
I was going by your English description, which when translated
into C gives only two pointers.
But I think you're right that the C version really has 3 levels
of indirection, so the meaning of "array
Ben Bacarisse wrote:
That's a different type. I think you mean that a human writing C
(rather than bartc's code generator) would probably design the code to
use tokenrec ** then I agree, but the latter is not just a different way
to write the former.
Yes, I was translating his English descript
74 matches
Mail list logo
