On Jan 27, 3:35 am, rantingrick wrote:
> On Jan 26, 3:48 pm, Grant Edwards wrote:
>
> > People will not separate your personality from the cause you espouse.
> > You may not like it, but that's a fact. If you are in favor of XYZ,
> > and act rude and insulting while espousing XYZ, people will re
On Jan 27, 11:45 pm, rantingrick wrote:
>
> When has Octavian been uncivil? This lecture of Octavian is ludicris!
> You are such a friendly totalitarian, how do you keep a strait face --
> Col. Hans Landa?
And this mutual 'support' between Octavian and Ranter is ludicris(sic)
Its quite clear to
On Jan 27, 10:47 pm, Grant Edwards wrote:
> So you're saying that you don't see any value in easing communication,
> nor presumably in communication itself?
A Goedel-ian meta-recursion problem here Grant:
You want to communicate the need for communication to one who does not
see the need/value o
On Jan 29, 4:10 am, Ben Finney wrote:
> Note that Raymond is speaking specifically in the context of free
> software, where the license is by definition permitting free
> redistribution of the source code.
It is an obvious necessary condition that for code to be opened it
should be open (source)
On Jan 30, 2:22 am, Ben Finney wrote:
>
> The “problem”, which I don't consider to be a problem per se, is one of
> OS-wide policy, not “installers”. The policy is a matter of tradeoffs
> across the system, and isn't “tucking the code away in a dark corner”.
Earlier mail:
> If you want to blame
On Jan 30, 9:21 am, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
>
> > I think this is a fairly accurate description of (one aspect of) the
> > problem.
> > If you dont see it as a problem how do you explain that google can
> > search the World Wide Web better than we can search our individual hard
> > disks?
>
> I fai
On Jan 30, 6:19 pm, David Boddie wrote:
> You might find this page useful:
>
> http://www.wikinfo.org/index.php/Comparison_of_desktop_search_software
>
> David
Thanks for that link David
I note particularly the disclaimer that it was removed from wikipedia
[Like when censors stuff you know it
On Jan 30, 6:31 pm, bansi wrote:
> On Jan 28, 4:22 pm, Benjamin Kaplan wrote:
>
> > You'll need to have Visual C++ 2008 (not 2010) installed for this to
> > work. You can get it for free
> > fromhttp://www.microsoft.com/express/Downloads/if
> > you don't already have it.
>
>
> Thanks Benjamin. W
On Jan 30, 10:35 pm, rusi wrote:
> On Jan 30, 6:31 pm, bansi wrote:
> > Isn't it possible to implement your suggestion without installing
> > Visual C++ 2008 .
>
> http://code.google.com/p/pyodbc/wiki/Building#Windows
Well... This is what the official site says...
O
On Jan 31, 12:35 am, rantingrick wrote:
> > Also, can the terms method and function be used interchangeably?
>
> Can the terms cars and truck be used interchangeably?
Oooff! A load of meaning in that one line -- I wonder though if the OP
will understand...
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listi
On Feb 1, 1:35 am, Raymond Hettinger wrote:
> However, even the parts of the standard library written in pure Python
> don't seem to be getting read anymore, so I'm still inclined to
> attribute the issue to 1) inconvenient placement of source code,
> 2) a largish code base, and 3) possibly a cult
On Feb 1, 11:14 am, rusi wrote:
> On Feb 1, 1:35 am, Raymond Hettinger wrote:
snipped
O O wrong thread... sorry!
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
The following, meant for this thread, went to another my mistake :-)
--
On Feb 1, 1:35 am, Raymond Hettinger wrote:
> However, even the parts of the standard library written in pure Python
> don't seem to be getting read anymore, so I'm still inclined to
> attribute the is
On Feb 2, 12:32 am, "OKB (not okblacke)"
wrote:
> Tim Wintle wrote:
> > (2) is especially important IMO - under half of the python
> > developers I have regularly worked with would feel comfortable
> > reading C - so for the other half reading C source code probably
> > isn't going to help them un
On Feb 4, 9:34 pm, rusi wrote:
>
> [PS Does not read properly in google docs though it reads ok in
> acroread and evince ]
Sorry google docs does not like the pdf
Heres a ps
https://docs.google.com/leaf?id=0B3gsacOF56PxOWUxZTVmOTQtYWIxNy00ZGFjLWEwODUtZDVkM2MyZGI5ZmRk&h
On Feb 5, 12:11 am, "OKB (not okblacke)"
wrote:
>
> Very interesting, thanks. I think Python has its own warts
> comparable to some of those you mention, but not all. What bothers me
> most is when "practicality beats purity" is invoked, with practicality
> defined as "doing it this way
901 - 916 of 916 matches
Mail list logo
