I wonder if some kind soul can help me in my struggle with DLLs?
I am trying -- not because I want to, but because I have been told to --
to import things from an API that exists as a bunch of .COM DLLs.
I had originally hoped to get them into a Python 2.4 program by a simple
import statement
"[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]:
> On Feb 21, 12:26 pm, "DanielJohnson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> I was wondering if anyblody can suggest me a network simulator
[Snips]
>> I am looking for a simulator
[Snips]
> Google for Scapy
I don't think Scapy is
Steve <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]:
> umm, was just wondering, does the python mascot have a name ?
I always assumed it was Monty, but I confess to not having the slightest
factual basis for this belief.
All the best,
John.
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/
Andy Sy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]:
> http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-list/2003-September/185612.html
"Odi" must be the Dutch for "Monty".
All the best,
John.
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
John Bokma <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in news:Xns97C6ADE23FCAcastleamber@
130.133.1.4:
> John D Salt wrote:
>
>> Andy Sy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in
>> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]:
>>
>>> http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-list/2003-September/1
Mel Wilson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in news:_s2bg.8867$aa4.296233
@news20.bellglobal.com:
[Snips]
> Just reinforces the central truth. The mascot doesn't
> *have* a name. Most things don't.
Most things don't have names?
I'll believe you if you can give me a list of ten things that don't hav
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]:
[Snips]
> Wrong. We live in a paradise of ideas and possibilities well beyond the
> wildest dreams of only 20 years ago.
What exciting new ideas exist in software that are both important and
cannot be traced back to 1986 or earlier?
I'd like
"John A. Bailo" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]:
[Snips]
> What exciting new ideas exist in software that are both important and
> cannot be traced back to Doug Engbart's 1968 presentation at Xerox
> Parc?
The only two I would think worth mentioning are Nygaard et al's idea
Eli Gottlieb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]:
[Snips]
> I correct: We live in a paradise where we finally have to processing
> power to realize all those ideas that were too inefficient 20 years
> ago.
That sounds more reasonable.
In my more jaundiced moments, I think that
