On Fri, Apr 12, 2013 at 11:28 PM, Mark Janssen
wrote:
>> Mark, this proposal is out of place on a Python list, because it proposes an
>> object methodology radically different from any that is implemented in
>> Python now, or is even remotely likely to be implemented in Pytho
> I'm looking for some help in finding a term, it's not Python-specific but
> does apply to some Python code.
>
> This is an anti-pattern to avoid. The idea is that creating a resource
> ought to be the same as "turning it on", or enabling it, or similar. For
> example, we don't do this in Python:
>> This is an anti-pattern to avoid. The idea is that creating a resource
>> ought to be the same as "turning it on", or enabling it, or similar. For
>> example, we don't do this in Python:
>
> I would call it "user-mediated resource allocation" as distinct from
> "object-mediated" resource allocat
> "Lisp will remain the pinnacle of lambda calculus" ??? : Surreal
> feeling of falling into a 25-year time-warp
>
> Read this http://www.cs.kent.ac.uk/people/staff/dat/miranda/wadler87.pdf
>
> Just for historical context:
> When this was written in the 80s:
> - The FP languages of the time -- KRC
>> These models of computation should not use the same language. Their
>> computation models are too radically different.
>
> Their computation models are exactly equivalent.
No they are not. While one can find levels of indirection to
translate between one and the other, that doesn't mean they
On Thu, May 9, 2013 at 10:33 AM, Ian Kelly wrote:
> On Wed, May 8, 2013 at 8:35 PM, Mark Janssen
> wrote:
>> Okay, to anyone who might be listening, I found the core of the problem.
>
> What "problem" are you referring to? You've been posting on this
> topi
On Thu, May 9, 2013 at 4:58 PM, alex23 wrote:
> On 10 May, 07:51, Mark Janssen wrote:
>> You see Ian, while you and the other millions of coding practitioners
>> have (mal)adapted to a suboptimal coding environment where "hey
>> there's a language for everyon
> I think where things went pear shaped is when you made the statement:
>
>>> There is no sensible use-case for creating a file OBJECT unless it
>>> initially wraps an open file pointer.
>
> That's a pretty absolute point of view. Life is rarely so absolute.
In the old days, it was useful to have
>> There is no sensible use-case for creating a file OBJECT unless it
>> initially wraps an open file pointer.
>>
>>> So far the only counter-examples given aren't counter-examples ...
>>
>> Well, sure, if you discount operations like "create this file" and
>> queries like "could I delete t
> | No, I've created a file descriptor, which is, by definition, an integer.
> | It has nothing to do with C. This is all defined by the POSIX
> | interface. For example, the getdtablesize(2) man page says:
> |
> | "The entries in the descriptor table are numbered with small integers
> | starting
>> In the old days, it was useful to have fine-grained control over the
>> file object because you didn't know where it might fail, and the OS
>> didn't necessarily give you give good status codes. So being able to
>> step through the entire process was the job of the progammers.
>
> I don't know
> ...The field needs re-invented and re-centered.[...]
For anyone who want to be involved. See the wikiwikiweb -- a tool
that every programmer should know and use -- and these pages:
ComputerScienceVersionTwo and ObjectOrientedRefactored.
Cheers!
--
MarkJ
Tacoma, Washington
--
http://mail.pyt
> Steven, don't be misled. POSIX is not the model to look to -- it does
> not acknowledge that files are actual objects that reside on a piece
> of hardware. It is not simply an integer.
Please disregard this (my own) flame bait.
--
MarkJ
Tacoma, Washington
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/li
On Sat, May 11, 2013 at 1:03 PM, Citizen Kant wrote:
>[...] the starting question I make to myself about Python is: which is the
>single
> and most basic use of Python as the entity it is? I mean, beside
> programming, what's the single and most basic result one can expect from
> "interacting" wi
On Sun, May 12, 2013 at 10:18 AM, Ned Batchelder wrote:
> I've never understood why people use that site: the pages end up being
> unintelligible cocktail-party noise-scapes with no hope of understanding who
> is saying what, or in response to whom.
You're very right. But that is what has made i
On Sat, May 11, 2013 at 1:03 PM, Citizen Kant wrote:
>I'm making my way to Python (and
> OOP in general) from a philosophical perspective or point of view and try to
> set the more global definition of Python's core as an "entity". In order to
> do that, and following Wittgenstein's indication abo
> Sounds a lot like reddit threads.
It's similar, but it goes a lot further. Where every other site
without centralized editors, the thread mess on a simple flat page
doesn't scale after about a 100 interactions. To sort out the mess,
it takes another dimension. The project I'm working on uses
I always liked the daily Python-URL from Dr. Dobbs.
Summaries of salient discussions on python-dev, ideas, list.
interviews with devs on philosophies.
quote of the week
--m
On 5/24/13, DRJ Reddy wrote:
> Planning to start a python online chronicle.What you want to see in it. :)
> --
> http://
You might try http://wiki.python.org/moin/BeginnersGuide
--
MarkJ
Tacoma, Washington
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
> Whatever benefit there is in declaring the type of a function is lost due
> to the inability to duck-type or program to an interface. There's no type
> that says "any object with a 'next' method", for example. And having to
> declare local variables is a PITA with little benefit.
>
> Give me a la
>> Python has seduced us all into lazy typing. That's what it is.
>
> Bulshytt. If you have no idea what polymorphism is, you shouldn't even
> be participating in this conversation.
I am aware of what it means, but Python doesn't really have it
(although it may evolve to it with annotations). Bu
>> I am aware of what it means, but Python doesn't really have it (although
>> it may evolve to it with annotations).
>
> No polymorphism huh?
>
>
> py> len([1, 2, 3]) # len works on lists
> 3
> py> len((1, 2)) # and on tuples
> 2
> py> len({}) # and on dicts
> 0
> py> len('I pity the fool') #
> Fairly definitive terms have existed since 1985:
> http://lucacardelli.name/Papers/OnUnderstanding.A4.pdf
>>
>> You are making an "outside view of a function" (until a better term is
>> found). So that give you one possible view of polymorphism. However,
>> *within* a class that I would write,
On 6/6/13, alex23 wrote:
> On Jun 7, 11:44 am, Mark Janssen wrote:
>> > Bulshytt. If you have no idea what polymorphism is, you shouldn't even
>> > be participating in this conversation.
>>
>> I am aware of what it means, but Python doesn't really hav
I can't tell you as a lawyer, but I can tell you that regarding code
for non-commercial use, the only supportable case is requiring
fair-credit assignment. If reading the original license (which you
are obligated to do if you re-use and re-distribute the code), it
stipulates that you must re-share
> The Secret Labs license is very explicit: "All rights reserved". That line
> means you can't touch it under pain of lawsuit.
That's not true. It means whatever rights they do have, they are
stating, in effect, that they have not given them away. But this is a
difficult legal point, because by
> At least partially, my confusion seems to be caused by the dichotomy of
> the concepts of copyright and license. How do these relate to each other?
A license emerges out of the commercial domain is purely about
commercial protections. A copyright comes from the "academic" domain
is pure about
On Sun, Jun 9, 2013 at 12:50 PM, Michael Torrie wrote:
> On 06/09/2013 11:18 AM, Mark Janssen wrote:
>> You actually do not. Attaching a legal document is purely a secondary
>> protection from those who would take away right already granted by US
>> copyright.
>
> Y
>> That's not entirely correct. If he *publishes* his code (I'm using
>> this term "publish" technically to mean "put forth in a way where
>> anyone of the general public can or is encouraged to view"), then he
>> is *tacitly* giving up protections that secrecy (or *not* disclosing
>> it) would *a
> (Digression follows.) ...(by Gilbert and
> Sullivan - one of my other loves), and according to US law at the
> time, the publication (in this case, public performance, along with
> the public sale of libretti (books of the words) and some sheet music)
> of the work voided the authors' claim to ow
> Mark, ever watched TV? Or gone to the movies? Or walked into a bookshop?
> Listened to the radio? All these things publish copyrighted work. It is
> utter nonsense that merely publishing something in public gives up the
> monopoly privileges granted by copyright.
That's not correct. Keep in min
> The fact that a work is non commercial is one of several factors that
> is taken into account when determining fair use. It is not an
> automatic fair use for non-commercial works. I have no idea where your
> understanding of copyright law came from, but here is the relevant
> section of the US l
> What is clear is the mandate that sets up the framework in the first
> place:
>
> "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing
> for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to
> their respective Writings and Discoveries"
> -- USC Articl
> Granted, IANAL, but the scholarly article I linked to above refers to
> several of the same issues. I don't know about publication revoking
> *all rights*, but there was definitely an understanding by the court
> that publication meant a reduction of copyright claim.
Again, I don't think I said
>>> Can you provide any citations for your interpretation? Besides "that's
>>> what the law should be", I mean.
>>
>> I don't think I even have to: the legal code you're citing above is
>> not very clear, consistent, or well-defined at all. As such, it shows
>> that this area remains an area that
> Weird Al can be a complex case, because sometimes his songs are true
> parodies, and sometimes they're more satires. Parody has a pretty firm
> history of being protected under fair use, and Weird Al's MJ-inspired songs
> ("Fat" and "Eat It") are clearly parodies. (As is his more recent Lady
>> list = []
>> Reading further, one sees that the function works with two lists, a list of
>> file names, unfortunately called 'list',
>
> That is very good advice in general: never choose a variable name
> that is a keyword.
Btw, shouldn't it be illegal anyway? Most compilers don't le
> There's a subtle difference between a keyword and a built-in. Good
> Python style generally avoids masking built-ins but allows it:
Right, thank you for reminding me. My C-mind put them in the same category.
--
MarkJ
Tacoma, Washington
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
> list = []
> Reading further, one sees that the function works with two lists, a list of
> file names, unfortunately called 'list',
That is very good advice in general: never choose a variable name
that is a keyword.
--
MarkJ
Tacoma, Washington
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinf
>> At least partially, my confusion seems to be caused by the dichotomy of
>> the concepts of copyright and license. How do these relate to each other?
>
> A license emerges out of the commercial domain is purely about
> commercial protections.
I should clarify, that "commercial protections" here
On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 7:24 AM, Grant Edwards wrote:
> On 2013-06-11, Mark Janssen wrote:
>>> list = []
>>> Reading further, one sees that the function works with two lists, a list of
>>> file names, unfortunately called 'list',
>>
>>
>> You're right. I was being sloppy.
>
> ['ArithmeticError', 'AssertionError', 'AttributeError',
> 'BaseException', 'BlockingIOError', 'BrokenPipeError', 'BufferError',
> 'BytesWarning', 'ChildProcessError', 'ConnectionAbortedError',
> 'ConnectionError', 'ConnectionRefusedError', 'ConnectionResetE
> I am looking for an appropriate version control software for python
> development, and need professionals' help to make a good decision. Currently
> I am considering four software: git, SVN, CVS, and Mercurial.
I'm not real experienced, but I understand that SVN is good if your
hosting your ow
>> This has caused more trouble than it has solved.
>
> I take it you have never programmed in a programming language with a
> single, flat, global namespace? :-)
Hey, the purpose a programming language (i.e. a language which has a
consistent lexical specification), is to provide some modicum of
s
> The builtins don't need to be imported, but they're identifiers like
> anything else. They're a namespace that gets searched after
> module-globals.
Yes, I understand, though for clarity and separability, it seems that
having them in a namespace that gets explicitly pulled into the global
space
> Despite not want to RTFM as you say, you might set him in front of
> VPython, type
I totally forgot PyGame -- another likely source of self-motivated
learning for a teen programmer.
--
MarkJ
Tacoma, Washington
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
>>> Whats the difference of "interpreting " to "compiling" ?
>>
>> OK, I give up!
>
> Actually, that's a more subtle question than most people think. Python,
> for example, is a compiled language. (What did you think the "c" in
> ".pyc" files stood for? and the compile() function>?)
Careful there.
> Also remember when entering long lines of text that strings concatenate
> within parenthesis.
> So,
> ("a, b, c"
> "d, e, f"
> "g, h, i")
>
> Is the same as ("a, b, cd, e, fg, h, i")
There was a recent discussion about this (under "implicit string
concatenation"). It seems this is a part of the
>> Mostly I'm saying that super() is badly named.
>
> What else would you call a function that does lookups on the current
> object's superclasses?
^. You make a symbol for it. ^__init__(foo, bar)
--
MarkJ
Tacoma, Washington
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
On Mon, Jun 24, 2013 at 4:48 PM, alex23 wrote:
> On 23/06/2013 3:43 AM, Mark Janssen wrote:
>>
>> There was a recent discussion about this (under "implicit string
>> concatenation"). It seems this is a part of the python language
>> specification that was sim
> This bothers me as well. If you look at Raymond Hettinger's "super()
> considered super" article, he includes the (correct) advice that
> super() needs to be used at every level of the call chain. At the end
> of the article, he offers this example to show how "easy" multiple
> inheritance can
> So instead of super(), you would have sub()? It's an interesting
> concept, but I don't think it changes anything. You still have to
> design your classes cooperatively if you expect to use them with
> multiple inheritance.
Yes, and let new instances of the child classes automatically ensure
t
> The main problem is getting to the top/end of the call chain. Classic
> example is with __init__, but the same problem can also happen with
> other calls. Just a crazy theory, but would it be possible to
> construct a black-holing object that, for any given method name,
> returns a dummy function
Sorry my last message got sent prematurely. Retrying...
> So instead of super(), you would have sub()? It's an interesting
> concept, but I don't think it changes anything. You still have to
> design your classes cooperatively if you expect to use them with
> multiple inheritance.
Yes, and let
>> Combining integers with sets I can make
>> a Rational class and have infinite-precision arithmetic, for example.
>
> Combining two integers lets you make a Rational.
Ah, but what is going to group them together? You see you've already
gotten seduced. Python already uses a set to group them to
>> Here's how it *should* be made: the most superest, most badassed
>> object should take care of its children. New instances should
>> automatically call up the super chain (and not leave it up to the
>> subclasses), so that the parent classes can take care of the chil'en.
>> When something goe
>>> Combining two integers lets you make a Rational.
>>
>> Ah, but what is going to group them together? You see you've already
>> gotten seduced. Python already uses a set to group them together --
>> it's called a Dict and it's in every Class object.
>
> When you inherit a "set" to make a Ratio
> On 26/06/2013 9:19 AM, Mark Janssen wrote:
>>
>> Did you ever hear of the Glass Bead Game?
>
> Which was Hesse's condemnation of the
> pure-academic-understanding-unbound-by-pragmatic-use approach as mental
> masturbation,
It was not. He was conflicted. On the
> Hi all, this seems to be quite stupid question but I am "confused"..
> We set the initial value to 0, +1 for up-vote and -1 for down-vote! nice.
>
> I have a list of bool values True, False (True for up vote, False for
> down-vote).. submitted by users.
>
> should I take True = +1, False=0 [or]
> I have this innocent and simple code:
>
> from collections import deque
> exhaust_iter = deque(maxlen=0).extend
> exhaust_iter.__doc__ = "Exhaust an iterator efficiently without
> caching any of its yielded values."
>
> Obviously it does not work. Is there a way to get it to work simply
> and wit
A user was wondering why they can't change a docstring in a module's class.
This made me think: why not have a casting operator ("reciprocal"?) to
transform a bonafide class into a mere carcass of a class which can
then modified and reanimated back into its own type with the type
function? Such t
On Sun, Jan 13, 2013 at 8:19 PM, Oscar Benjamin
wrote:
> On 14 January 2013 02:10, Mark Janssen wrote:
>> Has anyone used python for high-performance computing on Beowulf clusters?
>
> Yes.
How did they deal with the Global interpreter lock across many machines?
Cheers,
On Sun, Jan 13, 2013 at 8:37 PM, Oscar Benjamin
wrote:
> On 14 January 2013 02:33, Mark Janssen wrote:
>> Lol, well that's why I'm asking. I don't see how they can do it
>> without considerable difficulties.
>
> What do you want the GIL for across machines? T
On Tue, Jan 15, 2013 at 6:25 AM, Steve Spicklemire wrote:
> I'm trying to get this program, which works on the command line, to run
> correctly in the IDLE environment:
>
> import atexit
>
> print "This is my program"
>
> def exit_func():
> print "OK.. that's all folks!"
>
> atexit.register(e
> Think they just needed a starting point really to be honest as they can't get
> there head round it.
Then the problem is that your friend doesn't understand one or more of
the words being used. This is s necessary prerequisite for making an
algorithm from a text description. Perhaps they don'
> Hi, I can't figure out how I can extend the 'function' built-in class. I
> tried:
> class test(function):
> def test(self):
> print("test")
> but I get an error. Is it possible ?
It has to do with differing models of computation, and python isn't
designed for this. Perhaps you're s
>>> Is it just me, or is this basically useless?
>>>
>>> class object
>>> | The most *base* type
>>
[[Terry Reedy:]]
> How about something like.
> The default top *superclass* for all Python classes.
How 'bout you foos just admit that you didn't realize you've been
confused this whole time? (It
On Sun, Dec 8, 2013 at 2:33 AM, Steven D'Aprano
wrote:
> On Sat, 07 Dec 2013 20:21:06 -0800, Mark Janssen wrote:
>
>>>>> Is it just me, or is this basically useless?
>>>>>
>>>>> class object
>>>>> | The most *base* type
>
>>> help(object)
Help on class object in module builtins:
class object
| The most base type
>
>>> '''The default top superclass for all Python classes.
>>> Its methods are inherited by all classes unless overriden.
>>> '''
>
> """ The root class for all Python classes.
>> What methods, if any does it provide? Are they all abstract? etc???
>
> Pretty much nothing useful :-)
>
> py> dir(object)
> [...]
>
So (prodding the student), Why does everything inherit from Object if
it provides no functionality?
Practicality-beats-purity-yours?
--
MarkJ
Tacoma, Washingt
On Sun, Dec 8, 2013 at 6:44 PM, Chris Angelico wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 9, 2013 at 10:01 AM, Mark Janssen
> wrote:
>> (Note bene: as a comparison, C++ is very UNAMBIGUOUS about
>> this fact -- all objects inherit from concrete machine types, which is
>> why it remains import
>> Most of the complaints about Py3 are "it's harder to get something
>> started (or port from Py2)". My answer is that it's easier to get
>> something finished.
>
> I like all of this logic, it makes sense to me. But Armin and Kenneth have
> more experience than I do actually writing networking s
> The argument is that a very important, if small, subset a data manipulation
> become very painful in Py3. Not impossible, and not difficult, but painful
> because the mental model and the contortions needed to get things to work
> don't sync up anymore.
You are confused. Please see my reply to
>> Chris didn't say "bytes and ascii data", he said "bytes and TEXT".
>> Text != "ascii data", and the fact that some people apparently think it
>> does is pretty much the heart of the problem.
>
> The heart of a different problem, not this one. The problem I refer to is
> that many binary formats
> http://blog.startifact.com/posts/python-2-gravity.html
>
> "A Way Forward - How to go forward then? I think it makes sense to work as
> hard as possible to lift those Python 2 codebases out of the gravity well."
>
> I think this is complete nonsense. There's only been five years since the
> firs
> Looks like another bad batch, time to change your dealer again.
??? Strange, when the debate hits bottom, accusations about doing
drugs come up. This is like the third reference (and I don't even
drink alcohol).
mark
--
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
>> Really? If people are using binary with "well-defined ascii-encoded
>> tidbits", they're doing something wrong. Perhaps you think escape
>> characters "\n" are "well defined tidbits", but YOU WOULD BE WRONG.
>> The purpose of binary is to keep things raw. WTF?
> If you want to participate in
>> Really? If people are using binary with "well-defined ascii-encoded
>> tidbits", they're doing something wrong. Perhaps you think escape
>> characters "\n" are "well defined tidbits", but YOU WOULD BE WRONG.
>> The purpose of binary is to keep things raw. WTF?
>
> If you want to participate i
>> I would still point out that "Kenneth and Armin" are not the whole Python
>> community.
>
> I never said they were the whole community, of course. But they are not
> outliers either. [...]
>
>> Your whole argument seems to be that a couple "revered" (!!)
>> individuals should see their complain
> * Imports are fiendishly complex, hidden below deceptively simple
> syntax.
>
> It's a reasonable expectation that one can import a module from a
> source code file given its path on the filesystem, but this turns out
> to be much more complicated than in many other languages.
Why is thi
1) It tried to make Object the parent of every class. No one's close
enough to God to make that work.
2) It didn't make dicts inherit from sets when they were added to Python.
3) It used the set literal for dict, so that there's no obvious way to
do it. This didn't get changed in Py3k.
4?) It all
>> On Tue, 10 Sep 2013, Ben Finney wrote:
>> > The sooner we replace the erroneous
>> > “text is ASCII” in the common wisdom with “text is Unicode”, the
>> > better.
>>
>> I'd actually argue that it's better to replace the common wisdom with
>> "text is binary data, and we should normally look a
>> Why is this so difficult?
>> Add a Graph class to the collections module (networkx is quite good)
>> and simply check for circular imports.
>
> Er? That doesn't address the task of importing a module from a source
> code file given its path on the filesystem.
That's true, I guess was hooked on
> Unicode is not 16-bit any more than ASCII is 8-bit. And you used the
> word "encod[e]", which is the standard way to turn Unicode into bytes
> anyway. No, a Unicode string is a series of codepoints - it's most
> similar to a list of ints than to a stream of bytes.
Okay, now you're in blah, blah
>> 1) It tried to make Object the parent of every class.
>
> Tried, and succeeded.
Really? Are you saying you (and the community at-large) always derive
from Object as your base class?
>> No one's close enough to God to make that work.
>
> Non-sequitor. One doesn't need to be close to a deity to
>> Really? Are you saying you (and the community at-large) always derive
>> from Object as your base class?
>
> Not directly, that would be silly.
Silly? "Explicit is better than implicit"... right?
>> But wait is it the "base" (at the bottom of the hierarchy) or is it the
>> "parent" at the to
On Fri, Sep 13, 2013 at 4:57 PM, Chris Angelico wrote:
> Evangelical vicar in want of a portable second-hand font. Would
> dispose, for the same, of a portrait, in frame, of the Bishop-elect of
> Vermont.
>
> I think you could quite easily reconstruct the formatting of that,
> based on its interna
put yourself in the middle. And that point
defines how you relate to the machine -- towards abstraction (upwards)
or towards the concrete (to the machine itself).
>> The simplicity of Python has seduced you into making an "equivocation"
>> of sorts. It's subtle and no one i
> I started Python 4 months ago. Largely self-study with use of Python
> documentation, stackoverflow and google. I was thinking what is the minimum
> that I must know before I can say that I know Python?
Interesting. I would say that you must know the keywords, how to make
a Class, how to writ
>> def fact(n): return 1 if n <= 1 else n * fact(n-1)
>>
>> into a tail recursion like
> [...]
>
> How do know that either "<=" or "*" didn't rebind the name "fact" to
> something else? I think that's the main reason why python cannot apply
> any procedural optimization (even things like inlining a
On Wed, Oct 2, 2013 at 1:23 PM, Alain Ketterlin wrote:
> On 10/02/2013 08:59 PM, Mark Janssen wrote:
>>>>
>>>> def fact(n): return 1 if n <= 1 else n * fact(n-1)
>>>
>>> How do know that either "<=" or "*" didn't rebi
>> Part of the reason that Python does not do tail call optimization is
>> that turning tail recursion into while iteration is almost trivial, once
>> you know the secret of the two easy steps. Here it is.
>
> That should be a reason it _does_ do it - saying people should rewrite
> their functions
>> That's fine. My point was: you can't at the same time have full
>> dynamicity *and* procedural optimizations (like tail call opt).
>> Everybody should be clear about the trade-off.
>
> Your wrong. Full dynamics is not in contradiction with tail call
> optimisation. Scheme has already done it for
> Only that you've got a consistent, stable (and therefore,
> formalizable) translation from your language to the machine. That's
> all. Everything else is magic. Do you know that the Warren
> Abstraction Engine used to power the predicate logic in Prolog into
> machien code for a VonNeumann mac
On Mon, Oct 7, 2013 at 4:50 PM, Steven D'Aprano
wrote:
> On Mon, 07 Oct 2013 15:47:26 -0700, Mark Janssen wrote:
>> I challenge you to get
>> down to the machine code in scheme and formally describe how it's doing
>> both.
>
> For which machine?
R
>>> But even putting that aside, even if somebody wrote such a description,
>>> it would be reductionism gone mad. What possible light on the problem
>>> would be shined by a long, long list of machine code operations, even
>>> if written using assembly mnemonics?
>>
>> Only that you've got a consi
>> Yeah, and this is where two models of computation have been conflated,
>> creating magical effects, confusing everybody. I challenge you to get
>> down to the machine code in scheme and formally describe how it's
>> doing both.
>
> Which two models of computation are you talking about? And what
> On Tuesday, October 8, 2013 5:54:10 AM UTC+5:30, zipher wrote:
>> Now, one can easily argue that I've gone too far to say "no one has
>> understood it" (obviously), so it's very little tongue-in-cheek, but
>> really, when one tries to pretend that one model of computation can be
>> substituted fo
>> I don't have an infinite stack to implement
>> lambda calculus, but...
>
> And then
>
>> But this is not a useful formalism. Any particular Program implements
>> a DFA, even as it runs on a TM. The issue of whether than TM is
>> finite or not can be dismissed because a simple calculation can
>
On Mon, Oct 14, 2013 at 12:18 PM, John Nagle wrote:
> On 10/12/2013 3:37 PM, Chris Angelico wrote:
>> On Sat, Oct 12, 2013 at 7:10 AM, Peter Cacioppi
>> wrote:
>>> Along with "batteries included" and "we're all adults", I think
>>> Python needs a pithy phrase summarizing how well thought out it i
1 - 100 of 203 matches
Mail list logo
