Hi,
I've found the following behaviour on importing a variable from a
module somewhat odd. The behaviour is identical in Python 2.5 and
3.0b2.
In summary, here's what happens. I have a module, oddmodule.py
(below), that defines a variable, OddVariable, by assigning a value A
to it. The file I exe
> the construct
>
> from oddmodule import OddVariable, OddFunction
>
> assigns the *values* of the given module names to new variables in the
> importing module's namespace. that is, you're binding new names to the
> values the variables happen to have when the from-import statement is
> exec
Hi All
I've encountered a weird issue when migrating a web server to Python 3
- the browser would wait forever without showing a page, displaying
"Transferring data" in the status bar. I tracked it down to a
reference cycle in my BaseHTTPRequestHandler descendant - one of the
attributes stored a d
On Sep 14, 2:03 am, "Siegfried Heintze" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Can someone point me to an example of a little program that emits non-ascii
> Unicode characters (Russian or Chinese perhaps)?
The following doesn't quite work, but I'll post it anyway since it
actually ends up printing the chara
On Sep 14, 9:01 am, cnb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> def suma(xs, acc=0):
> if len(xs) == 0:
> acc
> else:
> suma(xs[1:], acc+xs[0])
>
> it returns none.
Yep, that's because there is no "return" statement anywhere. Python
doesn't return expressions "
On Sep 14, 11:51 am, Gertjan Klein <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Interesting. On my system (Windows XP) the console codepage does not
> change, and hence the characters don't print properly (I get some of the
> CP437 line drawing characters, for example). I have never been able to
> convince windows
Hi
I'm trying to understand why it is that I can do
>>> a = []
>>> a += 'stuff'
>>> a
['s', 't', 'u', 'f', 'f']
but not
>>> a = []
>>> a = a + 'stuff'
Traceback (most recent call last):
File "", line 1, in
TypeError: can only concatenate list (not "str") to list
Can someone explain the logi
On Oct 2, 8:11 am, Erik Max Francis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> It's because the `+=` operator is doing the equivalent of calling the
> `extend` method, which treats its argument as a generic sequence, and
> doesn't enforce type.
I see. Do you know whether this is seen as a problem with the langu
On Oct 2, 3:50 pm, Mel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> rs387 wrote:
> > I see. Do you know whether this is seen as a problem with the language
> > design?
>
> No.
OK, I get it now. I was assuming that the "+" could be implemented in
terms of "+=&quo
