Alex Martelli wrote: > Ilias Lazaridis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > ... >
note: Anton Vredegoor wrote: >>>>only hire people with long backstabbing histories. >>> >>>Such as...? Guido van Rossum? Greg Stein? Vint Cerf? Ben Goodger? > ... > >>The employees you've mentioned should have most possibly the basic >>google employment requirement: BS or MS... [1]. > > ... "or equivalent" (I do believe all I named have at least a Bachelor > degree, but with the undisputable results they've shown afterwards, I > think they'd all meet the "or equivalent" clause anyway). " * BS or MS in Computer Science or equivalent (PhD a plus). " This referes to an _academic_ degree. Very few companies make an explicit statement about non-academic applicants. It seems Google does not. >>I assume that Mr. Vredegoor uses the term "backstabbing" incorrect. Most >>possibly he meand just something like "back reaching". >>Possibly he can confirm. > > Let's wait for him to confirm or deny; I thought he did mean what he > said. yes, I've become curious. >>btw: I don't understand exactly what Mr. Vredegoor means by "having >>worked for the man". >>Possibly he can clarify concisely. > > By all means, let's hope he does. In the jargon of the American > underclass, "to work for The Man" meant working for law enforcement > agencies, and somehow it got widened to "working for ``the system''", > i.e., in a "socially respectable" job. Maybe in Dutch it means > something different. "socially respectable" would fit. but let's await his comments. >>Mr. Martinelli, you seem to know python. > > Sorry, that's a brand of sparking apple cider. I get my name mispelled > that way often enough, since I moved to the US, to have become quite > sensitive about it!-) In MY name, there is no "in"... Mr. Martelli, I apologize for naming you like an soft-drink. - Python vs jamLang follows: >>May you can showcase how to overcome some of the limitations >>(limitations in context of the evaluation template): >> >>http://lazaridis.com/case/lang/python.html > > re: #LIMITATION: automated get/set methods via var-name not available > see the 'property' built-in. Can you (or some reader) sent (or fill in) the relevant code? > re: LIMITATION: InstanceVarName not available > since any object at a given time may be bound to any number of names, > from 0 upwards, and none of them has any privileged relation with the > object, this will never be solved. If you think an object should have a > name with some privileged relation to it, I strongly suggest you switch > to another language. => the limitation "InstanceVarName not available" is true. (I will change the evaluation-template and move this step to the "Expert Reflective Data Access"). > "prints Class Definition (methods, fields), without code > LIMITATION: no direct access on object-model-level" > not sure what you mean, but maybe see the 'inspect' module. => Clas Definition is not accessible via MetaClasses (possible workaround: inspect module) > "#LIMITATION: attribute is not available systemwide in every object > #LIMITATION: attribute is not on object-model-level > #LIMITATION: Operation is not Object Oriented > " > If you think that the syntax x(y,z) is "not Object Oriented", then again > I strongly suggest that you switch to other languages (avoiding other > powerful object oriented languages such as Dylan, Lisp, or O'CAML, which > also allow usage of function-call notation for THEIR OO power); in other > words, if you think the mere presence of a syntax like 'y.x(z)' makes > any difference wrt accessing a functionality versus 'x(y, z)', you're > clearly evaluating things at a totally inappropriate level. I assure you: the level is totally appropriate. > The notation you choose, setattr(Object, "meta", "Some meta I did not choose it. Someone has posted it. > information"), is, at any rate, absolutely semantically identical to > Object.meta = "Some meta information" -- they will both succeed or both > fail, and when they both succeed they will have identical effects; thus, > that point about "not Object Oriented" seems to fall somewhere between > embarassingly wrong, and crazy-level weird. => Object.meta = "Some meta information" => can be used instead of setattr(Object, "meta", "Some metainformation") > It IS true that in Python you cannot set arbitrary attributes on => #LIMITATION: Cannot add arbitrary attributes to arbitrary objects. > arbitrary objects. The workaround is to use a dict, indexed by the id > of the object you want to "set arbitrary attributes on"; this has the > helpful consequence that separate namespaces are used, so your arbitrary > setting of metadata cannot interfere with the `true' attributes of the > object in question. => possible workaround: use dict. > I'm unable to understand what you're trying to do in the "extend talker > code" box following that one. Someone has posted this code, to solve "Applying metadata (or attributes, as you prefere) to Class, Object, ...". I understand that the poster has send code which does not work. - see the ruby result as a reference: http://lazaridis.com/case/lang/ruby/base.html - If you (or any reader) like, please provide the concrete code to solve the open limitations (the simple ones, like e.g. get/set). Thank you for taking the time to answer. . -- http://lazaridis.com -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list