On Monday, June 30, 2014 3:34:25 PM UTC-4, Peter Otten wrote:
> RainyDay wrote:
>
>
>
> > Hi, in python 3.4.1, I get this surpising behaviour:
>
> >
>
> >>>> l=Loc(0,0)
>
> >>>> l2=Loc(1,1)
>
> >>>> l>l2
&
Hi, in python 3.4.1, I get this surpising behaviour:
>>> l=Loc(0,0)
>>> l2=Loc(1,1)
>>> l>l2
False
>>> l>> l<=l2
Traceback (most recent call last):
File "", line 1, in
TypeError: unorderable types: Loc() <= Loc()
>>> l==l2
False
>>> lhttps://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
On Jan 10, 6:37 am, Νικόλαος Κούρας wrote:
> On 10 Ιαν, 12:57, Thomas Rachel
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> a470-7603bd3aa...@spamschutz.glglgl.de> wrote:
> > Am 10.01.2012 10:02 schrieb Νικόλαος Κούρας:
>
> > > ---
> > > | HOST | HITS | AGENT | DATE |
> >
On May 26, 5:33 pm, Daniel Kluev wrote:
> On Wed, May 25, 2011 at 3:10 AM, Octavian Rasnita wrote:
> >> Once again. Suppose we have array of key-value pairs (two-dimensional
> >> array),
>
> > This is a forced example to fit the way Python can do it with a clean
> > syntax, but I don't think the
On May 25, 3:14 pm, John Bokma wrote:
> Ethan Furman writes:
> > Terry Reedy wrote:
> >> On 5/25/2011 8:01 AM, John Bokma wrote:
>
> >>> to. Like I already stated before: if Python is really so much better
> >>> than Python readability wise, why do I have such a hard time dropping
> >>> Perl and
