Re: Interpreter Bug
> On 2 Jun 2021, at 10:34, Alice Braim wrote: > > Good morning- > > > > I am having some very serious issues with Python, and I was hoping you > could help? > > I downloaded both Python and PyCharm, and the 2 do not seem to be working. > Every time I select Python as an interpreter, the whole thing crashes. > Obviously, I went onto repairs, but even then it told me there was a > `fatal error'. I tried uninstalling and restarting multiple times, and > nothing improved. I've tried redownloading loads of times, no improvement. > I have the latest version (3.9.5) and there definitely seems to be > something going on at your end. Details please: Which OS which version of Python etc. What does crashes mean exactly? Was it PyCharm that crashes or python that crashes? Barry > > Any ideas? > > > > ~Alexa > > > -- > https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list > -- https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Interpreter Bug
Good morning- I am having some very serious issues with Python, and I was hoping you could help? I downloaded both Python and PyCharm, and the 2 do not seem to be working. Every time I select Python as an interpreter, the whole thing crashes. Obviously, I went onto repairs, but even then it told me there was a `fatal error'. I tried uninstalling and restarting multiple times, and nothing improved. I've tried redownloading loads of times, no improvement. I have the latest version (3.9.5) and there definitely seems to be something going on at your end. Any ideas? ~Alexa -- https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Python interpreter bug
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>Steve Holden wrote:
>>Consider:
>
>
> >>> a = {1:'one'}
> >>> b = {2:'two'}
> >>> c = {1:'one'}
> >>> a is c
> False
> >>> a in [b, c]
> True
> >>>
>
>
>>What would you have Python do differently in these circumstances?
>
>
> You mean: What i would do i if i was the benevolent dictator ?
> I would make a distinction between mutables and immutables. Immutables
> would test for equality and mutables would test for identity.
Which is exactly the wrong way round.
> Membership testing for objects is a very common use case which is
> totally unrelated to their being sorted according to a key.
> I am no expert on languages so i could be wrong. Don't hesitate to
> correct me.
> Alain
>
It's not worth bothering - just work with Python how it is, and enjoy
the language!
regards
Steve
--
Steve Holden +44 150 684 7255 +1 800 494 3119
Holden Web LLC www.holdenweb.com
PyCon TX 2006 www.python.org/pycon/
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Python interpreter bug
> Steve Holden wrote:
>Consider:
>>> a = {1:'one'}
>>> b = {2:'two'}
>>> c = {1:'one'}
>>> a is c
False
>>> a in [b, c]
True
>>>
>What would you have Python do differently in these circumstances?
You mean: What i would do i if i was the benevolent dictator ?
I would make a distinction between mutables and immutables. Immutables
would test for equality and mutables would test for identity.
Membership testing for objects is a very common use case which is
totally unrelated to their being sorted according to a key.
I am no expert on languages so i could be wrong. Don't hesitate to
correct me.
Alain
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Python interpreter bug
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> I understand this, Steve.
> I thought the _cmp_ method was a helper for sorting purposes. Why is it
> that a membership test needs to call the __cmp__ method?
Can you suggest another way to test for set membership, given that
instances aren't singletons? The only way to do so is to iterate over
the list, asking "are these the same instance", followed (in the case of
a "no" answer) by "are these two instances equal?".
Consider:
>>> a = {1:'one'}
>>> b = {2:'two'}
>>> c = {1:'one'}
>>> a is c
False
>>> a in [b, c]
True
>>>
What would you have Python do differently in these circumstances?
> If this isn't a bug, it is at least unexpected in my eyes.
Ah, right. So it's your eyes that need fixing! :-)
> Maybe a candidate for inclusion in the FAQ?
> Thank you for answering
A pleasure.
regards
Steve
--
Steve Holden +44 150 684 7255 +1 800 494 3119
Holden Web LLC www.holdenweb.com
PyCon TX 2006 www.python.org/pycon/
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Python interpreter bug
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> No doubt you're right but common sense dictates that membership testing
> would test identity not equality.
what does "common sense" have to say about this case:
>>> L = ("aa", "bb", "cc", "dd")
>>> S = "a" + "a"
>>> L
('aa', 'bb', 'cc', 'dd')
>>> S
'aa'
>>> S in L
# True or False ?
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Python interpreter bug
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > No doubt you're right but common sense dictates that membership testing > would test identity not equality. > This is one of the rare occasions where Python defeats my common sense But object identity is almost always a fairly ill-defined concept. Consider this (Python 2.2, 'cuz that's what I have right now): Python 2.2.3 (#1, Nov 12 2004, 13:02:04) [GCC 3.2.3 20030502 (Red Hat Linux 3.2.3-42)] on linux2 Type "help", "copyright", "credits" or "license" for more information. >>> al = "ab" >>> alp = al+"c" >>> alphabet = "abc" >>> al 'ab' >>> alp 'abc' >>> alphabet 'abc' >>> alp is alphabet 0 >>> alp == alphabet 1 # True on Py2.4 The only reliable thing that object identity tells you is "these two foos occupy the same memory location." Even for identical, immutable objects, this may not be true (see case above) -- some immutables do end up occupying the same memory location (try i=1;j=2;k=j-1;i is k), but this is by no means guraranteed, and indeed only happens sometimes because of optimizations. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Python interpreter bug
No doubt you're right but common sense dictates that membership testing would test identity not equality. This is one of the rare occasions where Python defeats my common sense ;-( Alain -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Python interpreter bug
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > In fact, i want to sort the list based on the 'allocated attribute' and > at the same time, test membership based on the id attribute. > __cmp__ logically implies an ordering test really? http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=compare com·pare v. com·pared, com·par·ing, com·pares v. tr. 1. To consider or describe as similar, equal, or analogous; liken. 2. To examine in order to note the similarities or differences of. /.../ > not an identity test. it's not an identity test. it's a comparision, and the "in" operator uses it to determine *equality*, not identity. you need to read up on object comparisions in the reference manual. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Python interpreter bug
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Sorry Fredrik but I don't understand. Just comment out the assert and
> you have different results depending on whether an unrelated sort
> function is defined.
> This seems weird to me !
code snippet:
> from random import choice
> class OBJ:
> def __init__(self,identifier):
> self.id=identifier
> self.allocated=0 # Your problem begins here...
> def __cmp__(self,other):
# it continues here
> return cmp(other.allocated,self.allocated)
> mylist=[OBJ(i) for i in range(20)]
> excluded=[obj for obj in mylist if obj.id>choice(range(20))]
> for obj in mylist:
> if obj in excluded: # and you see it in action here
> assert obj.id in [objt.id for objt in excluded]
> continue
How do you think the "membership" test works ? Could it be possible that
it uses the __cmp__ method ? And if so, how do you think your instances
will compare knowing that your __cmp__ method will return equality for
all the instances in this snippet ?
Just change your __init__ method to:
def __init__(self,identifier):
self.id=identifier
self.allocated=identifier
and rerun the test.
I don't think this is a bug...
--
bruno desthuilliers
python -c "print '@'.join(['.'.join([w[::-1] for w in p.split('.')]) for
p in '[EMAIL PROTECTED]'.split('@')])"
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Python interpreter bug
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > In fact, i want to sort the list based on the 'allocated attribute' and > at the same time, test membership based on the id attribute. > __cmp__ logically implies an ordering test, not an identity test. These > two notions seems to be confounded in python which is unfortunate. Two > objects could have the same rank while still being different. In that case, define __lt__ and __eq__ separately instead of __cmp__. list.sort() will use __lt__ if it's provided rather than __cmp__. -- Robert Kern [EMAIL PROTECTED] "In the fields of hell where the grass grows high Are the graves of dreams allowed to die." -- Richard Harter -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Python interpreter bug
On Fri, 2005-10-07 at 10:33, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > In fact, i want to sort the list based on the 'allocated attribute' and > at the same time, test membership based on the id attribute. > __cmp__ logically implies an ordering test, not an identity test. These > two notions seems to be confounded in python which is unfortunate. Two > objects could have the same rank while still being different. > Alain You could use the id in __cmp__ as a tie-breaker if the two objects have equal "allocated" values. By the way, __cmp__ is not an identity test. The "in" operator doesn't use object identity, it uses object equality, and __cmp__ does serve to test object equality (if no __eq__ method is present). Perhaps the following example will clarify the behavior of "in": >>> A = [1] >>> B = [1] >>> A==B True >>> A is B False >>> A in ["spam", 42, B] True HTH, Carsten Haese. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Python interpreter bug
For this, you can also define the __eq__ method, which will be preferred to __cmp__ for equallity tests while still using __cmp__ for searching / comparisons. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Python interpreter bug
In fact, i want to sort the list based on the 'allocated attribute' and at the same time, test membership based on the id attribute. __cmp__ logically implies an ordering test, not an identity test. These two notions seems to be confounded in python which is unfortunate. Two objects could have the same rank while still being different. Alain -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Python interpreter bug
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Why is it that a membership test needs to call the __cmp__ method? because the membership test has to check if the tested item is a member of the sequence. if it doesn't do that, it's hardly qualifies as a membership test. from the reference manual: For the list and tuple types, x in y is true if and only if there exists an index i such that x == y[i] is true. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Python interpreter bug
Your __cmp__ method will always return 0, so all objects will be equal when you add the method, as Simon and Steve pointed out. The result is all objects will pass the test of being a member of excluded. If you do not add a __cmp__ method objects will be compared on identy - call the id() function to see the identity of an object. An alternative would be Steve's proposal to compare on the id attribute instead of the allocated attribute -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Python interpreter bug
Your __cmp__ method will always return 0, so all objects will be equal when you add the method, as Simon and Steve pointed out. The result is all objects will pass the test of being a member of excluded. If you do not add a __cmp__ method objects will be compared on identy - call the id() function to see the identity of an object. An alternative would be Steve's proposal to compare on the id attribute instead of the allocated attribute -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Python interpreter bug
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Sorry Fredrik but I don't understand. Just comment out the assert and > you have different results depending on whether an unrelated sort > function is defined. > > This seems weird to me ! not if you look at what it prints. (if it seems weird to you that 0 equals 0, it's time for a break) -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Python interpreter bug
I understand this, Steve. I thought the _cmp_ method was a helper for sorting purposes. Why is it that a membership test needs to call the __cmp__ method? If this isn't a bug, it is at least unexpected in my eyes. Maybe a candidate for inclusion in the FAQ? Thank you for answering Alain -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Python interpreter bug
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Sorry Fredrik but I don't understand. Just comment out the assert and > you have different results depending on whether an unrelated sort > function is defined. > This seems weird to me ! > Perhaps you don't understand what's going on. The test obj in excluded is succeeding for all your objects because all instances of the OBJ class compare equal, and so the assert is failing for the ones that don;t actually appear in the "excluded" list. regards Steve -- Steve Holden +44 150 684 7255 +1 800 494 3119 Holden Web LLC www.holdenweb.com PyCon TX 2006 www.python.org/pycon/ -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Python interpreter bug
Sorry Fredrik but I don't understand. Just comment out the assert and you have different results depending on whether an unrelated sort function is defined. This seems weird to me ! -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Python interpreter bug
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > I came accross what i think is a serious bug in the python interpreter. > Membership testing seems not to work for list of objects when these > objects have a user-defined __cmp__ method. it does not work if they have *your* __cmp__ method, no. if you add a print statement to the method, you'll figure out why: def __cmp__(self,other): print "CMP", other.allocated, self.allocated return cmp(other.allocated,self.allocated) -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Python interpreter bug
There is definitely a bug. Maybe the follownig snippet is more clear: class OBJ: def __init__(self,identifier): self.id=identifier self.allocated=0 #def __cmp__(self,other): # return cmp(other.allocated,self.allocated) mylist=[OBJ(i) for i in range(10)] excluded=[obj for obj in mylist if obj.id in [2,4,6,8]] exclusion_list_by_id=[2,4,6,8] print 'exclusion list by id=',exclusion_list_by_id for obj in mylist: print 'current obj=',obj.id, if obj in excluded: print ' ---> THIS OBJECT IS EXCLUDED' assert obj.id in exclusion_list_by_id continue print If you uncomment the two lines, the assert will be erroneously triggered. Alain -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Python interpreter bug
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Hello, > > I came accross what i think is a serious bug in the python interpreter. > > Membership testing seems not to work for list of objects when these > objects have a user-defined __cmp__ method. > It is present in Python 2.3 and 2.4. I don't know about other versions. > The following code illustrates the bug: > from random import choice > class OBJ: > def __init__(self,identifier): > self.id=identifier > self.allocated=0 > def __cmp__(self,other): > return cmp(other.allocated,self.allocated) > mylist=[OBJ(i) for i in range(20)] > excluded=[obj for obj in mylist if obj.id>choice(range(20))] > for obj in mylist: > if obj in excluded: > assert obj.id in [objt.id for objt in excluded] > continue > I presume you just put the "continue" in there for fun? >>> for obj in mylist: ... print obj in excluded ... True True True True True True True True True True True True True True True True True True True True >>> OBJ(0) == OBJ(1) True > Running the above snippet will trigger the assert. The culprit seems to > be the __cmp__ method which sorts on a key with constant value. Well indeed. As far as I can see your objects will all test equal. Did you mean the __cmp__ method to return cmp(other.id, self.id)? regards Steve -- Steve Holden +44 150 684 7255 +1 800 494 3119 Holden Web LLC www.holdenweb.com PyCon TX 2006 www.python.org/pycon/ -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Python interpreter bug
Why would it be a bug? You've made it so that every instance of OBJ is equal to every other instance of OBJ. The behaviour is as expected. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Python interpreter bug
Hello, I came accross what i think is a serious bug in the python interpreter. Membership testing seems not to work for list of objects when these objects have a user-defined __cmp__ method. It is present in Python 2.3 and 2.4. I don't know about other versions. The following code illustrates the bug: from random import choice class OBJ: def __init__(self,identifier): self.id=identifier self.allocated=0 def __cmp__(self,other): return cmp(other.allocated,self.allocated) mylist=[OBJ(i) for i in range(20)] excluded=[obj for obj in mylist if obj.id>choice(range(20))] for obj in mylist: if obj in excluded: assert obj.id in [objt.id for objt in excluded] continue Running the above snippet will trigger the assert. The culprit seems to be the __cmp__ method which sorts on a key with constant value. Best regards Alain -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
