Steven D'Aprano wrote, on January 08, 2017 7:30 PM
>
> On Sunday 08 January 2017 20:53, Deborah Swanson wrote:
>
> > Steven D'Aprano wrote, on January 07, 2017 10:43 PM
>
> No, I'm pretty sure that's not the case. I don't have access
> to your CSV file,
> but I can simulate it:
>
> ls = [['Lo
Peter Otten wrote, on January 08, 2017 5:21 AM
>
> Deborah Swanson wrote:
>
> > Peter Otten wrote, on January 08, 2017 3:01 AM
>
> Personally I would recommend against mixing data (an actual location)
and
> metadata (the column name,"Location"), but if you wish my code can be
> adapted as fol
Steven D'Aprano wrote, on January 07, 2017 10:43 PM
>
> On Sunday 08 January 2017 16:39, Deborah Swanson wrote:
>
> The recommended way is with the _replace method:
>
> py> instance._replace(A=999)
> Record(A=999, B=20, C=30)
> py> instance._replace(A=999, C=888)
> Record(A=999, B=20, C=888)
>
On 1/5/2017 7:48 PM, Michael Torrie wrote:
> While Python can do that, using a web framework to process HTTP requests
> and generate HTML to display in the browser, I don't believe Python is
> the appropriate language for the task at hand. Most web sites that do
> interactive formula calculations
On Monday, January 9, 2017 at 10:19:31 AM UTC+5:30, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
> On Monday 09 January 2017 15:09, Chris Angelico wrote:
>
> > On Mon, Jan 9, 2017 at 2:53 PM, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
> >> [(tmp, tmp + 1) for x in data for tmp in [expensive_calculation(x)]]
> >>
> >>
> >> I can't decide w
On Mon, Jan 9, 2017 at 3:49 PM, Steven D'Aprano
wrote:
> Helper functions are good. Helper functions that are only used
> *once* are a code smell. *LOTS* of helper functions that are only used once
> are
> a sign that something is horrible, and it might just be your language...
Agreed, but with
On Monday 09 January 2017 15:09, Chris Angelico wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 9, 2017 at 2:53 PM, Steven D'Aprano
> wrote:
>> [(tmp, tmp + 1) for x in data for tmp in [expensive_calculation(x)]]
>>
>>
>> I can't decide whether that's an awesome trick or a horrible hack...
>
> A horrible hack on par with
On Mon, Jan 9, 2017 at 2:53 PM, Steven D'Aprano
wrote:
> [(tmp, tmp + 1) for x in data for tmp in [expensive_calculation(x)]]
>
>
> I can't decide whether that's an awesome trick or a horrible hack...
A horrible hack on par with abusing a recursive function's arguments
for private variables. Much
Suppose you have an expensive calculation that gets used two or more times in a
loop. The obvious way to avoid calculating it twice in an ordinary loop is with
a temporary variable:
result = []
for x in data:
tmp = expensive_calculation(x)
result.append((tmp, tmp+1))
But what if you ar
On Sunday 08 January 2017 20:53, Deborah Swanson wrote:
> Steven D'Aprano wrote, on January 07, 2017 10:43 PM
>>
>> On Sunday 08 January 2017 16:39, Deborah Swanson wrote:
>>
>> > What I've done so far:
>> >
>> > with open('E:\\Coding projects\\Pycharm\\Moving\\Moving
>> 2017 in.csv',
>> > 'r')
Tim Daneliuk wrote, on January 08, 2017 4:49 PM
>
> On 01/08/2017 06:18 PM, Deborah Swanson wrote:
> > (haha, unless
> > you ask)
>
> C'mon, go for it ... there hasn't been a good rant here in
> 4 or 5 minutes ...
Oh hell. (How do I tell him I was up til 8am this morning, only got a
few hours sl
On 01/08/2017 06:18 PM, Deborah Swanson wrote:
> (haha, unless
> you ask)
C'mon, go for it ... there hasn't been a good rant here in
4 or 5 minutes ...
--
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
On Friday, January 6, 2017 at 6:04:33 AM UTC-8, Peter Otten wrote:
> Example: you are looking for the minimum absolute value in a series of
> integers. As soon as you encounter the first 0 it's unnecessary extra work
> to check the remaining values, but the builtin min() will continue.
>
> The s
Steven D'Aprano wrote, on January 07, 2017 11:37 PM
>
> Grumpy, an experimental project from Google, transpiles
> Python code into Go, allowing Python programs to be compiled
> and run as static binaries using the Go toolchain.
>
>
>
http://www.infoworld.com/article/3154624/application-develo
On Samstag, 7. Januar 2017 19:07:55 Clint Moyer wrote:
> I would lightly advise against, assuming both Pip and your package
> manager are trying to accomplish nearly the same thing. Stick with
> updating through the repo.
>
> If you find that the version your OS provides is out-of-date compared
>
Paul Rudin wrote, on January 08, 2017 6:49 AM
>
> "Deborah Swanson" writes:
>
> > Peter Otten wrote, on January 08, 2017 3:01 AM
> >>
> >> columnA = [record.A for record in records]
> >
> > This is very neat. Something like a list comprehension for named
> > tuples?
>
> Not something like - t
Jussi Piitulainen writes:
> It could still be added as an option, to both takewhile and iter(_, _).
That's too messy, it really should be pervasive in iterators.
--
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Peter Otten <__pete...@web.de> writes:
> return min(take_until(), key=firstitem)[1]
Actually, key=abs should work. I realized that after posting.
--
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
"Deborah Swanson" writes:
> Peter Otten wrote, on January 08, 2017 3:01 AM
>>
>> columnA = [record.A for record in records]
>
> This is very neat. Something like a list comprehension for named tuples?
Not something like - this *is* a list comprehension - it creates a list
of named tuples.
The
Peter Otten wrote, on January 08, 2017 5:21 AM
>
> Deborah Swanson wrote:
>
> > Peter Otten wrote, on January 08, 2017 3:01 AM
> >>
> >> Deborah Swanson wrote:
> >>
> >> > to do that is with .fget(). Believe me, I tried every > possible
> >> > way
> > to
> >> > use instance.A or instance[1] an
Deborah Swanson wrote:
> Peter Otten wrote, on January 08, 2017 3:01 AM
>>
>> Deborah Swanson wrote:
>>
>> > to do that is with .fget(). Believe me, I tried every > possible way
> to
>> > use instance.A or instance[1] and no way could I get ls[instance.A].
>>
>> Sorry, no.
>
> I quite agree, I
Paul Rubin writes:
> I think Python's version of iterators is actually buggy and at least
> the first element of the rest of the sequence should be preserved.
> There are ways to fake it but they're too messy for something like
> this. It should be the default and might have been a good change fo
Paul Rubin writes:
> Jussi Piitulainen writes:
>> That would return 0 even when there is no 0 in xs at all.
>
> Doesn't look that way to me:
>
> >>> minabs([5,3,1,2,4])
> 1
Sorry about that. I honestly meant to say it would return 1 even when
there was a single 0 at the very end. Somehow
Peter Otten wrote, on January 08, 2017 3:01 AM
>
> Deborah Swanson wrote:
>
> > to do that is with .fget(). Believe me, I tried every > possible way
to
> > use instance.A or instance[1] and no way could I get ls[instance.A].
>
> Sorry, no.
I quite agree, I was describing the dead end I was in
Paul Rubin wrote:
> Paul Rubin writes:
>> seems to work, but is ugly. Maybe there's something better.
>
> def minabs2(xs):
> def z():
> for x in xs:
> yield abs(x), x
> if x==0: break
> return min(z())[1]
>
> is the same thing but
Deborah Swanson wrote:
> to do that is with .fget(). Believe me, I tried every possible way to
> use instance.A or instance[1] and no way could I get ls[instance.A].
Sorry, no.
To get a list of namedtuple instances use:
rows = csv.reader(infile)
Record = namedtuple("Record", next(rows))
records
Paul Rubin writes:
> seems to work, but is ugly. Maybe there's something better.
def minabs2(xs):
def z():
for x in xs:
yield abs(x), x
if x==0: break
return min(z())[1]
is the same thing but a little bit nicer.
--
https://mail.py
Paul Rubin writes:
> Doesn't look that way to me:
> >>> minabs([5,3,1,2,4])
> 1
There's a different problem though:
>>> minabs([1,2,3,0])
1
I think Python's version of iterators is actually buggy and at least the
first element of the rest of the sequence should be preserved. Th
Steven D'Aprano wrote, on January 07, 2017 10:43 PM
>
> On Sunday 08 January 2017 16:39, Deborah Swanson wrote:
>
> > What I've done so far:
> >
> > with open('E:\\Coding projects\\Pycharm\\Moving\\Moving
> 2017 in.csv',
> > 'r') as infile:
> > ls = list(csv.reader(infile))
> > lst = na
Jussi Piitulainen writes:
> That would return 0 even when there is no 0 in xs at all.
Doesn't look that way to me:
>>> minabs([5,3,1,2,4])
1
--
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
30 matches
Mail list logo
