On Sun, Apr 21, 2019 at 8:43 AM DL Neil wrote:
> > Be aware that this is using an old form of Python syntax, not
> > supported by current versions. To try this example in a modern version
> > of Python, write it like this:
> >
> > for l in range(50):
> > print(l, end=" ")
>
>
> Python2: print
On 21/04/19 8:16 AM, Chris Angelico wrote:
On Sun, Apr 21, 2019 at 2:14 AM Dennis Lee Bieber wrote:
Only use short (single character) names for items that only exist as
loop control, and are not rebound within the loop, nor used outside of the
scope of that loop (but can be reused in a
On Sun, Apr 21, 2019 at 2:14 AM Dennis Lee Bieber wrote:
> Only use short (single character) names for items that only exist as
> loop control, and are not rebound within the loop, nor used outside of the
> scope of that loop (but can be reused in another subsequent loop
> control)...
>
>
On 2019-04-19, Stefan Ram wrote:
> Now consider the same in Python:
>
> def f():
> # ...
> l = 22 # representing a length
> # ...
> l = 'abc'; # representing the left half of something
> # ...
>
> A Python implementation does not catch the "error".
Obviously it is a deli
On 20-4-2019 12:47, Luuk wrote:
On 20-4-2019 11:26, wxjmfa...@gmail.com wrote:
http://unicode.org/mail-arch/unicode-ml/Archives-Old/UML018/0594.html
[quoot]
> It is simple to make a compacter version of UTF-8 using the base
> 256 character codes were possible (comacter for many languages).
On 20-4-2019 11:26, wxjmfa...@gmail.com wrote:
http://unicode.org/mail-arch/unicode-ml/Archives-Old/UML018/0594.html
[quoot]
> It is simple to make a compacter version of UTF-8 using the base
> 256 character codes were possible (comacter for many languages).
No. If you think otherwise, you ha
Gilmeh Serda writes:
> On Fri, 19 Apr 2019 21:01:05 +, Stefan Ram wrote:
>
>> Has this ever been a problem for someone?
>
> Only for programmers who come here from other languages and expect Python
> to behave in the same manner as their favorite language, so they try and
> argue that thi
On 19 Apr 2019 at 16:37, Tamara Berger wrote:
> What code can I use to break out of a program completely, and not just out
> of a loop?
exit(1)
... but this exits the python interpreter. inside a function, a return
statement might be more suitable.
> I wrote code with 3 conditions for saving
