Steven D'Aprano wrote:
> On Tue, 20 Feb 2007 00:44:24 +0000, Peter mayne wrote:
>
>> Steven D'Aprano wrote:
>>> If Python 3 dropped the print
>>> statement and replaced it with official_print_function(), how would that
>>> help you in your goal
Steven D'Aprano wrote:
> If Python 3 dropped the print
> statement and replaced it with official_print_function(), how would that
> help you in your goal to have a single code base that will run on both
> Python 2.3 and Python 3, while still using print?
Is there any reason why official_print_func
Kay Schluehr wrote:
>
> This evening we talked at the Hofbraeuhaus at Munich about Michelangelo
> whose sixtine chapel images where once overpainted because his figures
> appeared naked "as god created them".
That's why Michelangelo didn't design the new Python web site: because
Google wouldn't
Torsten Bronger wrote:
>
Another example: is Java the bytecode, which is compiled from
Java the language, interpreted or not? Even when the HotSpot JIT
cuts in?
>>> It is partly interpreted and partly compiled. That's why it's
>>> faster than Python.
>> But Python is partly interpr
Torsten Bronger wrote:
>
> My definiton would be that an interpreted language has in its
> typical implementation an interpreting layer necessary for typical
> hardware. Of couse, now we could discuss what is "typical",
> however, in practice one would know it, I think. In case of Python:
> CPyt
Peter Hansen wrote:
In general, unless the names being imported are *guaranteed*
never to be rebound, it is a very bad idea to use "import *",
and it's still a bad idea in almost all cases anyway, for
reasons already given by others.
Since I've been playing with PyQt lately...
Is qt not one of the
