For R, and others who haven't read the PEP or worked a lot with the
web, here are some really strong advantages of the new string
formatting over the old.
Note: I'm not saying that you have to use one or the other. I'm just
pointing out some of the things that the new format gives us - things
You know, it is so much easier to find my posts now that someone has
been thoughtful enough to mark them for me. Thank you kind chaps, i
shall leave a shiny new nickel for you, just send me your name,
address, and phone numbers. I'll get them in the mail right away.
--
On Dec 21, 12:28 pm, Bruno Desthuilliers
bdesth.quelquech...@free.quelquepart.fr wrote:
I can see where the new formatting might be helpful in some cases.
But, I am not sure it's worth the cost.
Err... _Which_ cost exactly ?
Loss of backward compatibility, mainly.
--
On 19 dic, 13:01, walterbyrd walterb...@iname.com wrote:
I have not worked with Python enough to really know. But, it seems to
me that more I look at python 3.0, the more I wonder if it isn't a
step backwards.
To me, it seems that this:
print %s=%d % ('this',99)
Is much easier, and
On Dec 29, 7:37 pm, Luis M. González luis...@gmail.com wrote:
I still can't get used to add the parenthesis to print, and this is
the only thing I don't like, but I'm sure there's a good reason for
this change...
I should know better than to post such an awful hack:
__past__.py:
from sys
On Mon, 29 Dec 2008 09:50:14 -0800, walterbyrd wrote:
On Dec 21, 12:28 pm, Bruno Desthuilliers
bdesth.quelquech...@free.quelquepart.fr wrote:
I can see where the new formatting might be helpful in some cases.
But, I am not sure it's worth the cost.
Err... _Which_ cost exactly ?
Loss
On Dec 29, 9:44 pm, Steven D'Aprano st...@remove-this-
cybersource.com.au wrote:
How do you lose backward compatibility by *adding* new functionality? The
old functionality will continue to work as normal.
--
Steven
AFAIK it still works the old way, but it will be deprecated soon.
--
Bruno Desthuilliers wrote:
... Now improvements are always welcomes, and if you compare 1.5.2 with
2.5.1, you'll find out that the core developpers did improve Python's
perfs.
Cool, palindromic inverses as compatible versions!
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
On Dec 22, 7:26 pm, Steven D'Aprano
ste...@remove.this.cybersource.com.au wrote:
On Mon, 22 Dec 2008 06:58:06 -0800, walterbyrd wrote:
On Dec 21, 12:28 pm, Bruno Desthuilliers
bdesth.quelquech...@free.quelquepart.fr wrote:
Strange enough,
no one seems to complain about PHP or Ruby's
On Dec 21, 8:42 pm, MRAB goo...@mrabarnett.plus.com wrote:
Aaron Brady wrote:
On Dec 21, 6:14 pm, MRAB goo...@mrabarnett.plus.com wrote:
snip
Yes, I suggested that earlier, but it isn't needed because you can
create a format object with Format(string). However, most of the time
you won't
On Dec 21, 12:28 pm, Bruno Desthuilliers
bdesth.quelquech...@free.quelquepart.fr wrote:
Strange enough,
no one seems to complain about PHP or Ruby's performances...
A few years back, there was a certain amount of chest thumping, when
python/django easily beat ror in a benchmark test. Now that
r wrote:
Steven,
Would you like to elaborate on -why- escaped backslashes are needed in
strings... i waiting???
Some character was needed. It just happens that backslashes have been
used in this manner for composing nonprintable sequences, codes, etc.
It's only in use because someone
walterbyrd wrote:
On Dec 21, 12:28 pm, Bruno Desthuilliers
bdesth.quelquech...@free.quelquepart.fr wrote:
Strange enough,
no one seems to complain about PHP or Ruby's performances...
A few years back, there was a certain amount of chest thumping, when
python/django easily beat ror in a
r wrote:
Thanks MRAB,
except the float is not 2 decimal places, but its there
Come on... They did this for the interpreter not us. It's easer to
parse this string with positional arguments and a dict of format
descriptions. Come on pydev, at least be honest about it!
No. They did this for
Michael Torrie wrote:
r wrote:
Steven,
Would you like to elaborate on -why- escaped backslashes are needed in
strings... i waiting???
Some character was needed. It just happens that backslashes have been
used in this manner for composing nonprintable sequences, codes, etc.
It's only in use
On Dec 22, 8:58 am, walterbyrd walterb...@iname.com wrote:
On Dec 21, 12:28 pm, Bruno Desthuilliers
bdesth.quelquech...@free.quelquepart.fr wrote:
Strange enough,
no one seems to complain about PHP or Ruby's performances...
A few years back, there was a certain amount of chest thumping,
walterbyrd a écrit :
On Dec 21, 12:28 pm, Bruno Desthuilliers
bdesth.quelquech...@free.quelquepart.fr wrote:
Strange enough,
no one seems to complain about PHP or Ruby's performances...
A few years back, there was a certain amount of chest thumping, when
python/django easily beat ror in a
On Dec 22, 12:36 pm, Bruno Desthuilliers
bdesth.quelquech...@free.quelquepart.fr wrote:
As far as I'm concerned, I don't think Python is superior (OMG), I
think it's a good language that happens to fit my brain *and* solve more
than 80% of my programmer's needs. If you're not happy with
Steven D'Aprano st...@remove-this-cybersource.com.au writes:
Instead of just whinging, how about making a suggestion to fix it? Go on,
sit down for an hour or ten and try to work out how a BINARY OPERATOR
like % (that means it can only take TWO arguments) can deal with an
arbitrary number
On Dec 22, 11:40 am, r rt8...@gmail.com wrote:
On Dec 22, 8:58 am, walterbyrd walterb...@iname.com wrote:
On Dec 21, 12:28 pm, Bruno Desthuilliers
bdesth.quelquech...@free.quelquepart.fr wrote:
Strange enough,
no one seems to complain about PHP or Ruby's performances...
A few
On Dec 22, 5:53 pm, Aaron Brady castiro...@gmail.com wrote:
On Dec 22, 11:40 am, r rt8...@gmail.com wrote:
On Dec 22, 8:58 am, walterbyrd walterb...@iname.com wrote:
On Dec 21, 12:28 pm, Bruno Desthuilliers
bdesth.quelquech...@free.quelquepart.fr wrote:
Strange enough,
no one
On Mon, 22 Dec 2008 06:58:06 -0800, walterbyrd wrote:
On Dec 21, 12:28 pm, Bruno Desthuilliers
bdesth.quelquech...@free.quelquepart.fr wrote:
Strange enough,
no one seems to complain about PHP or Ruby's performances...
A few years back, there was a certain amount of chest thumping, when
On Sat, Dec 20, 2008 at 10:15 PM, r rt8...@gmail.com wrote:
On Dec 20, 11:11 pm, walterbyrd walterb...@iname.com wrote:
On Dec 20, 5:05 pm, Roy Smith r...@panix.com
He got really hung up on the % syntax.
I guess it's good to know that there is, at least, one person in the
world doesn't
On Sat, 20 Dec 2008 22:15:23 -0800, r wrote:
It would be nice to get a vote together and see what does the average
pythoneer want? What do they like, What do they dislike. What is the
state of the Python Union? Does anybody know, Does anybody care? I think
python is slipping away from it's
On Sat, 20 Dec 2008 15:27:43 -0800, walterbyrd wrote:
On Dec 19, 10:25 am, Michael Torrie torr...@gmail.com wrote:
Personally the new string formatter is sorely needed in Python.
Really? You know, it's funny, but when I read problems that people have
with python, I don't remember seeing
On Sun, 21 Dec 2008 00:57:46 -0800, Patrick Mullen wrote:
2) In my experience, major version changes tend to be slower than
before. When a lot of things change, especially if very low-level
things change, as happened in python 3.0, the new code has not yet went
through many years of revision
On Dec 20, 8:26 pm, Steven D'Aprano st...@remove-this-
cybersource.com.au wrote:
On Sat, 20 Dec 2008 17:55:35 -0800, Aaron Brady wrote:
snip
This behavior is currently legal:
%i %%i % 0 % 1
'0 1'
So, just extend it. (Unproduced.)
%i %i % 0 % 1
'0 1'
Errors should never pass
On Dec 20, 8:49 pm, MRAB goo...@mrabarnett.plus.com wrote:
Aaron Brady wrote:
On Dec 20, 7:38 pm, Steven D'Aprano st...@remove-this-
cybersource.com.au wrote:
Instead of just whinging, how about making a suggestion to fix it? Go on,
sit down for an hour or ten and try to work out how a
Steven D'Aprano st...@remove-this-cybersource.com.au wrote:
Errors should never pass silently, unless explicitly silenced. You
have implicitly silenced the TypeError you get from not having enough
arguments for the first format operation. That means that you will
introduce ambiguity and
On Sun, 21 Dec 2008 12:45:32 +, Duncan Booth wrote:
You seem to have made an unwarranted assumption, namely that a binary
operator has to compile to a function with two operands. There is no
particular reason why this has to always be the case: for example, I
believe that C# when given
On Sun, 21 Dec 2008 12:45:32 +, Duncan Booth wrote:
Steven D'Aprano st...@remove-this-cybersource.com.au wrote:
Errors should never pass silently, unless explicitly silenced. You have
implicitly silenced the TypeError you get from not having enough
arguments for the first format
r wrote:
On Dec 20, 11:11 pm, walterbyrd walterb...@iname.com wrote:
On Dec 20, 5:05 pm, Roy Smith r...@panix.com
He got really hung up on the % syntax.
I guess it's good to know that there is, at least, one person in the
world doesn't like the % formatting. As least the move was not
Marc Many newbie code I have seen avoids it by string concatenation:
Marc greeting = 'Hello, my name is ' + name + ' and I am ' + str(age) + '
old.'
Marc That's some kind of indirect complaint. :-)
I see Python code like that written by people with a C/C++ background. I
don't
Marc 'BlackJack' Rintsch bj_...@gmx.net wrote:
a+b+c+d might execute a.__add__(b,c,d) allowing more efficient string
concatenations or matrix operations, and a%b%c%d might execute as
a.__mod__(b,c,d).
But that needs special casing strings and ``%`` in the comiler, because
it might not be
Steven D'Aprano st...@remove-this-cybersource.com.au wrote:
a+b+c+d might execute a.__add__(b,c,d) allowing more efficient string
concatenations or matrix operations, and a%b%c%d might execute as
a.__mod__(b,c,d).
That's only plausible if the operations are associative. Addition is
On Dec 21, 7:34 am, Marc 'BlackJack' Rintsch bj_...@gmx.net wrote:
On Sun, 21 Dec 2008 12:45:32 +, Duncan Booth wrote:
You seem to have made an unwarranted assumption, namely that a binary
operator has to compile to a function with two operands. There is no
particular reason why this
On Dec 21, 8:50 am, Steve Holden st...@holdenweb.com wrote:
r wrote:
snip
This all really comes down to the new python users. Yea, i said it.
Not rabid fanboys like Steven and myself.(i can't speak for walter but
i think he would agree) Are we going to make sure joe-blow python
newbie
Duncan Booth wrote:
I don't see that. What I suggested was that a % b % c would map to
a.__mod__(b,c). (a % b) % c would also map to that, but a % (b % c) could
only possibly map to a.__mod__(b.__mod__(c))
There's a compiling problem here, no? You don't want a%b%c to implement as
On Sun, 21 Dec 2008 15:30:34 +, Duncan Booth wrote:
Marc 'BlackJack' Rintsch bj_...@gmx.net wrote:
a+b+c+d might execute a.__add__(b,c,d) allowing more efficient string
concatenations or matrix operations, and a%b%c%d might execute as
a.__mod__(b,c,d).
But that needs special casing
Aaron Brady wrote:
On Dec 20, 8:49 pm, MRAB goo...@mrabarnett.plus.com wrote:
Aaron Brady wrote:
On Dec 20, 7:38 pm, Steven D'Aprano st...@remove-this-
cybersource.com.au wrote:
Instead of just whinging, how about making a suggestion to fix it? Go on,
sit down for an hour or ten and try to
On Dec 21, 10:31 am, MRAB goo...@mrabarnett.plus.com wrote:
Aaron Brady wrote:
On Dec 20, 8:49 pm, MRAB goo...@mrabarnett.plus.com wrote:
Aaron Brady wrote:
On Dec 20, 7:38 pm, Steven D'Aprano st...@remove-this-
cybersource.com.au wrote:
Instead of just whinging, how about making a
Aaron Brady wrote:
On Dec 21, 10:31 am, MRAB goo...@mrabarnett.plus.com wrote:
Aaron Brady wrote:
On Dec 20, 8:49 pm, MRAB goo...@mrabarnett.plus.com wrote:
Aaron Brady wrote:
On Dec 20, 7:38 pm, Steven D'Aprano st...@remove-this-
cybersource.com.au wrote:
Instead of just whinging, how
MRAB:
Interesting. The re module uses a form of bytecode. Not sure about the
relative cost of the dispatch code, though.
I was talking about the main CPython VM, but the same ideas may be
adapted for the RE engine too.
Bye,
bearophile
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Patrick Mullen schrieb:
2) In my experience, major version changes tend to be slower than
before. When a lot of things change, especially if very low-level
things change, as happened in python 3.0, the new code has not yet
went through many years of revision and optimization that the old code
I noticed when i mentioned self nobody wants to touch that subject.
There could be many reasons why...
0.) nobody but the 10 regulars i see here exists
1.) nobody cares(doubt it)
2.) nobody is brave enough to question it(maybe)
3.) most people like to type self over and over again(doubt it)
4.)
Quoting r rt8...@gmail.com:
I noticed when i mentioned self nobody wants to touch that subject.
There could be many reasons why...
0.) nobody but the 10 regulars i see here exists
1.) nobody cares(doubt it)
2.) nobody is brave enough to question it(maybe)
3.) most people like to type
r wrote:
I noticed when i mentioned self nobody wants to touch that subject.
There could be many reasons why...
0.) nobody but the 10 regulars i see here exists
1.) nobody cares(doubt it)
2.) nobody is brave enough to question it(maybe)
3.) most people like to type self over and over
On Sun, Dec 21, 2008 at 11:26 AM, r rt8...@gmail.com wrote:
I noticed when i mentioned self nobody wants to touch that subject.
There could be many reasons why...
0.) nobody but the 10 regulars i see here exists
1.) nobody cares(doubt it)
2.) nobody is brave enough to question it(maybe)
3.)
r a écrit :
(snip clueless rant)
One more big complaint THE BACKSLASH PLAGUE. ever tried regexp?
Yes.
exp = re.compile(rno \problem \with \backslashes)
, or
file paths?.
You mean _dos/windows_ file path separator ? It was indeed a stupid
choice _from microsoft_ to choose the by then
walterbyrd a écrit :
On Dec 20, 5:05 pm, Roy Smith r...@panix.com
He got really hung up on the % syntax.
I guess it's good to know that there is, at least, one person in the
world doesn't like the % formatting. As least the move was not
entirely pointless.
But, you must admit, of all the
r a écrit :
I noticed when i mentioned self nobody wants to touch that subject.
There could be many reasons why...
0.) nobody but the 10 regulars i see here exists
1.) nobody cares(doubt it)
2.) nobody is brave enough to question it(maybe)
3.) most people like to type self over and over
Hey Bruno,
Thanks for spelling it out for me :D
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Bruno,
I thought i had already gone up, up, and away to your kill filter.
hmm, guess you had a change of heart ;D
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
On Sun, Dec 21, 2008 at 2:26 PM, r rt8...@gmail.com wrote:
I noticed when i mentioned self nobody wants to touch that subject.
There could be many reasons why...
0.) nobody but the 10 regulars i see here exists
if you only see 10 people, you must not be following this list very well.
On Dec 21, 10:58 am, MRAB goo...@mrabarnett.plus.com wrote:
Aaron Brady wrote:
On Dec 21, 10:31 am, MRAB goo...@mrabarnett.plus.com wrote:
snip
The original format is a string. The result of '%' is a string if
there's only 1 placeholder to fill, or a (partial) format object (class
Aaron Brady wrote:
On Dec 21, 10:58 am, MRAB goo...@mrabarnett.plus.com wrote:
Aaron Brady wrote:
On Dec 21, 10:31 am, MRAB goo...@mrabarnett.plus.com wrote:
snip
The original format is a string. The result of '%' is a string if
there's only 1 placeholder to fill, or a (partial) format
On Dec 21, 10:11 am, r rt8...@gmail.com wrote:
Most of the complaints i hear are the redundant use of self.
Which I lamented about but have become accustom(brainwashed) to it. I
would remove this if it where up to me.
It's a shame Python wasn't released under some kind of license, one
that
On Mon, Dec 22, 2008 at 11:37 AM, alex23 wuwe...@gmail.com wrote:
On Dec 21, 10:11 am, r rt8...@gmail.com wrote:
Most of the complaints i hear are the redundant use of self.
Which I lamented about but have become accustom(brainwashed) to it. I
would remove this if it where up to me.
It's a
On Dec 21, 6:14 pm, MRAB goo...@mrabarnett.plus.com wrote:
Aaron Brady wrote:
On Dec 21, 10:58 am, MRAB goo...@mrabarnett.plus.com wrote:
Aaron Brady wrote:
On Dec 21, 10:31 am, MRAB goo...@mrabarnett.plus.com wrote:
snip
The original format is a string. The result of '%' is a string if
Aaron Brady wrote:
On Dec 21, 6:14 pm, MRAB goo...@mrabarnett.plus.com wrote:
Aaron Brady wrote:
On Dec 21, 10:58 am, MRAB goo...@mrabarnett.plus.com wrote:
Aaron Brady wrote:
On Dec 21, 10:31 am, MRAB goo...@mrabarnett.plus.com wrote:
snip
The original format is a string. The result of
On Sat, Dec 20, 2008 at 12:30 AM, r rt8...@gmail.com wrote:
Why could't we improve on what we had instead of
making radical changes? Thats all i am asking.
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Often times improving on what you have involves radical changes, especially
if
Steven D'Aprano wrote:
I have no objection to
the addition of the format() method (although I wonder whether it might
have been better as a function).
I actually learned about the String.format() method in Java a while after
having read about str.format() in Python, and my first reaction was
On Fri, 19 Dec 2008 17:12:00 -0800, r wrote:
Marc,
Why move away from a concise and widely accepted way of sting
formatting, just to supposedly make it a little easier for n00bs? (which
i disagree this is easier) In turn, creating more syntactical clutter.
(%s %f %d) is all you need to
Stefan Behnel wrote:
[...]
I think '...'.format() makes sense given that we already have '...'.join().
Sure it does, but that doesn't stop a lot of people disliking str.join()
regards
Steve
--
Steve Holden+1 571 484 6266 +1 800 494 3119
Holden Web LLC
r wrote:
On Dec 19, 10:04 pm, Steve Holden st...@holdenweb.com wrote:
r wrote:
Thanks Steven,
We need a real Pepsi challenge here to show the insignificance of this
change. I am not against change. But when we lose something as -
compact- as %formating i'm going to want to see a damn good
On Dec 19, 12:43 pm, excord80 excor...@gmail.com wrote:
Also, I like having only *one* special symbol (`%') to worry
about in my strings instead of two (`{' and `}').
Actually the new way has, at least three special symbols: ( '{', '}' ,
'.') as well as the method name format so
%s=%s % (k,
On Dec 19, 10:25 am, Michael Torrie torr...@gmail.com wrote:
Personally the new string formatter is sorely needed in Python.
Really? You know, it's funny, but when I read problems that people
have with python, I don't remember seeing that. Loads of people
complain about the white space issue.
Walter,
Would you be kind enough to translate this code to the new syntax?
s = 'python'
n = 12
f = 1.3
'%s %05d %0.2f' %(s,n,f)
'python 00012 1.33'
i want to see how casting is handled. Thanks
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
On Dec 19, 10:55 am, bearophileh...@lycos.com wrote:
Regarding the speed of Python3 programs,
they will go faster
The net result of the 3.0 generalizations is that Python 3.0 runs the
pystone benchmark around 10% slower than Python 2.5.
http://docs.python.org/dev/3.0/whatsnew/3.0.html
On Dec 20, 4:34 pm, r rt8...@gmail.com wrote:
Walter,
Would you be kind enough to translate this code to the new syntax?
I am sorry, but I just don't know the new syntax well enough. I am not
sure if the examples that I have posted, so far, are correct.
--
Thanks, i understand. Maybe some of the pro new syntax guys will
show a translation
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
walterbyrd wrote:
On Dec 19, 12:43 pm, excord80 excor...@gmail.com wrote:
Also, I like having only *one* special symbol (`%') to worry
about in my strings instead of two (`{' and `}').
Actually the new way has, at least three special symbols: ( '{', '}' ,
'.') as well as the method name
Just to be on record, i am OK with adding a new way to do this as long
as the old C style str format does not ever go away. I don't like 20
ways to do the same thing, but i really like the compact way of
%formating now. My complaint is the deprecation of %formating. Maybe
i'll use the new syntax
In article
b58f588a-e8db-41df-a488-f7df62d56...@w39g2000prb.googlegroups.com,
walterbyrd walterb...@iname.com wrote:
On Dec 19, 10:25 am, Michael Torrie torr...@gmail.com wrote:
Personally the new string formatter is sorely needed in Python.
Really? You know, it's funny, but when I
On Dec 20, 5:27 pm, walterbyrd walterb...@iname.com wrote:
On Dec 19, 10:25 am, Michael Torrie torr...@gmail.com wrote:
Personally the new string formatter is sorely needed in Python.
Really? You know, it's funny, but when I read problems that people
have with python, I don't remember
r wrote:
Walter,
Would you be kind enough to translate this code to the new syntax?
s = 'python'
n = 12
f = 1.3
'%s %05d %0.2f' %(s,n,f)
'python 00012 1.33'
i want to see how casting is handled. Thanks
'{0} {1:05} {2:.2}'.format(s, n, f)
'python 00012 1.3'
--
On Dec 20, 6:05 pm, Roy Smith r...@panix.com wrote:
In article
b58f588a-e8db-41df-a488-f7df62d56...@w39g2000prb.googlegroups.com,
walterbyrd walterb...@iname.com wrote:
On Dec 19, 10:25 am, Michael Torrie torr...@gmail.com wrote:
Personally the new string formatter is sorely needed in
Thanks MRAB,
except the float is not 2 decimal places, but its there
Come on... They did this for the interpreter not us. It's easer to
parse this string with positional arguments and a dict of format
descriptions. Come on pydev, at least be honest about it!
--
walterbyrd:
As I understand it, that may have been true at one time. But, Ruby 1.9
very significantly sped up the language. While Python has been made
slower, Ruby has been made much faster.
I have already answered regarding Python3 in this thread. Regarding
Ruby you are right, in computer
In article
6b4176c3-49ce-4e7c-bced-07d8d19bc...@s20g2000yqh.googlegroups.com,
r rt8...@gmail.com wrote:
You can't just blindly Parrot off.. well CPU's get faster every
year.
Sure you can :-) There was a nice treatment of this on slashdot today
r wrote:
Thanks MRAB,
except the float is not 2 decimal places, but its there
Oops!
'{0} {1:05} {2:.2f}'.format(s, n, f)
'python 00012 1.33'
'{0:s} {1:05d} {2:.2f}'.format(s, n, f)
'python 00012 1.33'
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
On Sat, 20 Dec 2008 16:20:38 -0800, r wrote:
On Dec 20, 6:05 pm, Roy Smith r...@panix.com wrote:
I had an interesting experience with this recently. I was giving a
co-worker quick python into. He's an experienced programer in various
languages, but this was his first exposure to python.
On Sat, 20 Dec 2008 15:27:43 -0800, walterbyrd wrote:
On Dec 19, 10:25 am, Michael Torrie torr...@gmail.com wrote:
Personally the new string formatter is sorely needed in Python.
Really? You know, it's funny, but when I read problems that people have
with python, I don't remember seeing
On Dec 20, 7:38 pm, Steven D'Aprano st...@remove-this-
cybersource.com.au wrote:
On Sat, 20 Dec 2008 16:20:38 -0800, r wrote:
On Dec 20, 6:05 pm, Roy Smith r...@panix.com wrote:
I had an interesting experience with this recently. I was giving a
co-worker quick python into. He's an
On Dec 20, 7:38 pm, Steven D'Aprano st...@remove-this-
cybersource.com.au wrote:
Instead of just whinging, how about making a suggestion to fix it? Go on,
sit down for an hour or ten and try to work out how a BINARY OPERATOR
like % (that means it can only take TWO arguments) can deal with an
On Sat, 20 Dec 2008 16:01:58 -0800, r wrote:
Just to be on record, i am OK with adding a new way to do this as long
as the old C style str format does not ever go away. I don't like 20
ways to do the same thing, but i really like the compact way of
%formating now.
% formatting isn't compact
On Sat, 20 Dec 2008 17:54:09 -0800, r wrote:
Would you like to elaborate on -why- escaped backslashes are needed in
strings... i waiting???
If you can't escape backslashes in strings, how do you create a string
containing a backslash?
--
Steven
--
bearophileh...@lycos.com wrote:
walterbyrd:
As I understand it, that may have been true at one time. But, Ruby 1.9
very significantly sped up the language. While Python has been made
slower, Ruby has been made much faster.
I have already answered regarding Python3 in this thread. Regarding
Answering a question with a question, that leaves me with a question
of my own??
Instead of just whinging, how about making a suggestion to fix it? Go on,
sit down for an hour or ten and try to work out how a BINARY OPERATOR
like % (that means it can only take TWO arguments) can deal with an
On Sat, 20 Dec 2008 17:55:35 -0800, Aaron Brady wrote:
On Dec 20, 7:38 pm, Steven D'Aprano st...@remove-this-
cybersource.com.au wrote:
Instead of just whinging, how about making a suggestion to fix it? Go
on, sit down for an hour or ten and try to work out how a BINARY
OPERATOR like % (that
Aaron Brady wrote:
On Dec 20, 7:38 pm, Steven D'Aprano st...@remove-this-
cybersource.com.au wrote:
Instead of just whinging, how about making a suggestion to fix it? Go on,
sit down for an hour or ten and try to work out how a BINARY OPERATOR
like % (that means it can only take TWO arguments)
On Sat, 20 Dec 2008 18:23:00 -0800, r wrote:
Answering a question with a question, that leaves me with a question of
my own??
Instead of just whinging, how about making a suggestion to fix it? Go
on, sit down for an hour or ten and try to work out how a BINARY
OPERATOR like % (that means
On Dec 20, 5:05 pm, Roy Smith r...@panix.com
He got really hung up on the % syntax.
I guess it's good to know that there is, at least, one person in the
world doesn't like the % formatting. As least the move was not
entirely pointless.
But, you must admit, of all the things people complain
On 20 Dez., 02:54, Steven D'Aprano st...@remove-this-
cybersource.com.au wrote:
Debated by who? The entire Python-using community? Every single Python
programmer? Or just the small proportion of Python developers who are
also core developers?
If I'd asked people what they wanted, they would
On Dec 20, 11:11 pm, walterbyrd walterb...@iname.com wrote:
On Dec 20, 5:05 pm, Roy Smith r...@panix.com
He got really hung up on the % syntax.
I guess it's good to know that there is, at least, one person in the
world doesn't like the % formatting. As least the move was not
entirely
I have not worked with Python enough to really know. But, it seems to
me that more I look at python 3.0, the more I wonder if it isn't a
step backwards.
To me, it seems that this:
print %s=%d % ('this',99)
Is much easier, and faster, to type, and is also easier to read and
understand. It also
On 19 Dic, 17:01, walterbyrd walterb...@iname.com wrote:
I have not worked with Python enough to really know. But, it seems to
me that more I look at python 3.0, the more I wonder if it isn't a
step backwards.
To me, it seems that this:
print %s=%d % ('this',99)
Is much easier, and
if 3.0 looks like... print( {0}={1}.format('this',99)) , WTF...
thats retarded and looks like Ruby code. Thats not intuitive thats
madness! What happens when you need a conversion to string from an
integer, more code?? My faith is slipping. Have the python Gods gone
mad??. Please tell me i am
On Dec 19, 9:13 am, Giampaolo Rodola' gne...@gmail.com wrote:
You can use the old 2.x syntax also in Python 3.x:
Yeah, but it's deprecated, and - as I understand it - may be removed
completely in future versions. Also, in the future, if you are working
with code from another developer, it's
r wrote:
if 3.0 looks like... print( {0}={1}.format('this',99)) , WTF...
thats retarded and looks like Ruby code. Thats not intuitive thats
madness! What happens when you need a conversion to string from an
integer, more code?? My faith is slipping. Have the python Gods gone
mad??. Please
1 - 100 of 130 matches
Mail list logo
