Michele Simionato [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
You should really be using pychecker (as well as Emacs autocompletion
feature ...):
I *do* use Emacs's autocompletion, but sometimes these sorts of bugs
creep in anyway. (E.g., sometimes I autocomplete in the wrong variable!)
~$ pychecker -v x.py
Michele Simionato [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
BTW, there are already Python-like languages with macros
(i.e. logix) and still nobody use them, including people with a
Scheme/Lisp background. That should be telling you something.
What about Dylan?
--
On Jun 22, 8:09 pm, Douglas Alan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Functionality is no good if it's too cumbersome to use. For instance,
Scheme gives you first class continuations, which Python doesn't.
Continuations let you do *all sorts* of interesting things that you
just cannot do in Python. Like
Steven D'Aprano [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Nevertheless, in Python 1+2 always equals 3. You can't say the same thing
about Lisp.
Well, I can't say much of *anything* about 1 + 2 in Lisp, since
that's not the syntax for adding numbers in Lisp. In Lisp, numbers
are typically added using the +
Michele Simionato [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Really powerful languages (say Haskell, just not to be too
Python-centric) do not need macros.
http://www.haskell.org/th/
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
On Jun 23, 6:11 am, Lenard Lindstrom [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
When this thread turned to the topic of macros I did an Internet search
for information on macros relevant to Python. Dylan's macros look
promising. The Python-inspired language Converge has macros
(http://convergepl.org/). Michael
On Jun 22, 7:54 pm, Douglas Alan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The proof is in the pudding for anyone who has seen the advantages it
brings to Lisp. As Paul Graham points out, it's hard to look up and
see the advantages of what is up there in a more powerful language.
It's only easy to look down
On Sat, 23 Jun 2007 12:39:51 -0400, Douglas Alan wrote:
One of the things that annoys me when coding in Python (and this is a
flaw that even lowly Perl has a good solution for), is that if you do
something like
longVarableName = foo(longVariableName)
You end up with a bug that can
Steven D'Aprano [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
But if you really want declarations, you can have them.
import variables
variables.declare(x=1, y=2.5, z=[1, 2, 4])
variables.x = None
variables.w = 0
Traceback (most recent call last):
File stdin, line 1, in module
File variables.py, line
Michele Simionato [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Been there, done that. So what? Your example will not convince any
Pythonista.
I'm a Pythonista, and it convinces me.
The Pythonista expects Guido to do the language job and the
application developer to do the application job.
I'm happy to hear
Steven D'Aprano [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
So one use for macros would be so that I can define let and set
statements so that I might code like this:
let longVariableName = 0
set longVarableName = foo(longVariableName)
Then if longVarableName didn't already exist, an error would
On Sat, 23 Jun 2007 14:56:35 -0400, Douglas Alan wrote:
How long did it take you to write the macros, and use them, compared
to running Pylint or Pychecker or equivalent?
An hour? Who cares? You write it once and then you have it for the
rest of your life. You put it in a widely
On Thu, 21 Jun 2007 15:25:37 -0400, Douglas Alan wrote:
You are imagining something very different from what is proposed.
Lisp-like macros don't allow anything goes.
Provided people avoid doing anything which would be considered very
rude (your own words).
Python already allows me to shoot
On 2007-06-21, Douglas Alan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Neil Cerutti [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Seriously, maybe Python looks like 'blub' (thanks, Paul
Graham), to the skilled Lisp user, but it makes a lot of other
languages look like 'blub', too, including, sometimes, Lisp:
Lisp has to 'blub'
On 2007-06-22, Douglas Alan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Neil Cerutti [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
That said, I wouldn't give up the summer I spent studying _Simply
Scheme_.
Sounds like fun. Is this like a kinder, gentler version of SICP?
No, it is a prequel. Along with How to Design Programs it
Neil Cerutti [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
That said, I wouldn't give up the summer I spent studying _Simply
Scheme_.
Sounds like fun. Is this like a kinder, gentler version of SICP?
I'm not sure, though, that I could have learned computer science
properly without the immortal characters of Ben
Steven D'Aprano [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Thu, 21 Jun 2007 15:25:37 -0400, Douglas Alan wrote:
You are imagining something very different from what is proposed.
Lisp-like macros don't allow anything goes.
Provided people avoid doing anything which would be considered very
rude (your
Terry Reedy [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Douglas Alan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
| But why is the ability to abstract syntax good?
| It allows the community to develop language features in a modular way
| without having to sully the code base for the language itself.
Anyone can
Terry Reedy [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
| But why is the ability to abstract syntax good?
I think this points to where Sussman went wrong in his footnote and
Alan in his defense thereof. Flexibility of function -- being able
to do many different things -- is quite different from flexibility
Douglas Alan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
| Terry Reedy [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
| I think this points to where Sussman went wrong in his footnote and
| Alan in his defense thereof. Flexibility of function -- being able
| to do many different things -- is quite
Terry Reedy [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Douglas Alan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
| Terry Reedy [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
| I think this points to where Sussman went wrong in his footnote
| and Alan in his defense thereof. Flexibility of function --
| being able to do many
Douglas Alan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
People (myself included) haven't had much trouble implementing nice
and useful macro packages for Lisp. Admittedly, it's a harder problem
for a language that doesn't have a Lisp-like syntax.
One very simple hack would be to define a syntax extension like
On Fri, 22 Jun 2007 13:21:14 -0400, Douglas Alan wrote:
I.e., I could write a new object system for Lisp faster than I could
even begin to fathom the internal of CPython. Not only that, I have
absolutely no desire to spend my valuable free time writing C code.
I'd much rather be hacking in
On Fri, 22 Jun 2007 13:54:35 -0400, Douglas Alan wrote:
Python already allows me to shoot myself in the foot, if I wish. I'm
comfortable with that level of freedom. I'm not necessarily comfortable
with extensions to the language that would allow me the freedom to shoot
myself in the head.
Douglas Alan wrote:
Terry Reedy [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Douglas Alan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
| But why is the ability to abstract syntax good?
| It allows the community to develop language features in a modular way
| without having to sully the code base for the language
On Fri, 22 Jun 2007 19:51:28 -0400, Douglas Alan wrote:
You seem oblivious to the fact that one of the huge benefits of Python
is its elegant and readable syntax. The problem with not having a
flexible syntax, is that a programming language can't provide
off-the-shelf an elegant syntax for
Neil Cerutti [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On 2007-06-21, Douglas Alan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
A prime example of this is how CLOS, the Common Lisp Object System was
implemented completely as a loadable library (with the help of many
macros) into Common Lisp, which was not an OO language prior to
Terry Reedy [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
| It allows the community to develop language features in a modular way
| without having to sully the code base for the language itself.
[etc]
Some of the strongest opposition to adding macros to Python comes
from people like Alex Martelli who have had
On Wed, 20 Jun 2007 17:23:42 -0400, Douglas Alan wrote:
But Scheme has macros isn't a justification for why Python should
have them.
No one ever gave that justification. The justification is that they are
*good*.
Macros are a way to abstract syntax the way that objects are used to
Steven D'Aprano [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Wed, 20 Jun 2007 17:23:42 -0400, Douglas Alan wrote:
Macros are a way to abstract syntax the way that objects are used to
abstract data types and that iterators and generators abstract control,
etc.
But why is the ability to abstract syntax
On 2007-06-21, Douglas Alan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Steven D'Aprano [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Wed, 20 Jun 2007 17:23:42 -0400, Douglas Alan wrote:
Macros are a way to abstract syntax the way that objects are
used to abstract data types and that iterators and generators
abstract control,
Neil Cerutti [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
But why is the ability to abstract syntax good?
It allows the community to develop language features in a
modular way without having to sully the code base for the
language itself.
That's not an advantage exclusive to macros, though.
No, but macros
Douglas Alan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
| Steven D'Aprano [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
|
| On Wed, 20 Jun 2007 17:23:42 -0400, Douglas Alan wrote:
|
| Macros are a way to abstract syntax the way that objects are used to
| abstract data types and that iterators and
Steven D'Aprano [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
| On Wed, 20 Jun 2007 17:23:42 -0400, Douglas Alan wrote:
| Macros are a way to abstract syntax the way that objects are used to
| abstract data types and that iterators and generators abstract control,
| etc.
|
| But
Douglas Alan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
| But why is the ability to abstract syntax good?
|
| It allows the community to develop language features in a modular way
| without having to sully the code base for the language itself.
Anyone can write modules,
Douglas Alan wrote:
I think that most people who program in Scheme these days don't do it
to write practical software. They either do it to have fun, or for
academic purposes. On the other hand, most people who program in
Python are trying to get real work done. Which is precisely why I
Michele Simionato [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I see Python or C as much better practical implementations
of Sussman's quote about minimalism than real Scheme (for
an example of real Scheme, I refer for instance to the PLT
implementation).
Python and C as programming languages are like democracy
On Tue, 19 Jun 2007 19:22:33 -0700, Paul Rubin wrote:
Steven D'Aprano [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
So, once you've succeeded in your campaign to make Python more like
Scheme, what language will you use for getting real work done?
And how long will it take before Schemers start agitating for it
On Tue, 19 Jun 2007 20:16:28 -0400, Douglas Alan wrote:
Steven D'Aprano [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Tue, 19 Jun 2007 17:46:35 -0400, Douglas Alan wrote:
I think that most people who program in Scheme these days don't do it
to write practical software. They either do it to have fun, or
Douglas Alan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
| I think you are missing the point. Sussman is making a broad criticism
of software
| engineering in general, as it is understood today.
On the contrary, I understood exactly that and said so. *My* point is that
in
Terry Reedy [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
| I think you are missing the point. Sussman is making a broad
| criticism software engineering in general, as it is understood
| today.
On the contrary, I understood exactly that and said so. *My* point
is that in doing so, he made one jab at one
Douglas Alan wrote:
Terry Reedy [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Which I obviously read and responded to by noting And 3.0 may add a new
generic function module to dispatch on multiple arguments and possibly
predicates.
So, that's great. Python will once again adopt a wonderful feature
that
Steven D'Aprano [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Tue, 19 Jun 2007 20:16:28 -0400, Douglas Alan wrote:
Steven D'Aprano [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Tue, 19 Jun 2007 17:46:35 -0400, Douglas Alan wrote:
The problem with using Scheme for real work is that it doesn't come
with enough batteries
Steven D'Aprano [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
All of which makes Douglas Alan's accusations of Not Invented Here
syndrome about Python seem rather silly.
I've never made such an accusation about Python itself -- just about
the apparent attitude of some pontiffs.
The point I was making isn't
Michele Simionato [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
In practice Scheme follows exactly the opposite route: there are
dozens of different and redundant object systems, module systems,
even record systems, built just by piling up feature over feature.
The solution to this is to have a standard library
Robert Kern [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The problem with Python's model is that you
have to wait for a rather centralized process to agree on and
implement such a feature.
No, you don't. Philip Eby has been working on various incarnations
of generic functions for some time now. The only thing
Paul Rubin wrote:
Michele Simionato [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I see Python or C as much better practical implementations
of Sussman's quote about minimalism than real Scheme (for
an example of real Scheme, I refer for instance to the PLT
implementation).
Python and C as programming
Douglas Alan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
| Terry Reedy [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
|
| |oug writes:
|
| Scheme has a powerful syntax extension mechanism
|
| I did not and do not see this as relevant to the main points of my
| summary above.
The main point of my
Terry Reedy [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The main point of my original post was that the quoted slam at Python was
based on a misquote of Tim Peters
But it wasn't based on a misquote of Tim Peters; it was based on an
*exact* quotation of Tim Peters.
and a mischaracterization of Python
I find
On 2007-06-19, Douglas Alan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Terry Reedy [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
At the end, I added as a *side note* the irony that the
purported author was the co-developer of Scheme, another
'minimalist algorithm language
Sussman's statements are not ironic because Scheme is a
Neil Cerutti [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
|oug writes:
Sussman's statements are not ironic because Scheme is a
language that is designed to be extended by the end-user (even
syntactically), while keeping the core language minimal. This
is a rather different design philosophy from that of
Douglas Alan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
|| But it wasn't based on a misquote of Tim Peters; it was based on an
| *exact* quotation of Tim Peters.
My mistake. The misquotation is in the subject line and other's posts here
and in other threads.
| and a
Terry Reedy [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Nonetheless, picking on and characterizing Tim's statement as
anti-flexibility and un-scientific is to me writing of a sort that I
would not tolerate from my middle-school child.
Now it is you who are taking Sussman's comments out of context.
Sussman does
On Tue, 19 Jun 2007 17:46:35 -0400, Douglas Alan wrote:
I think that most people who program in Scheme these days don't do it
to write practical software. They either do it to have fun, or for
academic purposes. On the other hand, most people who program in
Python are trying to get real
Steven D'Aprano [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Tue, 19 Jun 2007 17:46:35 -0400, Douglas Alan wrote:
I think that most people who program in Scheme these days don't do it
to write practical software. They either do it to have fun, or for
academic purposes. On the other hand, most people who
--- Douglas Alan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
For the record, I have a huge problem with
NIH-syndrome, and think
that every programming language in the world could
learn a thing or
two from what other languages have gotten right.
Which should includes natural languages in my opinion.
As
Steven D'Aprano [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
So, once you've succeeded in your campaign to make Python more like
Scheme, what language will you use for getting real work done?
And how long will it take before Schemers start agitating for it to become
more like Scheme?
While you've dutifully
Alex Martelli wrote:
PL/1 is basically gone, but its legacy of take what you need and leave
the rest is unfortunately alive in other languages that are blind to
the enormous advantages of simplicity and uniformity.
Reminds me of RUP... No wonder Ivar Jacobson gave up and started all over.
--
Terry Reedy [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
|oug writes:
Scheme has a powerful syntax extension mechanism
I did not and do not see this as relevant to the main points of my
summary above. Python has powerful extension mechanisms too, but
comparing the two languages on this basis is a whole
On 2007-06-17, Paul Rubin http wrote:
Neil Cerutti [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I don't know that much about ML. I know is does a really nice job
of generic containers, as does C++. But can it 'foo' any type as
easily as C++?
template class T T foo(T);
I don't know enough C++ to understand
On Fri, 15 Jun 2007 22:25:38 -0700, Alex Martelli wrote:
The Spirit of C section in the preface of the ISO Standard for C
phrases this principle as Provide only one way to do an operation.
Taken seriously, that rapidly goes to absurdity -- it would mean, for
example, replacing all for loops
Steven D'Aprano [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
...
perception that, at their roots, Scheme, C and Python share one
philosophical underpinning (one that's extremely rare among programming
languages as a whole) -- an appreciation of SIMPLICITY AND UNIFORMITY as
language characteristics.
Out
On 2007-06-16, Steven D'Aprano [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, 15 Jun 2007 22:25:38 -0700, Alex Martelli wrote:
The Spirit of C section in the preface of the ISO Standard
for C phrases this principle as Provide only one way to do an
operation.
Taken seriously, that rapidly goes to absurdity
Steven D'Aprano [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
...
perception that, at their roots, Scheme, C and Python share one
philosophical underpinning (one that's extremely rare among programming
languages as a whole) -- an appreciation of SIMPLICITY AND UNIFORMITY as
language characteristics.
Neil Cerutti [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I vote for C++ as being astoundingly complex. But it provides
complex features, e.g.,the machanisms it provides to deal with
multiple inheritance, or generic, type-safe code.
It gets off-topic but I'm not sure what advantage templates are
supposed to have
Dennis Lee Bieber [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Macros? Unfortunately to my world, macros are those things
found in C, high-powered assemblers, and pre-VBA Office. As such,
they do anything but keep a language small, and one encounters
multiple implementations of similar functionality --
On 2007-06-16, Paul Rubin http wrote:
Neil Cerutti [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I vote for C++ as being astoundingly complex. But it provides
complex features, e.g.,the machanisms it provides to deal with
multiple inheritance, or generic, type-safe code.
It gets off-topic but I'm not sure what
Cousin Stanley [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
...
I think the Original Sin in that regard was PL/I: it tried to have all
...
tended to have two or more ways to perform any given task, typically
inspired by some of the existing languages, often with the addition of
new ones made out of
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Alex Martelli) writes:
PL/1 is basically gone, but its legacy of take what you need and leave
the rest is unfortunately alive in other languages that are blind to
the enormous advantages of simplicity and uniformity.
Intercal?
--
Neil Cerutti [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I don't know that much about ML. I know is does a really nice job
of generic containers, as does C++. But can it 'foo' any type as
easily as C++?
template class T T foo(T);
I don't know enough C++ to understand what the above means exactly,
but I think
Terry Reedy [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Try suggesting on a Lisp or Scheme group that having only one type
of syntax (prefix expressions) lacks something and that they should
add variety in the form of statement syntax ;-) Hint: some Lispers
have bragged here about the simplicity of 'one way to
Terry Reedy [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
My only point was that Sussman is an odd person to be criticizing
(somewhat mistakingly) Python for being minimalist.
I think that being a language minimalist is very different from
believing that there should be exactly one obvious way to do
everything.
Terry Reedy [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Here's the situation. Python is making inroads at MIT, Scheme home turf.
The co-developer of Scheme, while writing about some other subject, tosses
in an off-the-wall slam against Python. Someone asks what we here think.
I think that the comment is a
Kay Schluehr [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On 15 Jun., 22:58, Douglas Alan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
For instance, I believe that Python is now too big, and that much
of what is in the language itself should be replaced with more
general Scheme-like features. Then a good macro mechanism should
On 15 Jun., 22:58, Douglas Alan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
For instance, I believe that Python is now too big, and that much of
what is in the language itself should be replaced with more general
Scheme-like features.
Then a good macro mechanism should be
implemented so that all the
On Fri, 15 Jun 2007 17:05:27 -0400, Douglas Alan wrote:
You are ignoring the fact that Scheme has a powerful syntax extension
mechanism (i.e., hygenic macros), which means that anyone in the world
can basically extend Scheme to include practically any language
feature they might like it to
Douglas Alan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
| Terry Reedy [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
|
| Here's the situation. Python is making inroads at MIT, Scheme home
turf.
| The co-developer of Scheme, while writing about some other subject,
tosses
| in an off-the-wall slam
Steven D'Aprano [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Fri, 15 Jun 2007 17:05:27 -0400, Douglas Alan wrote:
You are ignoring the fact that Scheme has a powerful syntax extension
mechanism (i.e., hygenic macros), which means that anyone in the world
can basically extend Scheme to include practically
Terry Reedy [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
You are ignoring the fact that
This prefactory clause is false and as such it turns what was a true
statement into one that is not. Better to leave off such ad hominisms and
stick with the bare true statement.
You went on about how Gerry Sussman's
Dennis Lee Bieber [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Adding generator expressions, which look identical except that one
typically has () (or the () of an enclosing function call) while the
other must have [] just seems to add confusion to the world. I'll
abstain on with... Decorators I've not
Neil Cerutti [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 2007-06-12, Antoon Pardon [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 2007-06-11, Terry Reedy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
More so than supporters of most other languages, in particular
Scheme?
Well to my knowledge (which could be vastly improved), scheme
doesn't
On 2007-06-12, Anders J. Munch [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Paul Rubin wrote:
Steven D'Aprano [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Not tail calls, in general, no.
Sorry, how does that work? You're suggesting that there is an
algorithm which the compiler could follow to optimize away
tail-recursion, but
On 2007-06-13, Steve Howell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
You would just change the language definition to say that once
you enter f(), any call to f() from within f() behaves as if
the recursively called f() still points to the originally bound
version of f. To want any other behavior would be
Neil Cerutti wrote:
On 2007-06-12, Anders J. Munch [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Converting tail-recursion to iteration is trivial, and
perfectly reasonable for a human to do by hand.
For simple recursive tail calls, yeah, it can be. Translating a
tail-recursive Factorial function into a while
Alexander Schmolck wrote:
Anders J. Munch [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Like Steven said, tail-call optimisation is not necessary as you can always
hand-optimise it yourself.
Care to demonstrate on some code written in CPS (a compiler or parser, say)?
I meant tail recursion, not tail-call,
On 2007-06-13, Anders J. Munch [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
General tail-call optimisation is of course completely
out-of-bounds for Python, because it ruins tracebacks. Unlike
tail recursion, which could use recursion counters.
Is it really ruined? To use a similar example:
def foo(x):
On Wed, 2007-06-13 at 18:22 +, Neil Cerutti wrote:
On 2007-06-13, Anders J. Munch [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
General tail-call optimisation is of course completely
out-of-bounds for Python, because it ruins tracebacks. Unlike
tail recursion, which could use recursion counters.
Is it
On 2007-06-13, Neil Cerutti [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 2007-06-13, Anders J. Munch [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
General tail-call optimisation is of course completely
out-of-bounds for Python, because it ruins tracebacks. Unlike
tail recursion, which could use recursion counters.
Is it really
Steve Howell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
|
| You would just change the language definition to say
| that once you enter f(), any call to f() from within
| f() behaves as if the recursively called f() still
| points to the originally bound version of f.
I am pretty
Diez B. Roggisch [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
And if only the html-parsing is slow, you might consider creating an
extension for that. Using e.g. Pyrex.
I just tried using BeautifulSoup to pull some fields out of some html
files--about 2 million files, output of a web crawler. It parsed very
Paul Rubin wrote:
Diez B. Roggisch [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
And if only the html-parsing is slow, you might consider creating an
extension for that. Using e.g. Pyrex.
I just tried using BeautifulSoup to pull some fields out of some html
files--about 2 million files, output of a web
On 2007-06-11, Terry Reedy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Antoon Pardon [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
| On 2007-06-09, Terry Reedy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
| For him to imply that Python is anti-flexibility is wrong. Very
wrong..
| He should look in a mirror. See
On 2007-06-12, Antoon Pardon [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 2007-06-11, Terry Reedy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
More so than supporters of most other languages, in particular
Scheme?
Well to my knowledge (which could be vastly improved), scheme
doesn't have some Zen-rules that include something
John Nagle wrote:
Diez B. Roggisch wrote:
Regardless of the possibility of speeding it up - why should one want
this? Coding speed is more important than speed of coding in 90%+ of all
cases.
When you have to start buying more servers for the server farm,
it's a real pain. I'm
Antoon Pardon [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
| So? Tim wrote 'There should be one-- and preferably only one --obvious
way
| to do it'. The primary clause is that there should at least one. The
| secondary clause is that once there is a good and obvious way to do
Paul Rubin wrote:
Steven D'Aprano [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Not tail calls, in general, no.
Sorry, how does that work? You're suggesting that there is an algorithm
which the compiler could follow to optimize away tail-recursion, but human
beings can't follow the same algorithm?
Now I'm
--- Anders J. Munch [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Converting tail-recursion to iteration is trivial,
and perfectly reasonable for
a human to do by hand. You add an outer while
True-loop, the recursive call
becomes a tuple assignment, and other code paths end
with a break out of the
loop.
Steve Howell wrote:
--- Anders J. Munch [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Converting tail-recursion to iteration is trivial,
and perfectly reasonable for
a human to do by hand. You add an outer while
True-loop, the recursive call
becomes a tuple assignment, and other code paths end
with a break out
On Tue, 12 Jun 2007 15:51:07 -0700, Steve Howell wrote:
--- Anders J. Munch [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Converting tail-recursion to iteration is trivial,
and perfectly reasonable for
a human to do by hand. You add an outer while
True-loop, the recursive call
becomes a tuple assignment,
--- Steven D'Aprano
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, 12 Jun 2007 15:51:07 -0700, Steve Howell
wrote:
--- Anders J. Munch [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Converting tail-recursion to iteration is
trivial,
and perfectly reasonable for
a human to do by hand. You add an outer while
101 - 200 of 243 matches
Mail list logo
