TheFlyingDutchman wrote:
On Sep 28, 1:09 pm, Steve Holden [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
That's because the tutor list doesn't offer a newsgroup. He was
probably just trying to get rid of you.
Now at 98.75% ...
Not sure if that's the reading on your trollmeter or on the meter that
measures
On 9/27/07, Steve Holden [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I wondered if a straw poll could get some idea of readers' thoughts
about when they will be migrating to 3.0 on, so I used the new widget on
Blogger to add a poll for that.
I'd appreciate if if you would go to
Couldn't agree with you more. What would be fantastic is if I could
drop into the Pypi (and/or use easy_install) and download
automatically compiled versions of extension modules for different
versions of python.
I'm sure the community at large would be happy to chip in an annual
fee to help
On Sep 30, 2:29 am, John Roth [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I was thinking of starting work on converting Python FIT to 3.0, and
then they posted PEP 3137. I think it's a real good idea, but it shows
that 3.0a1 isn't ready for a conversion effort.
http://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-3137/
I'll
NickC [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
| When 3.0b1 comes out is probably the time to start looking seriously
| at conversion. Until then, major course corrections (like PEP 3137)
| will still be a possibility. Before the first beta, the best idea is
| probably just to
On Fri, 28 Sep 2007 09:56:48 -0400, Stephan Deibel wrote:
Ian Dickinson wrote:
Never would look like a good time scale to me given that a lot of the
stuff I use is being ripped out
Has any one actually converted any real code or significant bits of code
using the 3.0 converter (in the
On Fri, 28 Sep 2007 09:56:48 -0400, Stephan Deibel wrote:
Ian Dickinson wrote:
Never would look like a good time scale to me given that a lot of the
stuff I use is being ripped out
Has any one actually converted any real code or significant bits of code
using the 3.0 converter (in the
I've posted my vote. However, I guess it won't be that simple in
practice. I suspect that the following is more likely:
1) Migrate to 3000 fairly soon after release for scripts and new
projects for which required third party modules are available for 3k
2) Migrate existing projects to 3k a) when
On Sat, 2007-09-29 at 04:09 +, John Nagle wrote:
[...]
For example, MySQL AB supports a Perl binding to MySQL, but not a
Python binding.
And what's your point, other than that apparently MySQL AB doesn't care
about Python?
--
Carsten Haese
http://informixdb.sourceforge.net
--
On 9/28/07, TheFlyingDutchman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Correct me if I am wrong, but none of those examples showed something
in C++ similar to a decorator in Python - that is, unique syntax in
the language for implementing a Higher Order Function. One thing I
will say about those examples is
On Sep 27, 5:37 pm, Steve Holden [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I wondered if a straw poll could get some idea of readers' thoughts
about when they will be migrating to 3.0 on, so I used the new widget on
Blogger to add a poll for that.
I'd appreciate if if you would go to
TheFlyingDutchman schrieb:
- Abstract Base Classes
URL:http://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-3119/
I like how someone here characterized decorators - those silly @
things. They remind me of Perl. Not adding keywords for abstract and
static is like Perl not adding a keyword for class.
Never would look like a good time scale to me given that a lot of the stuff I
use is being ripped out
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
John Nagle [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
TheFlyingDutchman wrote:
It seems that Python 3 is more significant for what it removes than
what it adds.
What are the additions that people find the most compelling?
I'd rather see Python 2.5 finished, so it just works.
And I'd rather see
Alex Martelli wrote:
John Nagle [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
TheFlyingDutchman wrote:
It seems that Python 3 is more significant for what it removes than
what it adds.
What are the additions that people find the most compelling?
I'd rather see Python 2.5 finished, so it just works.
And
Diez B. Roggisch [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
All serious languages are turing-complete. So can we put away with this
non-sense argument right away, please?
Actually the so called total languages aren't Turing-complete. I
think Coq is an example: every Coq function must return a value. So
Coq
On Sep 28, 2:49 am, Diez B. Roggisch [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
TheFlyingDutchman wrote:
The fact that you compare and criticise the simple annotations like
static or abstract with the much more powerful decorator concept shows
that, despite being the maintainer of a
On Fri, 28 Sep 2007 09:42:49 -0700, TheFlyingDutchman wrote:
Which of the common languages have higher order functions and what is
the syntax?
C, C++, Pascal, Perl, PHP, Ruby have them. And of course the functional
languages, most notably Lisp and Scheme as you asked for common languages.
On Sep 28, 10:01 am, Marc 'BlackJack' Rintsch [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, 28 Sep 2007 09:42:49 -0700, TheFlyingDutchman wrote:
Which of the common languages have higher order functions and what is
the syntax?
C, C++, Pascal, Perl, PHP, Ruby have them. And of course the functional
You said it was a most basic language feature. I still haven't heard
anything that leads me to believe that statement is correct. What
languages implemented decorators as a most basic language feature?
I was talking about Python, the programming language that is discussed in
this NG.
Python
On Thu, Sep 27, 2007 at 09:17:30PM -0400, Steve Holden wrote:
So what we need is a poll on what the questions should be. I *love* c.l.py.
I will switch as soon as Debian has all the tools for an easy conversion
available, and Python 3000 has reached the default release status.
e
--
Egbert
The fact that you compare and criticise the simple annotations like
static or abstract with the much more powerful decorator concept shows
that, despite being the maintainer of a
soon-to-be-ruling-the-python-world Python 3 fork, lack understanding of
even the most basic language features.
On Sep 27, 2007, at 8:17 PM, Steve Holden wrote:
James Stroud wrote:
Steve Holden wrote:
I wondered if a straw poll could get some idea of readers' thoughts
about when they will be migrating to 3.0 on, so I used the new
widget on
Blogger to add a poll for that.
I'd appreciate if if you
TheFlyingDutchman wrote:
On Sep 28, 10:01 am, Marc 'BlackJack' Rintsch [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, 28 Sep 2007 09:42:49 -0700, TheFlyingDutchman wrote:
Which of the common languages have higher order functions and what is
the syntax?
C, C++, Pascal, Perl, PHP, Ruby have them. And of
Ian Dickinson wrote:
Never would look like a good time scale to me given that a lot of the stuff I
use is being ripped out
Has any one actually converted any real code or significant bits of code
using the 3.0 converter (in the sandbox somewhere), and if so what kinds
of things actually
On Sep 28, 9:30 am, Diez B. Roggisch [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
You said it was a most basic language feature. I still haven't heard
anything that leads me to believe that statement is correct. What
languages implemented decorators as a most basic language feature?
I was talking about
TheFlyingDutchman wrote:
The fact that you compare and criticise the simple annotations like
static or abstract with the much more powerful decorator concept shows
that, despite being the maintainer of a
soon-to-be-ruling-the-python-world Python 3 fork, lack understanding of
even the most
On 9/28/07, TheFlyingDutchman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sep 28, 2:49 am, Diez B. Roggisch [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
TheFlyingDutchman wrote:
All serious languages are turing-complete. So can we put away with this
non-sense argument right away, please?
You said it was a most basic
Decorators are syntax sugar for higher order functions. Higher order
functions are a both a basic and a fundamental language feature, and
exist in many languages. The fact that you don't know this just
proves, once again, that you like to talk more than you like to learn.
Which of the common
Paul Rubin wrote:
Diez B. Roggisch [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
All serious languages are turing-complete. So can we put away with this
non-sense argument right away, please?
Actually the so called total languages aren't Turing-complete. I
think Coq is an example: every Coq function must
On 9/28/07, TheFlyingDutchman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sep 28, 10:57 am, Steve Holden [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This is like listening to a four-year-old torment its parents with
incessant questions. Do you *have* to ask every question that pops into
your mind?
In this case I asked it
On Fri, 28 Sep 2007 11:04:39 -0700, TheFlyingDutchman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[snip]
In this case I asked it as part of the original question and it was
ignored. I have programmed in C and C++ and a little Pascal many years
ago. I don't remember anything about Higher Order Functions and would
On Sep 28, 10:57 am, Steve Holden [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
TheFlyingDutchman wrote:
On Sep 28, 10:01 am, Marc 'BlackJack' Rintsch [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, 28 Sep 2007 09:42:49 -0700, TheFlyingDutchman wrote:
Which of the common languages have higher order functions and what is
the
TheFlyingDutchman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
What is the syntax of a higher order function in C, C++ and Pascal?
void qsort(int *array, int length, int width, int (*compare)());
is a C library example. I think we'd describe qsort as a HOF since
one of its arguments (the comparison routine) is
On Sep 28, 11:21 am, Francesco Guerrieri [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
On 9/28/07, TheFlyingDutchman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sep 28, 10:57 am, Steve Holden [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This is like listening to a four-year-old torment its parents with
incessant questions. Do you *have* to ask
On Sep 28, 11:16 am, Jean-Paul Calderone [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, 28 Sep 2007 11:04:39 -0700, TheFlyingDutchman [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
[snip]
In this case I asked it as part of the original question and it was
ignored. I have programmed in C and C++ and a little Pascal many years
On Sep 28, 11:16 am, Jean-Paul Calderone [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, 28 Sep 2007 11:04:39 -0700, TheFlyingDutchman [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
[snip]
In this case I asked it as part of the original question and it was
ignored. I have programmed in C and C++ and a little Pascal many years
TheFlyingDutchman wrote:
On Sep 28, 11:16 am, Jean-Paul Calderone [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, 28 Sep 2007 11:04:39 -0700, TheFlyingDutchman [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
[snip]
In this case I asked it as part of the original question and it was
ignored. I have programmed in C and C++ and
TheFlyingDutchman wrote:
On Sep 28, 11:16 am, Jean-Paul Calderone [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, 28 Sep 2007 11:04:39 -0700, TheFlyingDutchman [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
[snip]
In this case I asked it as part of the original question and it was
ignored. I have programmed in C and C++ and a
Or bind resources of these pocket protectors that otherwise would lead to
answers for people that do seek enlightment...
I don't think it would be correct to characterize my posts as not
seeking enlightenment. I do also happen to voice my opinion which
seems appropriate since this can be
TheFlyingDutchman wrote:
Or bind resources of these pocket protectors that otherwise would lead to
answers for people that do seek enlightment...
I don't think it would be correct to characterize my posts as not
seeking enlightenment. I do also happen to voice my opinion which
seems
On Sep 28, 3:29 pm, TheFlyingDutchman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
One issue I have with this group and that I encountered many years ago
in the Perl group is that there is no separate group
comp.lang.python.beginner where you can ask questions without getting
hit with RTFM! and the like.
Which
George Sakkis wrote:
On Sep 28, 3:29 pm, TheFlyingDutchman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
One issue I have with this group and that I encountered many years ago
in the Perl group is that there is no separate group
comp.lang.python.beginner where you can ask questions without getting
hit with
On Sep 28, 11:53 am, John Nagle [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Alex Martelli wrote:
John Nagle [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
TheFlyingDutchman wrote:
It seems that Python 3 is more significant for what it removes than
what it adds.
What are the additions that people find the most compelling?
On Sep 28, 12:34 pm, Diez B. Roggisch [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
TheFlyingDutchman wrote:
Or bind resources of these pocket protectors that otherwise would lead to
answers for people that do seek enlightment...
I don't think it would be correct to characterize my posts as not
seeking
On Fri, 2007-09-28 at 13:00 -0700, TheFlyingDutchman wrote:
Being in a land where every nit can be picked, I am surprised that you
offered up a mailing list when I was asking for a newsgroup.
nntp://news.gmane.org/gmane.comp.python.tutor
--
Carsten Haese
http://informixdb.sourceforge.net
--
On Sep 28, 12:45 pm, George Sakkis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sep 28, 3:29 pm, TheFlyingDutchman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
One issue I have with this group and that I encountered many years ago
in the Perl group is that there is no separate group
comp.lang.python.beginner where you can ask
TheFlyingDutchman wrote:
On Sep 28, 12:45 pm, George Sakkis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sep 28, 3:29 pm, TheFlyingDutchman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
One issue I have with this group and that I encountered many years ago
in the Perl group is that there is no separate group
Steve Holden wrote:
TheFlyingDutchman wrote:
On Sep 28, 10:01 am, Marc 'BlackJack' Rintsch [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, 28 Sep 2007 09:42:49 -0700, TheFlyingDutchman wrote:
Which of the common languages have higher order functions and what is
the syntax?
C, C++, Pascal, Perl, PHP, Ruby
On 28 Sep., 17:53, John Nagle [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Alex Martelli wrote:
John Nagle [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
TheFlyingDutchman wrote:
It seems that Python 3 is more significant for what it removes than
what it adds.
What are the additions that people find the most compelling?
TheFlyingDutchman wrote:
Or bind resources of these pocket protectors that otherwise would lead to
answers for people that do seek enlightment...
I don't think it would be correct to characterize my posts as not
seeking enlightenment. I do also happen to voice my opinion which
seems
On Sep 28, 1:09 pm, Steve Holden [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
That's because the tutor list doesn't offer a newsgroup. He was probably
just trying to get rid of you.
Now at 98.75% ...
Not sure if that's the reading on your trollmeter or on the meter that
measures what percentage of your posts
On Sep 28, 2007, at 3:00 PM, TheFlyingDutchman wrote:
On Sep 28, 12:45 pm, George Sakkis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sep 28, 3:29 pm, TheFlyingDutchman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
One issue I have with this group and that I encountered many
years ago
in the Perl group is that there is no
Kay Schluehr wrote:
On 28 Sep., 17:53, John Nagle [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Alex Martelli wrote:
John Nagle [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
TheFlyingDutchman wrote:
It seems that Python 3 is more significant for what it removes than
what it adds.
What are the additions that people find the most
John Nagle wrote:
Insofar as Python has an organization, it's not adequately managing
extension modules. Each extension module has its own infrastructure,
with its own build procedures, its own bug list, and its own maintainers.
There's not even an archive. Unlike CPAN, Cheese Shop is
George Sakkis wrote:
On Sep 28, 11:53 am, John Nagle [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Alex Martelli wrote:
John Nagle [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
TheFlyingDutchman wrote:
It seems that Python 3 is more significant for what it removes than
what it adds.
What are the additions that people find the
I wondered if a straw poll could get some idea of readers' thoughts
about when they will be migrating to 3.0 on, so I used the new widget on
Blogger to add a poll for that.
I'd appreciate if if you would go to
http://holdenweb.blogspot.com/
and register your vote on your intended migration
Steve Holden wrote:
I wondered if a straw poll could get some idea of readers' thoughts
about when they will be migrating to 3.0 on, so I used the new widget on
Blogger to add a poll for that.
I'd appreciate if if you would go to
http://holdenweb.blogspot.com/
and register your
Steve Holden wrote:
I wondered if a straw poll could get some idea of readers' thoughts
about when they will be migrating to 3.0 on, so I used the new widget on
Blogger to add a poll for that.
I'd appreciate if if you would go to
http://holdenweb.blogspot.com/
and register your vote
Steve Holden [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
So what we need is a poll on what the questions should be. I *love* c.l.py.
One of the offered answers to the current question should be never.
That is, I'm hoping to skip 3.0 and switch directly to PyPy.
--
It seems that Python 3 is more significant for what it removes than
what it adds.
What are the additions that people find the most compelling?
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
James Stroud wrote:
Steve Holden wrote:
I wondered if a straw poll could get some idea of readers' thoughts
about when they will be migrating to 3.0 on, so I used the new widget on
Blogger to add a poll for that.
I'd appreciate if if you would go to
http://holdenweb.blogspot.com/
and
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED],
Steve Holden [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I wondered if a straw poll could get some idea of readers' thoughts
about when they will be migrating to 3.0 on, so I used the new widget on
Blogger to add a poll for that.
I'd appreciate if if you would go to
- Abstract Base Classes
URL:http://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-3119/
I like how someone here characterized decorators - those silly @
things. They remind me of Perl. Not adding keywords for abstract and
static is like Perl not adding a keyword for class. But I know all
such additions
TheFlyingDutchman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
It seems that Python 3 is more significant for what it removes than
what it adds.
That's certainly the focus of an explicitly backward-incompatible
upgrade, yes.
What are the additions that people find the most compelling?
Most of the additions
Paul Rubin wrote:
Steve Holden [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
So what we need is a poll on what the questions should be. I *love* c.l.py.
One of the offered answers to the current question should be never.
That is, I'm hoping to skip 3.0 and switch directly to PyPy.
Well, No current plans
On 9/27/07, TheFlyingDutchman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It seems that Python 3 is more significant for what it removes than
what it adds.
What are the additions that people find the most compelling?
- dict.items(), .values() and .keys() returns dict views, and the
.iter*() removal
TheFlyingDutchman wrote:
It seems that Python 3 is more significant for what it removes than
what it adds.
What are the additions that people find the most compelling?
I'd rather see Python 2.5 finished, so it just works.
All the major third-party libraries working and available with
68 matches
Mail list logo
