On 14 March 2012 23:34, Kiuhnm wrote:
> I've just started to read
> The Quick Python Book (2nd ed.)
> The author claims that Python code is more readable than Perl code and
> provides this example:
>
> --- Perl ---
> sub pairwise_sum {
> my($arg1, $arg2) = @_;
> my(@result) = ();
> @list
On Thu, Mar 15, 2012 at 10:54 AM, Arnaud Delobelle wrote:
> I don't know this book and there may be a pedagogical reason for the
> implementation you quote, but pairwise_sum is probably better
> implemented in Python 3.X as:
>
> def pairwise_sum(list1, list2):
> return [x1 + x2 for x1, x2 in zi
On Mar 14, 7:27 pm, Chris Angelico wrote:
> Okay, here's something for debate.
>
> Should the readability of a language be gauged on the basis of its
> standard library, or should you be comparing actual code?
I think the library matters greatly. Yes, one could argue that the
same functionality "
Rick Johnson wrote:
> However, when we are talking about the Python
> programming language "readable" simply means: "neophyte readable".
> That is, "readable to someone with little or no experience with the
> language".
Nonsense. List comprehensions are not immediately obvious to new
Python users
On 3/15/2012 7:23, alex23 wrote:
Rick Johnson wrote:
However, when we are talking about the Python
programming language "readable" simply means: "neophyte readable".
That is, "readable to someone with little or no experience with the
language".
Nonsense. List comprehensions are not immediatel
On Thu, Mar 15, 2012 at 9:44 PM, Kiuhnm
wrote:
> Let's try that.
> Show me an example of "list comprehensions" and "with" (whatever they are).
I'll do a list comp, because they lend themselves well to one-liners.
what_am_i = '\n'.join(["%X\t%c"%(i,i) for i in range(128)])
Okay, that one also use
Am 15.03.2012 11:44 schrieb Kiuhnm:
Let's try that.
Show me an example of "list comprehensions" and "with" (whatever they are).
with open("filename", "w") as f:
f.write(stuff)
with lock:
do_something_exclusively()
Thomas
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
On 3/15/2012 11:50, Chris Angelico wrote:
On Thu, Mar 15, 2012 at 9:44 PM, Kiuhnm
wrote:
Let's try that.
Show me an example of "list comprehensions" and "with" (whatever they are).
I'll do a list comp, because they lend themselves well to one-liners.
what_am_i = '\n'.join(["%X\t%c"%(i,i) for
On Thu, Mar 15, 2012 at 10:27 PM, Kiuhnm
wrote:
> On 3/15/2012 11:50, Chris Angelico wrote:
>> I'll do a list comp, because they lend themselves well to one-liners.
>> what_am_i = '\n'.join(["%X\t%c"%(i,i) for i in range(128)])
>
>
> A few conjectures:
> 1) '\n' is an object and join one of its me
On 3/15/2012 12:14, Thomas Rachel wrote:
Am 15.03.2012 11:44 schrieb Kiuhnm:
Let's try that.
Show me an example of "list comprehensions" and "with" (whatever they
are).
with open("filename", "w") as f:
f.write(stuff)
Here f is created before executing the block and destroyed right after
On 3/15/2012 12:47, Chris Angelico wrote:
On Thu, Mar 15, 2012 at 10:27 PM, Kiuhnm
Your first example suggests that range(n) is a sequence iterator which
returns, if queried n times,
0,...,n-1
(which is a bit counterintuitive, IMHO).
It's a little odd, perhaps, if seen in a vacuum. But every
On Thu, Mar 15, 2012 at 10:59 PM, Kiuhnm
wrote:
> On 3/15/2012 12:47, Chris Angelico wrote:
>> It's a little odd, perhaps, if seen in a vacuum. But everything counts
>> from zero - list indices, etc - so it makes sense for range(len(lst))
>> to return indices valid for lst.
>
> Maybe range uses [.
Chris Angelico writes:
> Yup. It's amazing how accurate your conjectures are - it's almost like
> you've been reading the docs! :D But yeah, that's pretty logical IMHO;
> and having gotten used to [) intervals in many areas of computing,
> I've come to find [] intervals disconcerting. Bible passa
On Thu, Mar 15, 2012 at 11:31 PM, Ben Finney wrote:
> Another good reason to advocate for proper typography. "John 14:5-7"
> indicates a range (because it uses U+2013 EN DASH), whereas "7-5"
> indicates subtraction (because it uses U+2212 MINUS SIGN). A hyphen ('-'
> U+002D) is inappropriate in ei
Chris Angelico writes:
> On Thu, Mar 15, 2012 at 11:31 PM, Ben Finney
> wrote:
> > Another good reason to advocate for proper typography. "John 14:5-7"
> > indicates a range (because it uses U+2013 EN DASH), whereas "7-5"
> > indicates subtraction (because it uses U+2212 MINUS SIGN). A hyphen
>
On Fri, Mar 16, 2012 at 12:16 AM, Ben Finney wrote:
> Chris Angelico writes:
>
>> On Thu, Mar 15, 2012 at 11:31 PM, Ben Finney
>> wrote:
>> > Another good reason to advocate for proper typography. "John 14:5-7"
>> > indicates a range (because it uses U+2013 EN DASH), whereas "7-5"
>> > indicate
Chris Angelico writes:
> On Fri, Mar 16, 2012 at 12:16 AM, Ben Finney
> wrote:
> > Hopefully, the fact that your quoting of my text munged the
> > characters down to ASCII is also pure coincidence, and is soon to be
> > corrected at your end? Or has your client program not joined the
> > rest o
On 15/03/2012 11:48, Kiuhnm wrote:
On 3/15/2012 12:14, Thomas Rachel wrote:
Am 15.03.2012 11:44 schrieb Kiuhnm:
Let's try that.
Show me an example of "list comprehensions" and "with" (whatever they
are).
with open("filename", "w") as f:
f.write(stuff)
Here f is created before executing the
On Fri, Mar 16, 2012 at 1:06 AM, Mark Lawrence wrote:
> Python 2.7.2 (default, Jun 12 2011, 15:08:59) [MSC v.1500 32 bit (Intel)] on
> win32
> Type "help", "copyright", "credits" or "license" for more information.
>
with open("filename", "w") as f
> File "", line 1
>
> with open("filename
On 3/15/2012 13:21, Chris Angelico wrote:
On Thu, Mar 15, 2012 at 10:59 PM, Kiuhnm
wrote:
On 3/15/2012 12:47, Chris Angelico wrote:
It's a little odd, perhaps, if seen in a vacuum. But everything counts
from zero - list indices, etc - so it makes sense for range(len(lst))
to return indices va
On 3/15/2012 15:06, Mark Lawrence wrote:
On 15/03/2012 11:48, Kiuhnm wrote:
On 3/15/2012 12:14, Thomas Rachel wrote:
Am 15.03.2012 11:44 schrieb Kiuhnm:
Let's try that.
Show me an example of "list comprehensions" and "with" (whatever they
are).
with open("filename", "w") as f:
f.write(stuff
On 15/03/2012 14:19, Kiuhnm wrote:
On 3/15/2012 15:06, Mark Lawrence wrote:
On 15/03/2012 11:48, Kiuhnm wrote:
BTW, aren't those ':' redundant?
Kiuhnm
Nope.
Python 2.7.2 (default, Jun 12 2011, 15:08:59) [MSC v.1500 32 bit
(Intel)] on win32
Type "help", "copyright", "credits" or "license" fo
Kiuhnm wrote:
> BTW, aren't those ':' redundant?
>
They are required by the grammar, but in a sense you are correct. You could
modify Python's grammar to make the colons optional and still keep it
unambiguous but that would make it harder for other tools (such as text
editors or indeed human
On Fri, Mar 16, 2012 at 1:16 AM, Kiuhnm
wrote:
> Don't worry. Soon you'll be using C++0x :)))
I use gcc/g++ with most of the new features enabled. There's some
pretty handy features in it. Frankly, though, if I'd known about
Cython when I started the current project, I would have argued to
write
On 3/15/2012 15:23, Duncan Booth wrote:
Kiuhnm wrote:
BTW, aren't those ':' redundant?
They are required by the grammar, but in a sense you are correct. You could
modify Python's grammar to make the colons optional and still keep it
unambiguous but that would make it harder for other tools
On 3/15/2012 15:29, Chris Angelico wrote:
On Fri, Mar 16, 2012 at 1:16 AM, Kiuhnm
wrote:
Don't worry. Soon you'll be using C++0x :)))
I use gcc/g++ with most of the new features enabled. There's some
pretty handy features in it. Frankly, though, if I'd known about
Cython when I started the c
On 3/15/12 2:30 PM, Kiuhnm wrote:
On 3/15/2012 15:23, Duncan Booth wrote:
Kiuhnm wrote:
BTW, aren't those ':' redundant?
They are required by the grammar, but in a sense you are correct. You could
modify Python's grammar to make the colons optional and still keep it
unambiguous but that wou
On Fri, Mar 16, 2012 at 1:30 AM, Kiuhnm
wrote:
> Sorry, but I can't see how it would make it harder for humans to understand.
> Are there particular situations you're referring to?
In a trivial example, it's mostly just noise:
if a == b# who needs the colon?
print(c)
But when your condi
On 3/15/2012 15:28, Tim Golden wrote:
On 15/03/2012 14:19, Kiuhnm wrote:
On 3/15/2012 15:06, Mark Lawrence wrote:
On 15/03/2012 11:48, Kiuhnm wrote:
BTW, aren't those ':' redundant?
Kiuhnm
Nope.
Python 2.7.2 (default, Jun 12 2011, 15:08:59) [MSC v.1500 32 bit
(Intel)] on win32
Type "help",
On Fri, Mar 16, 2012 at 1:55 AM, Kiuhnm
wrote:
> By the way, the more elaborate parsing consists of looking for an
> END_OF_LINE followed by one or more spaces. It doesn't sound that
> complicated.
Only in the trivial case. What if you want to break your condition
over multiple lines? (Although y
On 3/15/2012 15:48, Chris Angelico wrote:
On Fri, Mar 16, 2012 at 1:30 AM, Kiuhnm
wrote:
Sorry, but I can't see how it would make it harder for humans to understand.
Are there particular situations you're referring to?
In a trivial example, it's mostly just noise:
if a == b# who needs t
On 3/15/12 2:55 PM, Kiuhnm wrote:
On 3/15/2012 15:28, Tim Golden wrote:
http://docs.python.org/faq/design.html#why-are-colons-required-for-the-if-while-def-class-statements
The second one is slightly easier to read because it's syntax-highlighted. Was
that on purpose?
No, it's an unintende
On Fri, Mar 16, 2012 at 2:05 AM, Kiuhnm
wrote:
> I had thought about the single-line case. What I hadn't thought about is
> that Python strives to be as regular as possible, so having different cases
> just for saving one keystroke isn't worth it.
Yep. Have you read the Zen of Python?
>>> import
In article ,
Chris Angelico wrote:
> I use gcc/g++ with most of the new features enabled. There's some
> pretty handy features in it. Frankly, though, if I'd known about
> Cython when I started the current project, I would have argued to
> write it all in Python and Cify (is that a word?) the mo
On 3/15/2012 15:43, Robert Kern wrote:
On 3/15/12 2:30 PM, Kiuhnm wrote:
On 3/15/2012 15:23, Duncan Booth wrote:
Kiuhnm wrote:
BTW, aren't those ':' redundant?
They are required by the grammar, but in a sense you are correct. You
could
modify Python's grammar to make the colons optional an
On Fri, Mar 16, 2012 at 2:14 AM, Roy Smith wrote:
> While it's nice to know that we've got the ability to write extensions
> in C, not once have we ever felt the need. I suppose if you're running
> a CPU-bound application, that might not be the case, but surprisingly
> few applications really are
In article ,
Chris Angelico wrote:
> "We're talking about a file that someone's uploaded to us, so it
> won't matter". Whatever processing we do is massively dwarfed by
> network time, and both scale linearly with the size of the file.
That last part (both scaling linearly) may not be true.
Am 15.03.2012 12:48 schrieb Kiuhnm:
On 3/15/2012 12:14, Thomas Rachel wrote:
Am 15.03.2012 11:44 schrieb Kiuhnm:
Let's try that.
Show me an example of "list comprehensions" and "with" (whatever they
are).
with open("filename", "w") as f:
f.write(stuff)
Here f is created before executing th
On Fri, Mar 16, 2012 at 1:16 AM, Kiuhnm
wrote:
> On 3/15/2012 13:21, Chris Angelico wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, Mar 15, 2012 at 10:59 PM, Kiuhnm
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> On 3/15/2012 12:47, Chris Angelico wrote:
It's a little odd, perhaps, if seen in a vacuum. But everything counts
from zero -
On 15/03/2012 16:01, Alec Taylor wrote:
C++0x? You mean C++11? :P
On that note, is Python upgrading to use C11? :V
Not for Windows given
http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2012-February/116258.html.
I've no idea regarding *nix, os x or whatever.
--
Cheers.
Mark Lawrence.
--
htt
On Wed, Mar 14, 2012 at 8:27 PM, Chris Angelico wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 15, 2012 at 10:54 AM, Arnaud Delobelle wrote:
>> I don't know this book and there may be a pedagogical reason for the
>> implementation you quote, but pairwise_sum is probably better
>> implemented in Python 3.X as:
>>
>> def pa
> > > Hopefully, the fact that your quoting of my text munged the
> > > characters down to ASCII is also pure coincidence, and is soon to be
> > > corrected at your end? Or has your client program not joined the
> > > rest of us in the third millennium with Unicode?
Outlook showed the EN DASH but
15.03.12 16:19, Kiuhnm написав(ла):
> Ok, so they're mandatory, but I was mainly talking of design. Why are they
> needed?
http://python-history.blogspot.com/2011/07/karin-dewar-indentation-and-colon.html
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
On 3/15/2012 16:08, Chris Angelico wrote:
On Fri, Mar 16, 2012 at 1:55 AM, Kiuhnm
wrote:
By the way, the more elaborate parsing consists of looking for an
END_OF_LINE followed by one or more spaces. It doesn't sound that
complicated.
Only in the trivial case. What if you want to break your c
On 15 March 2012 00:27, Chris Angelico wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 15, 2012 at 10:54 AM, Arnaud Delobelle wrote:
>> I don't know this book and there may be a pedagogical reason for the
>> implementation you quote, but pairwise_sum is probably better
>> implemented in Python 3.X as:
>>
>> def pairwise_su
On 03/15/2012 01:40 PM, Kiuhnm wrote:
> Moreover, I think that
>if (
>
>):
>
>
>
> is not very readable anyway.
Sure but neither is
if ( \
\
On 03/15/2012 09:18 AM, Kiuhnm wrote:
> > After early user testing without the colon, it was discovered that
> the meaning of the indentation was unclear to beginners being taught the
> first steps of programming. <
>
> The addition of the colon clarified it significantly: the colon some
Kiuhnm writes:
> Moreover, I think that
> if (
>
> ):
>
>
>
> is not very readable anyway.
I agree, and am glad PEP 8 has been updated to recommend an extra level
of indentation for contin
On 15 March 2012 22:35, Ben Finney wrote:
> Kiuhnm writes:
>
>> Moreover, I think that
>> if (
>>
>> ):
>>
>>
>>
>> is not very readable anyway.
>
> I agree, and am glad PEP 8 has been upda
On 3/15/2012 23:17, Michael Torrie wrote:
On 03/15/2012 09:18 AM, Kiuhnm wrote:
> After early user testing without the colon, it was discovered that
the meaning of the indentation was unclear to beginners being taught the
first steps of programming.<
The addition of the colon clarified
On 3/16/2012 0:00, Arnaud Delobelle wrote:
On 15 March 2012 22:35, Ben Finney wrote:
Kiuhnm writes:
Moreover, I think that
if (
):
is not very readable anyway.
I agree, and am
On Fri, 16 Mar 2012 01:48:09 +1100, Chris Angelico wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 16, 2012 at 1:30 AM, Kiuhnm
> wrote:
>> Sorry, but I can't see how it would make it harder for humans to
>> understand. Are there particular situations you're referring to?
>
> In a trivial example, it's mostly just noise:
>
Arnaud Delobelle writes:
> On 15 March 2012 22:35, Ben Finney wrote:
> > I agree, and am glad PEP 8 has been updated to recommend an extra
> > level of indentation for continuation, to distinguish from the new
> > block that follows
> > http://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0008/#indentation>.
>
>
On 15/03/2012 23:46, Kiuhnm wrote:
On 3/16/2012 0:00, Arnaud Delobelle wrote:
On 15 March 2012 22:35, Ben Finney wrote:
Kiuhnm writes:
Moreover, I think that
if (
):
is not very readable anyway.
I agree, and am glad
On Fri, 16 Mar 2012 00:46:35 +0100, Kiuhnm wrote:
> On 3/16/2012 0:00, Arnaud Delobelle wrote:
>> On 15 March 2012 22:35, Ben Finney wrote:
>>> Kiuhnm writes:
>>>
Moreover, I think that
if (
):
>>>
On Thu, 15 Mar 2012 00:34:47 +0100, Kiuhnm wrote:
> I've just started to read
>The Quick Python Book (2nd ed.)
Is this the one?
http://manning.com/ceder/
> The author claims that Python code is more readable than Perl code and
> provides this example:
>
> --- Perl ---
> sub pairwise_sum {
On Thu, 15 Mar 2012 20:54:30 +, Arnaud Delobelle wrote:
> On 15 March 2012 00:27, Chris Angelico wrote:
>> On Thu, Mar 15, 2012 at 10:54 AM, Arnaud Delobelle
>> wrote:
>>> I don't know this book and there may be a pedagogical reason for the
>>> implementation you quote, but pairwise_sum is p
On 16/03/2012 01:53, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
On Thu, 15 Mar 2012 00:34:47 +0100, Kiuhnm wrote:
I've just started to read
The Quick Python Book (2nd ed.)
Is this the one?
http://manning.com/ceder/
The author claims that Python code is more readable than Perl code and
provides this examp
On Fri, Mar 16, 2012 at 10:52 AM, Steven D'Aprano
wrote:
> On Fri, 16 Mar 2012 01:48:09 +1100, Chris Angelico wrote:
>
>> In a trivial example, it's mostly just noise:
>>
>> if a == b # who needs the colon?
>> print(c)
>
> The reader, for the same reason that above you wrote:
>
> "In a triv
On Fri, 16 Mar 2012 00:32:52 +0100, Kiuhnm wrote:
> Pick up two math books about the same topic but on two different levels
> (e.g. under-graduated and graduated). If you compare the proofs you'll
> see that those in the higher-level book are almost always sketched. Why
> is that? Because they're
Thomas Rachel wrote:
>> Or, more likely, lock creates an object which keeps the lock "acquired".
>> The lock is released when we leave the block.
>> So we could inspect the lock with
>> with lock as l:
>> inspect l...
>> do_some.
>
> Or just inspect l - I don't know if a lock's __enter__ met
On 3/16/2012 0:58, Mark Lawrence wrote:
On 15/03/2012 23:46, Kiuhnm wrote:
On 3/16/2012 0:00, Arnaud Delobelle wrote:
On 15 March 2012 22:35, Ben Finney wrote:
Kiuhnm writes:
Moreover, I think that
if (
):
is not ver
On 3/16/2012 4:55, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
On Fri, 16 Mar 2012 00:32:52 +0100, Kiuhnm wrote:
Pick up two math books about the same topic but on two different levels
(e.g. under-graduated and graduated). If you compare the proofs you'll
see that those in the higher-level book are almost always sk
On 3/16/2012 0:52, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
On Fri, Mar 16, 2012 at 1:30 AM, Kiuhnm
wrote:
Sorry, but I can't see how it would make it harder for humans to
understand. Are there particular situations you're referring to?
In a trivial example, it's mostly just noise:
if a == b# who needs t
On 2012-03-16, Kiuhnm wrote:
> As you can see, I'm not an English native speaker, but I think
> I know a few things about punctuation. We second language
> learners remember all the wrong things :(
English's punctuation rules have to be a lot easier to remember
than the seemingly random way in wh
On 3/16/2012 2:53, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
On Thu, 15 Mar 2012 00:34:47 +0100, Kiuhnm wrote:
I've just started to read
The Quick Python Book (2nd ed.)
Is this the one?
http://manning.com/ceder/
The author claims that Python code is more readable than Perl code and
provides this example
On Fri, 16 Mar 2012 13:36:25 +0100, Kiuhnm wrote:
> On 3/16/2012 0:52, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
>> It is *remarkable* how people take the colon for granted. It is so
>> simple and so obvious that they use it in their own writing often
>> without thinking about it, but because it is not strictly nec
On 2012-03-16, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
> A grammarian might very well write:
>
> Your assignment, if you choose to accept it, is to:
>
> 1. Take the bus to Swansea.
> ...
>
> In English, one typical use for colons is to introduce a list
> or sequence of items, including instructions. A sequence of
On Fri, 16 Mar 2012 13:55:06 +0100, Kiuhnm wrote:
>> I don't understand the reason for $arg1 and $arg2. Is there some reason
>> why the code couldn't do this instead?
>>
>> my(@list1, @list2) = @_;
>
> @_ contains references to arrays. You can't pass two arrays to a
> function.
Why eve
On Fri, 16 Mar 2012 13:08:49 +, Neil Cerutti wrote:
> On 2012-03-16, Steven D'Aprano
> wrote:
>> A grammarian might very well write:
>>
>> Your assignment, if you choose to accept it, is to:
>>
>> 1. Take the bus to Swansea.
>> ...
>>
>> In English, one typical use for colons is to introduce
On Fri, 16 Mar 2012 13:10:12 +0100, Kiuhnm wrote:
> Maybe we should define *exactly* what readability is (in less then 500
> lines, if possible).
If you can't be bothered to read my post before replying, save yourself
some more time and don't bother to reply at all.
I quote from the part of the
On 3/16/2012 17:25, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
On Fri, 16 Mar 2012 13:55:06 +0100, Kiuhnm wrote:
I don't understand the reason for $arg1 and $arg2. Is there some reason
why the code couldn't do this instead?
my(@list1, @list2) = @_;
@_ contains references to arrays. You can't pass two
> >> I don't understand the reason for $arg1 and $arg2. Is there some reason
> >> why the code couldn't do this instead?
> >>
> >> my(@list1, @list2) = @_;
> >
> > @_ contains references to arrays. You can't pass two arrays to a
> > function.
>
>
> Why ever not? That seems like basic func
On 2012-03-16, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
> Ah, perhaps you're talking about *prescriptivist* grammarians,
> who insist on applying grammatical rules that exist only in
> their own fevered imagination. Sorry, I was talking about the
> other sort, the ones who apply the grammatical rules used by
> peop
On Fri, 16 Mar 2012 17:53:24 +, Neil Cerutti wrote:
> On 2012-03-16, Steven D'Aprano
> wrote:
>> Ah, perhaps you're talking about *prescriptivist* grammarians, who
>> insist on applying grammatical rules that exist only in their own
>> fevered imagination. Sorry, I was talking about the other
On 2012-03-16, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
> On Fri, 16 Mar 2012 17:53:24 +, Neil Cerutti wrote:
>
>> On 2012-03-16, Steven D'Aprano
>> wrote:
>>> Ah, perhaps you're talking about *prescriptivist* grammarians, who
>>> insist on applying grammatical rules that exist only in their own
>>> fevered im
Steven D'Aprano wrote:
> On Fri, 16 Mar 2012 17:53:24 +, Neil Cerutti wrote:
>
>> On 2012-03-16, Steven D'Aprano
>> wrote:
>>> Ah, perhaps you're talking about *prescriptivist* grammarians, who
>>> insist on applying grammatical rules that exist only in their own
>>> fevered imagination. Sor
> People spell your name Stephen, sometimes too. Thinking of changing it?
> Gore Vidal's quote has panache, a valid compensation for breaking
the usual rule. How many other uses on that page are similar?
He provided common examples and reference links. Seems like a pretty
reasonable way of tryin
Neil Cerutti wrote:
On 2012-03-16, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
Ah, perhaps you're talking about *prescriptivist* grammarians,
who insist on applying grammatical rules that exist only in
their own fevered imagination. Sorry, I was talking about the
other sort, the ones who apply the grammatical rules
On Sat, Mar 17, 2012 at 7:30 AM, Ethan Furman wrote:
> Neil Cerutti wrote:
>>
>> I am not pedantic. You are wrong.
>>
>
> When saying somebody is wrong, you really should back it up with references
> (wiki, dictionary, etc.).
I interpret this simply as a witty statement, one that can be thrown
in
On 03/16/2012 10:48 AM, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
> On Fri, 16 Mar 2012 13:10:12 +0100, Kiuhnm wrote:
>
>> Maybe we should define *exactly* what readability is (in less then 500
>> lines, if possible).
>
> If you can't be bothered to read my post before replying, save yourself
> some more time and
On 3/16/2012 9:08 AM, Neil Cerutti wrote:
A grammarian always uses complete sentence before a colon, even
when introducing a list.
The Chicago Manual of Style*, 13th edition, says "The colon is used to
mark a discontinuity of grammatical construction greater than that
indicated by the semico
On 3/16/2012 17:48, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
On Fri, 16 Mar 2012 13:10:12 +0100, Kiuhnm wrote:
Maybe we should define *exactly* what readability is (in less then 500
lines, if possible).
If you can't be bothered to read my post before replying, save yourself
some more time and don't bother to r
On 3/16/2012 14:03, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
A one line routine is still a routine. There is nothing ungrammatical
about "If you can: take the bus.", although it is non-idiomatic English.
In another post you wrote
"Sorry, I was talking about the other sort, the ones who
apply the grammatical rule
On 3/16/2012 21:04, Prasad, Ramit wrote:
People spell your name Stephen, sometimes too. Thinking of changing it?
Gore Vidal's quote has panache, a valid compensation for breaking
the usual rule. How many other uses on that page are similar?
He provided common examples and reference links. Seem
On Sun, Mar 18, 2012 at 6:59 AM, Kiuhnm
wrote:
> Could you please explain to me in which way
> mov eax, 3
> should be less readable than
> for i in x: print(i)
> ?
They are equally readable. The first one sets EAX to 3; the second
displays all elements of x on the console. Assembly is reada
On 3/17/2012 0:39, Michael Torrie wrote:
For someone who claims he's merely examining the language and seeking to
learn about it, Kiuhnm is jumping awfully quickly into the realm of
trolling.
I'm speechless... thanks, man!
Kiuhnm
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
On 3/17/2012 22:20, Chris Angelico wrote:
On Sun, Mar 18, 2012 at 6:59 AM, Kiuhnm
wrote:
Could you please explain to me in which way
mov eax, 3
should be less readable than
for i in x: print(i)
?
They are equally readable. The first one sets EAX to 3; the second
displays all elements
On 03/17/2012 03:28 PM, Kiuhnm wrote:
>> They are equally readable. The first one sets EAX to 3; the second
>> displays all elements of x on the console. Assembly is readable on a
>> very low level, but it's by nature verbose at a high level, and thus
>> less readable (you can't eyeball a function
Kiuhnm writes:
> Welcome in the realm of trolling.
Thank you for stating clearly what you're doing.
Welcome to yet another kill-file. *plonk*
--
\ “I am too firm in my consciousness of the marvelous to be ever |
`\ fascinated by the mere supernatural …” —Joseph Conrad, _The |
_o
On Sat, 17 Mar 2012 21:54:40 +0100, Kiuhnm wrote:
> On 3/16/2012 21:04, Prasad, Ramit wrote:
>>> People spell your name Stephen, sometimes too. Thinking of changing
>>> it? Gore Vidal's quote has panache, a valid compensation for breaking
>> the usual rule. How many other uses on that page are sim
On Sun, Mar 18, 2012 at 11:57 AM, Steven D'Aprano
wrote:
> The vast majority of English speakers write things like:
>
> TO DO:
And the vast majority of programmers leave out the space, even in non-code.
ChrisA
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
On Sat, 17 Mar 2012 20:59:34 +0100, Kiuhnm wrote:
> Ok, so length and readability are orthogonal properties. Could you
> please explain to me in which way
> mov eax, 3
> should be less readable than
> for i in x: print(i)
> ?
"mov eax, 3" requires more domain-specific knowledge. It oper
On Sat, 17 Mar 2012 21:23:45 +0100, Kiuhnm wrote:
> On 3/16/2012 14:03, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
>> A one line routine is still a routine. There is nothing ungrammatical
>> about "If you can: take the bus.", although it is non-idiomatic
>> English.
>
> In another post you wrote
> "Sorry, I was talk
On Sun, 18 Mar 2012 12:07:36 +1100, Chris Angelico wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 18, 2012 at 11:57 AM, Steven D'Aprano
> wrote:
>> The vast majority of English speakers write things like:
>>
>> TO DO:
>
> And the vast majority of programmers leave out the space, even in
> non-code.
I'm not sure if yo
On Sun, Mar 18, 2012 at 1:05 PM, Steven D'Aprano
wrote:
> I'm not sure if you're making a point there, or just a witty observation,
> but for the record I would accept dictionaries adding "todo" as a jargon
> entry. I don't think it is widespread enough to count as a regular word,
> but if we can
On Thu, 15 Mar 2012 00:34:47 +0100, Kiuhnm wrote:
> I've just started to read
>The Quick Python Book (2nd ed.)
> The author claims that Python code is more readable than Perl code and
> provides this example:
>
> --- Perl ---
> sub pairwise_sum {
> my($arg1, $arg2) = @_;
> my(@resul
On Mar 14, 11:23 pm, alex23 wrote:
> The idea that Python code has to be obvious to non-programmers is an
> incorrect and dangerous one.
Incorrect? Probably. Dangerous? You'll have to explain what you
mean.
What I would say is that, when PROGRAMMERS look at Python code for the
first time, th
On Mon, Mar 19, 2012 at 8:30 AM, John Ladasky wrote:
> What I would say is that, when PROGRAMMERS look at Python code for the
> first time, they will understand what it does more readily than they
> would understand other unfamiliar programming languages. That has
> value.
This is something that
On Mon, 19 Mar 2012 09:02:06 +1100, Chris Angelico wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 19, 2012 at 8:30 AM, John Ladasky
> wrote:
>> What I would say is that, when PROGRAMMERS look at Python code for the
>> first time, they will understand what it does more readily than they
>> would understand other unfamiliar
1 - 100 of 280 matches
Mail list logo
