[EMAIL PROTECTED] said unto the world upon 2005-12-15 07:50:
> obvious). It is just like there are language on this planet that reads
> from right to left horizontally, as well as top to bottom, then right
> to left. And you are trying to tell them that English way is the "right
> way" or the obvi
Tolga wrote:
> As far as I know, Perl is known as "there are many ways to do
> something" and Python is known as "there is only one way". Could you
> please explain this? How is this possible and is it *really* a good
> concept?
Do you know about the existence of god, just or scientific truth? Of
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
John Hazen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> * Chris Mellon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2005-12-15 06:09]:
> > (Am I dating myself? Do teenagers still put studs on their jackets?)
>
> No. They put studs in their lips, tongues, eyebrows, navels, and sexual
> organs.
>
> Oh,
* Chris Mellon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2005-12-15 06:09]:
> (Am I dating myself? Do teenagers still put studs on their jackets?)
No. They put studs in their lips, tongues, eyebrows, navels, and sexual
organs.
Oh, and ears. (How quaint.)
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
On Thu, 15 Dec 2005, Simon Brunning wrote:
> On 12/15/05, Steve Holden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Aahz wrote:
>>> python -c 'import this'
>>
>> Faster:
>>
>>python -m this
>
> So, there's two ways to do it. ;-)
Yes, but which way do you do it if you're Dutch?
--
http://mail.python.org
On Thu, 15 Dec 2005, Richie Hindle wrote:
> [Steve]
>> Since Python is Turing-complete
>
> Is there some equivalent of Godwin's Law that we can invoke at this
> point? 8-)
None that I know of, but perhaps there should be. =) Note that in this
particular thread, we could have invoked the real Go
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> The point is again, "obvious" is not so obvious sometimes.
You keep leaving out the context. We're writing *python*. What's
obvious when you're writing python won't be when you're writing
FORTRAN, or Scheme, or O'Caml, or Eiffel, or Generally (not
always, I'll admi
Simon Brunning wrote:
> On 12/15/05, Steve Holden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Aahz wrote:
>>> python -c 'import this'
>>
>> Faster:
>>
>>python -m this
>
> So, there's two ways to do it. ;-)
It's actually a perfect example of an "new" one-obvious-way replacing an
old way (or rather,
OhmiGod! I posted this message this morning and when I came home, I
said myself "umm, lemme check it" and I cannot believe what I see... 37
threads!
As long as Python is supported by such a hardworking and enthusiastic
community, I'm sure that he (=Python) will become the nightmare of many
other l
> "bonono" == bonono <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
bonono> What I don't quite understand is, if it is "obvious",
bonono> whether there is a Zen, people would still code it that
bonono> way(unless of course they want to hide it from others or
bonono> make it difficult to understa
Aahz wrote:
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> Steve Holden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>Aahz wrote:
>>
>>>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>>>Steve Holden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>
(Part of) Python's credo (which you can read in context by typing
import this
at a
On Thu, 15 Dec 2005 16:28:30 +0100,
Xavier Morel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> $ python -m this
> (no quotes needed btw)
*Three*. *Three* ways to do it: import, -c, -m, and an almost
fanatical devotion to the Pope.
> It's usually useful to pipe it through grep too, in order to get only
> the pi
On Thu, 15 Dec 2005 14:57:18 + in comp.lang.python, Steve Holden
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[...]
>Would you say
>
> do:
> suite
> while condition
>
>or what? Basically do ... while and do ... until most naturally put the
Works for me, though I wouldn't cry if the "while" was
Simon Brunning wrote:
> On 12/15/05, Steve Holden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>Aahz wrote:
>>
>>>python -c 'import this'
>>
>>Faster:
>>
>> python -m this
>
>
> So, there's two ways to do it. ;-)
>
You want a clip round the ear?
regards
Steve
--
Steve Holden +44 150 684 7255
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Steve Holden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Aahz wrote:
>> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>> Steve Holden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>
>>>(Part of) Python's credo (which you can read in context by typing
>>>
>>>import this
>>>
>>>at an interactive command prom
[Steve Holden, to bonono]
> ...
> I believe I have also suggested that the phrases of the Zen aren't to be
> taken too literally.
Heretic.
> You seem to distinguish between "obvious" meaning "obvious to Steve
> but not necessarily to me" and "really obvious" meaning "obvious to both
> Steve and m
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> C-programmer learning python :
>
> Hi, where is condition ? true : false
>
> someone prefer the if/else statement type:
>
> Can't you see that the following is much more readable, stupid(well not
> the exact word but tone in such a way like words of messy or elegant
> et
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Chris Mellon wrote:
>
>>Any time you want to write something in any way other than the obvious
>>way, ask yourself why? Is it more obvious *to you*, which is a good
>>reason as long as you're only writing code for yourself? Or is it just
>>to be different, or because you
On 12/15/05, Steve Holden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Aahz wrote:
> > python -c 'import this'
>
> Faster:
>
>python -m this
So, there's two ways to do it. ;-)
--
Cheers,
Simon B,
[EMAIL PROTECTED],
http://www.brunningonline.net/simon/blog/
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/pyth
Steve Holden wrote:
> This would have the unfortunate side effect of only allowing changes to
> Python that allowed users to do things which are currently impossible.
>
> Since Python is Turing-complete, this would effectively inhibit all
> further changes to the language.
I don't quite understand
Aahz wrote:
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> Steve Holden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>(Part of) Python's credo (which you can read in context by typing
>>
>>import this
>>
>>at an interactive command prompt) is "There should be one (and
>>preferably only one) way to do it".
>
>
> Act
Carl J. Van Arsdall wrote:
> Although, obvious to whom is a good question. If you don't know the
> language very little will be obvious to you, however one who is familiar
> with python (rtfm) would know which cases should obviously use "while"
> and which cases should obviously use "for"
>
So fa
Aahz wrote:
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> Steve Holden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> (Part of) Python's credo (which you can read in context by typing
>>
>> import this
>>
>> at an interactive command prompt) is "There should be one (and
>> preferably only one) way to do it".
>
> Actua
[Steve]
> Since Python is Turing-complete
Is there some equivalent of Godwin's Law that we can invoke at this
point? 8-)
--
Richie Hindle
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Steve Holden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>(Part of) Python's credo (which you can read in context by typing
>
> import this
>
>at an interactive command prompt) is "There should be one (and
>preferably only one) way to do it".
Actually, I've gotten used to do
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
Would you, say, remove "for" loops because they could be written as
"while" loops. Don't forget the word "obvious" that appears in that
catchphrase ...
>>> If every "for" usage can be done with "while" and that "while" is the
>>> prefe
Ben Sizer wrote:
> Steve Holden wrote:
>
>
>>Would you, say, remove "for" loops because they could be written as
>>"while" loops. Don't forget the word "obvious" that appears in that
>>catchphrase ...
>
>
> Interestingly - and somewhat related to this - the other day I was
> looking for a do..w
Steve Holden wrote:
> It says that Python is already adequately expressive to allow it to
> solve all solvable problems: more briefly, "Python can already do
> everything". Hence there is no need to change the language.
>
> Of course I use this as a /reductio ad absurdum/ to try to show you the
>
Steve Holden wrote:
> This would have the unfortunate side effect of only allowing changes to
> Python that allowed users to do things which are currently impossible.
>
> Since Python is Turing-complete, this would effectively inhibit all
> further changes to the language.
I don't quote understand
Tolga wrote:
> As far as I know, Perl is known as "there are many ways to do
> something" and Python is known as "there is only one way". Could you
> please explain this? How is this possible and is it *really* a good
> concept?
Yes it is a good concept because you can concentrate on Strategy rat
Yes, a shared preferred way.
And the same is true of many... Think Haskell, OCaml, Lua, Ruby, Lisp,
Smalltalk, Java, C... They all have qualities of some sort, that appeal
to some of us. Not all the same, nor to all of us. It's really a
question of perspective.
In this Python community, one shared
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Steve Holden wrote:
>
>>This would have the unfortunate side effect of only allowing changes to
>>Python that allowed users to do things which are currently impossible.
>>
>>Since Python is Turing-complete, this would effectively inhibit all
>>further changes to the lang
Chris Mellon wrote:
[...]
> (Am I dating myself? ...)
>
Do we need to know about your love life here? Are you hermaphroditic? If
not the relationship will never go anywhere.
regards
Steve
--
Steve Holden +44 150 684 7255 +1 800 494 3119
Holden Web LLC www.holdenweb
Steve Holden wrote:
> Would you, say, remove "for" loops because they could be written as
> "while" loops. Don't forget the word "obvious" that appears in that
> catchphrase ...
Interestingly - and somewhat related to this - the other day I was
looking for a do..while or do..until loop in the Pyt
Terry Hancock wrote:
> But that is precisely what it does mean -- Python's language
> design tries to be "reasonably minimal": there's usually one
> fairly easy way to do a task. Unintentionally, there may
> well be a half-dozen really hard ways to do it. The point of
> telling this to the potenti
Steve Holden wrote:
> This would have the unfortunate side effect of only allowing changes to
> Python that allowed users to do things which are currently impossible.
>
> Since Python is Turing-complete, this would effectively inhibit all
> further changes to the language.
I don't quote understand
Chris Mellon wrote:
>You seem very, very interested in portraying anyone who
> wants to encourage good style and readability as a language Nazi. I
> don't appreciate that. You'll notice that I haven't taken the easy way
> out and told you to go away and play with Perl, right?
Noop. My stand is tha
On 15 Dec 2005 05:08:02 -0800
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> I would say that if "only one way to do it" is the intend,
> make it into the language and any other way is simply
> error. Say if ternary operator is not the "preferred way",
> don't have it in the language. If someone find a way to
> work a
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[...]
> It is perfectly ok to define coding policy within an organisation, for
> a project that have more than one developer and things like that. But
> if the language allows more than one way to do it, people would try if
> that is what they want and they can.
>
> I woul
On 15 Dec 2005 05:08:02 -0800, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Chris Mellon wrote:
> > On 15 Dec 2005 04:32:39 -0800, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >
> > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > > > Tolga wrote:
> > > > > As far as I know, Perl is known as "there are many
Chris Mellon wrote:
> On 15 Dec 2005 04:32:39 -0800, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > > Tolga wrote:
> > > > As far as I know, Perl is known as "there are many ways to do
> > > > something" and Python is known as "there is only one way". Could you
>
On 15 Dec 2005 04:32:39 -0800, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > Tolga wrote:
> > > As far as I know, Perl is known as "there are many ways to do
> > > something" and Python is known as "there is only one way". Could you
> > > please explain this? How is
Tolga wrote:
> As far as I know, Perl is known as "there are many ways to do
> something" and Python is known as "there is only one way". Could you
> please explain this? How is this possible and is it *really* a good
> concept?
>
Perl's credo is actually "There's more than one way to do it", ofte
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Tolga wrote:
> > As far as I know, Perl is known as "there are many ways to do
> > something" and Python is known as "there is only one way". Could you
> > please explain this? How is this possible and is it *really* a good
> > concept?
>
> if you 'import this', you get
Tolga wrote:
> As far as I know, Perl is known as "there are many ways to do
> something" and Python is known as "there is only one way". Could you
> please explain this? How is this possible and is it *really* a good
> concept?
if you 'import this', you get a bit of Python Zen... from which I ha
45 matches
Mail list logo
