On 07/01/2014 13:34, wxjmfa...@gmail.com wrote:
Le dimanche 5 janvier 2014 23:14:07 UTC+1, Terry Reedy a écrit :
Ned : this has already been explained and illustrated.
jmf
This has never been explained and illustrated. Roughly 30 minutes ago
Terry Reedy once again completely shot your argu
On 1/8/2014 4:59 AM, wxjmfa...@gmail.com wrote:
[responding to me]
The FSR acts more as an coding scheme selector
That is what PEP 393 describes and what I and many others have said. The
FSR saves memory by selecting from three choices the most compact coding
scheme for each string.
I ask a
Le mercredi 8 janvier 2014 01:02:22 UTC+1, Terry Reedy a écrit :
> On 1/7/2014 9:54 AM, Terry Reedy wrote:
>
> > On 1/7/2014 8:34 AM, wxjmfa...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> >> Le dimanche 5 janvier 2014 23:14:07 UTC+1, Terry Reedy a écrit :
>
> >
>
> >>> Memory: Point 2. A *design goal* of FSR was to s
On 1/7/2014 9:54 AM, Terry Reedy wrote:
On 1/7/2014 8:34 AM, wxjmfa...@gmail.com wrote:
Le dimanche 5 janvier 2014 23:14:07 UTC+1, Terry Reedy a écrit :
Memory: Point 2. A *design goal* of FSR was to save memory relative to
UTF-32, which is what you apparently prefer. Your examples show that
On 8 January 2014 00:34, wrote:
>
> Point 2: This Flexible String Representation does no
> "effectuate" any memory optimization. It only succeeds
> to do the opposite of what a corrrect usage of utf*
> do.
>
UTF-8 is a variable-width encoding that uses less memory to encode code
points with lowe
On 1/7/2014 8:34 AM, wxjmfa...@gmail.com wrote:
Le dimanche 5 janvier 2014 23:14:07 UTC+1, Terry Reedy a écrit :
Memory: Point 2. A *design goal* of FSR was to save memory relative to
UTF-32, which is what you apparently prefer. Your examples show that FSF
successfully met its design goal. Bu
Le dimanche 5 janvier 2014 23:14:07 UTC+1, Terry Reedy a écrit :
> On 1/5/2014 9:23 AM, wxjmfa...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > Le samedi 4 janvier 2014 23:46:49 UTC+1, Terry Reedy a écrit :
>
> >> On 1/4/2014 2:10 PM, wxjmfa...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> >>> And I could add, I *never* saw once one soul, who
On 06/01/2014 01:54, Chris Angelico wrote:
On Mon, Jan 6, 2014 at 12:23 PM, Steven D'Aprano
wrote:
(However, to the extent that Amazon has gained monopoly power over the book
market, that reasoning may not apply. Amazon is not *technically* a
monopoly, but they are clearly well on the way to be
On Mon, Jan 6, 2014 at 12:23 PM, Steven D'Aprano
wrote:
> (However, to the extent that Amazon has gained monopoly power over the book
> market, that reasoning may not apply. Amazon is not *technically* a
> monopoly, but they are clearly well on the way to becoming one, at which
> point the custome
Roy Smith wrote:
> In article ,
> Chris Angelico wrote:
>
>> On Sun, Jan 5, 2014 at 2:20 PM, Roy Smith wrote:
>> > I've got a new sorting algorithm which is guaranteed to cut 10 seconds
>> > off the sorting time (i.e. $0.10 per package). The problem is, it
>> > makes a mistake 1% of the time.
Chris Angelico wrote about Amazon:
> And yet I can't disagree with your final conclusion. Empirical
> evidence goes against my incredulous declaration that "surely this is
> a bad idea" - according to XKCD 1165, they're kicking out nearly a
> cubic meter a SECOND of packages.
Yes, but judging
On Mon, Jan 6, 2014 at 9:56 AM, Terry Reedy wrote:
> On 1/5/2014 11:51 AM, Chris Angelico wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, Jan 6, 2014 at 3:34 AM, Roy Smith wrote:
>>>
>>> Amazon's (short-term) goal is to increase their market share by
>>> undercutting everybody on price. They have implemented a box-packing
On 1/5/2014 11:51 AM, Chris Angelico wrote:
On Mon, Jan 6, 2014 at 3:34 AM, Roy Smith wrote:
Amazon's (short-term) goal is to increase their market share by
undercutting everybody on price. They have implemented a box-packing
algorithm which clearly has a bug in it. You are complaining that t
On 1/5/2014 9:23 AM, wxjmfa...@gmail.com wrote:
My examples are ONLY ILLUSTRATING, this FSR
is wrong by design,
Let me answer you a different way. If FSR is 'wrong by design', so are
the alternatives. Hence, the claim is, in itself, useless as a guide to
choosing. The choices:
* Keep the p
On 1/5/2014 9:23 AM, wxjmfa...@gmail.com wrote:
Le samedi 4 janvier 2014 23:46:49 UTC+1, Terry Reedy a écrit :
On 1/4/2014 2:10 PM, wxjmfa...@gmail.com wrote:
And I could add, I *never* saw once one soul, who is
explaining what I'm doing wrong in the gazillion
of examples I gave on this list.
Chris Angelico wrote:
> Can you really run a business by not caring about your customers?
http://snltranscripts.jt.org/76/76aphonecompany.phtml
--
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
On Mon, Jan 6, 2014 at 3:34 AM, Roy Smith wrote:
> Amazon's (short-term) goal is to increase their market share by
> undercutting everybody on price. They have implemented a box-packing
> algorithm which clearly has a bug in it. You are complaining that they
> failed to deliver your purchase in
In article ,
Chris Angelico wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 5, 2014 at 2:20 PM, Roy Smith wrote:
> > I've got a new sorting algorithm which is guaranteed to cut 10 seconds
> > off the sorting time (i.e. $0.10 per package). The problem is, it makes
> > a mistake 1% of the time.
>
> That's a valid line of
In article <52c94fec$0$29973$c3e8da3$54964...@news.astraweb.com>,
Steven D'Aprano wrote:
> How do we tell when software is buggy? We compare what it actually does to
> the promised behaviour, or expected behaviour, and if there is a
> discrepancy, we call it a bug. We don't compare it to some id
On 1/5/14 9:23 AM, wxjmfa...@gmail.com wrote:
Le samedi 4 janvier 2014 23:46:49 UTC+1, Terry Reedy a écrit :
On 1/4/2014 2:10 PM, wxjmfa...@gmail.com wrote:
I do not mind to be considered as an idiot, but
I'm definitively not blind.
And I could add, I *never* saw once one soul, who is
explaini
Le samedi 4 janvier 2014 23:46:49 UTC+1, Terry Reedy a écrit :
> On 1/4/2014 2:10 PM, wxjmfa...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > Le samedi 4 janvier 2014 15:17:40 UTC+1, Chris Angelico a écrit :
>
>
>
> >> any, and Python has only one, idiot like jmf who completely
>
>
>
> Chris, I appreciate the many
Johannes Bauer, 05.01.2014 13:14:
> I've pushed the
> migration of *large* projects at work to Python3 when support was pretty
> early and it really wasn't a huge deal.
I think there are two sides to consider. Those who can switch their code
base to Py3 and be happy (as you did, apparently), and t
On 31/12/2013 09:53, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
Mark Lawrence wrote:
http://blog.startifact.com/posts/alex-gaynor-on-python-3.html.
I quote:
"...perhaps a brave group of volunteers will stand up and fork Python 2, and
take the incremental steps forward. This will have to remain just an idle
sugg
On Sun, Jan 5, 2014 at 11:28 PM, Steven D'Aprano
wrote:
> - "The Unix 'locate' command doesn't do a live search of the file
> system because that would be too slow, it uses a snapshot of the
> state of the file system."
>
>
> Is locate buggy because it tells you what files existed the last tim
Devin Jeanpierre wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 4, 2014 at 6:27 PM, Steven D'Aprano
> wrote:
>> Fast is never more important than correct. It's just that sometimes you
>> might compromise a little (or a lot) on what counts as correct in order
>> for some speed.
>
> Is this statement even falsifiable? Can
On 31.12.2013 10:53, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
> Mark Lawrence wrote:
>
>> http://blog.startifact.com/posts/alex-gaynor-on-python-3.html.
>
> I quote:
>
> "...perhaps a brave group of volunteers will stand up and fork Python 2, and
> take the incremental steps forward. This will have to remain just
Le dimanche 5 janvier 2014 03:54:29 UTC+1, Chris Angelico a écrit :
> On Sun, Jan 5, 2014 at 1:41 PM, Steven D'Aprano
>
> wrote:
>
> > wxjmfa...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> >
>
> >> The very interesting aspect in the way you are holding
>
> >> unicodes (strings). By comparing Python 2 with Python 3.
On Sat, Jan 4, 2014 at 6:27 PM, Steven D'Aprano
wrote:
> Fast is never more important than correct. It's just that sometimes you
> might compromise a little (or a lot) on what counts as correct in order for
> some speed.
Is this statement even falsifiable? Can you conceive of a circumstance
where
On Sun, Jan 5, 2014 at 2:20 PM, Roy Smith wrote:
> I've got a new sorting algorithm which is guaranteed to cut 10 seconds
> off the sorting time (i.e. $0.10 per package). The problem is, it makes
> a mistake 1% of the time.
That's a valid line of argument in big business, these days, because
we'
Roy Smith wrote:
> I wrote:
>> > I realize I'm taking this statement out of context, but yes, sometimes
>> > fast is more important than correct.
>
> In article <52c8c301$0$29998$c3e8da3$54964...@news.astraweb.com>,
> Steven D'Aprano wrote:
>> Fast is never more important than correct.
>
> Sur
In article ,
Rustom Mody wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 5, 2014 at 8:50 AM, Roy Smith wrote:
> > I wrote:
> >> > I realize I'm taking this statement out of context, but yes, sometimes
> >> > fast is more important than correct.
> >
> > In article <52c8c301$0$29998$c3e8da3$54964...@news.astraweb.com>,
> >
On Sun, Jan 5, 2014 at 8:50 AM, Roy Smith wrote:
> I wrote:
>> > I realize I'm taking this statement out of context, but yes, sometimes
>> > fast is more important than correct.
>
> In article <52c8c301$0$29998$c3e8da3$54964...@news.astraweb.com>,
> Steven D'Aprano wrote:
>> Fast is never more i
I wrote:
> > I realize I'm taking this statement out of context, but yes, sometimes
> > fast is more important than correct.
In article <52c8c301$0$29998$c3e8da3$54964...@news.astraweb.com>,
Steven D'Aprano wrote:
> Fast is never more important than correct.
Sure it is.
Let's imagine you're b
On Sun, Jan 5, 2014 at 1:41 PM, Steven D'Aprano
wrote:
> wxjmfa...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>> The very interesting aspect in the way you are holding
>> unicodes (strings). By comparing Python 2 with Python 3.3,
>> you are comparing utf-8 with the the internal "representation"
>> of Python 3.3 (the flex
wxjmfa...@gmail.com wrote:
> The very interesting aspect in the way you are holding
> unicodes (strings). By comparing Python 2 with Python 3.3,
> you are comparing utf-8 with the the internal "representation"
> of Python 3.3 (the flexible string represenation).
This is incorrect. Python 2 has ne
On 2014-01-05 02:32, Chris Angelico wrote:
On Sun, Jan 5, 2014 at 1:27 PM, Steven D'Aprano
wrote:
But regardless of how fast your path-finder algorithm might become, you're
unlikely to be satisfied with a solution that travels around in a circle
from A to B a million times then shoots off strai
On Sun, Jan 5, 2014 at 1:27 PM, Steven D'Aprano
wrote:
> But regardless of how fast your path-finder algorithm might become, you're
> unlikely to be satisfied with a solution that travels around in a circle
> from A to B a million times then shoots off straight to Z without passing
> through any o
Roy Smith wrote:
> In article ,
> Mark Lawrence wrote:
>
>> Surely everybody prefers fast but incorrect code in
>> preference to something that is correct but slow?
>
> I realize I'm taking this statement out of context, but yes, sometimes
> fast is more important than correct.
I know somebod
On Sun, Jan 5, 2014 at 9:46 AM, Terry Reedy wrote:
> On 1/4/2014 2:10 PM, wxjmfa...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>> Le samedi 4 janvier 2014 15:17:40 UTC+1, Chris Angelico a écrit :
>
>
>>> any, and Python has only one, idiot like jmf who completely
>
>
> Chris, I appreciate the many contributions you make
On 1/4/2014 2:10 PM, wxjmfa...@gmail.com wrote:
Le samedi 4 janvier 2014 15:17:40 UTC+1, Chris Angelico a écrit :
any, and Python has only one, idiot like jmf who completely
Chris, I appreciate the many contributions you make to this list, but
that does not exempt you from out standard of c
Le samedi 4 janvier 2014 15:17:40 UTC+1, Chris Angelico a écrit :
> On Sun, Jan 5, 2014 at 12:55 AM, Roy Smith wrote:
>
> > In article ,
>
> > Mark Lawrence wrote:
>
> >
>
> >> Surely everybody prefers fast but incorrect code in
>
> >> preference to something that is correct but slow?
>
>
On 1/4/14 9:17 AM, Chris Angelico wrote:
On Sun, Jan 5, 2014 at 12:55 AM, Roy Smith wrote:
In article ,
Mark Lawrence wrote:
Surely everybody prefers fast but incorrect code in
preference to something that is correct but slow?
I realize I'm taking this statement out of context, but yes,
On Sun, Jan 5, 2014 at 12:55 AM, Roy Smith wrote:
> In article ,
> Mark Lawrence wrote:
>
>> Surely everybody prefers fast but incorrect code in
>> preference to something that is correct but slow?
>
> I realize I'm taking this statement out of context, but yes, sometimes
> fast is more importan
In article ,
Mark Lawrence wrote:
> Surely everybody prefers fast but incorrect code in
> preference to something that is correct but slow?
I realize I'm taking this statement out of context, but yes, sometimes
fast is more important than correct. Sometimes the other way around.
--
https://
Le vendredi 3 janvier 2014 12:14:41 UTC+1, Robin Becker a écrit :
> On 02/01/2014 18:37, Terry Reedy wrote:
>
> > On 1/2/2014 12:36 PM, Robin Becker wrote:
>
> >
>
> >> I just spent a large amount of effort porting reportlab to a version
>
> >> which works with both python2.7 and python3.3. I h
On 02/01/2014 17:36, Robin Becker wrote:
On 31/12/2013 15:41, Roy Smith wrote:
I'm using 2.7 in production. I realize that at some point we'll need to
upgrade to 3.x. We'll keep putting that off as long as the "effort +
dependencies + risk" metric exceeds the "perceived added value" metric.
On 03/01/2014 22:00, Terry Reedy wrote:
On 1/3/2014 7:28 AM, Robin Becker wrote:
On 03/01/2014 09:01, Terry Reedy wrote:
There was more speedup in 3.3.2 and possibly even more in 3.3.3, so OP
should run the latter.
python 3.3.3 is what I use on windows. As for astral / non-bmp etc etc
that's
On 1/3/2014 7:28 AM, Robin Becker wrote:
On 03/01/2014 09:01, Terry Reedy wrote:
There was more speedup in 3.3.2 and possibly even more in 3.3.3, so OP
should run the latter.
python 3.3.3 is what I use on windows. As for astral / non-bmp etc etc
that's almost irrelevant for the sort of tests w
On 01/03/2014 02:24 AM, Chris Angelico wrote:
I worked that out with a sheet of paper and a pencil. The pencil was a
little help, but the paper was three sheets in the wind.
Beautiful!
--
~Ethan~
--
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
On Sat, Jan 4, 2014 at 1:57 AM, Roy Smith wrote:
> I was doing a project a while ago importing 20-something million records
> into a MySQL database. Little did I know that FOUR of those records
> contained astral characters (which MySQL, at least the version I was
> using, couldn't handle).
>
> M
In article ,
Robin Becker wrote:
> On 03/01/2014 09:01, Terry Reedy wrote:
> > There was more speedup in 3.3.2 and possibly even more in 3.3.3, so OP
> > should run the latter.
>
> python 3.3.3 is what I use on windows. As for astral / non-bmp etc etc that's
> almost irrelevant for the sort of
On 03/01/2014 09:01, Terry Reedy wrote:
There was more speedup in 3.3.2 and possibly even more in 3.3.3, so OP
should run the latter.
python 3.3.3 is what I use on windows. As for astral / non-bmp etc etc that's
almost irrelevant for the sort of tests we're doing which are mostly simple
engli
On 02/01/2014 23:57, Antoine Pitrou wrote:
..
Running a test suite is a completely broken benchmarking methodology.
You should isolate workloads you are interested in and write a benchmark
simulating them.
I'm certain you're right, but individual bits of code like generating our
r
On 02/01/2014 18:37, Terry Reedy wrote:
On 1/2/2014 12:36 PM, Robin Becker wrote:
I just spent a large amount of effort porting reportlab to a version
which works with both python2.7 and python3.3. I have a large number of
functions etc which handle the conversions that differ between the two
p
On 02/01/2014 18:25, David Hutto wrote:
Just because it's 3.3 doesn't matter...the main interest is in
compatibility. Secondly, you used just one piece of code, which could be a
fluke, try others, and check the PEP. You need to realize that evebn the
older versions are benig worked on, and they h
On Fri, Jan 3, 2014 at 9:10 PM, wrote:
> It's time to understand the Character Encoding Models
> and the math behind it.
> Unicode does not differ from any other coding scheme.
>
> How? With a sheet of paper and a pencil.
>
One plus one is two, therefore Python is better than Haskell.
Four time
It's time to understand the Character Encoding Models
and the math behind it.
Unicode does not differ from any other coding scheme.
How? With a sheet of paper and a pencil.
jmf
--
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
On 1/2/2014 11:49 PM, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
Robin Becker wrote:
For fairly sensible reasons we changed the internal default to use unicode
rather than bytes. After doing all that and making the tests compatible
etc etc I have a version which runs in both and passes all its tests.
However, for
Robin Becker wrote:
> For fairly sensible reasons we changed the internal default to use unicode
> rather than bytes. After doing all that and making the tests compatible
> etc etc I have a version which runs in both and passes all its tests.
> However, for whatever reason the python 3.3 version r
Hi,
Robin Becker reportlab.com> writes:
>
> For fairly sensible reasons we changed the internal default to use unicode
> rather than bytes. After doing all that and making the tests compatible
etc etc
> I have a version which runs in both and passes all its tests. However, for
> whatever rea
On 1/2/2014 12:36 PM, Robin Becker wrote:
I just spent a large amount of effort porting reportlab to a version
which works with both python2.7 and python3.3. I have a large number of
functions etc which handle the conversions that differ between the two
pythons.
I am imagine that this was not
Just because it's 3.3 doesn't matter...the main interest is in
compatibility. Secondly, you used just one piece of code, which could be a
fluke, try others, and check the PEP. You need to realize that evebn the
older versions are benig worked on, and they have to be refined. So if you
have a proble
On 31/12/2013 15:41, Roy Smith wrote:
I'm using 2.7 in production. I realize that at some point we'll need to
upgrade to 3.x. We'll keep putting that off as long as the "effort +
dependencies + risk" metric exceeds the "perceived added value" metric.
We too are using python 2.4 - 2.7 in produc
On 31/12/2013 15:41, Roy Smith wrote:
In article ,
Antoine Pitrou wrote:
Steven D'Aprano pearwood.info> writes:
I expect that as excuses for not migrating get fewer, and the deadline for
Python 2.7 end-of-life starts to loom closer, more and more haters^W
Concerned People will whine about
On Wed, Jan 1, 2014 at 2:41 AM, Roy Smith wrote:
> To be honest, the "perceived added value" in 3.x is pretty low for us.
> What we're running now works. Switching to 3.x isn't going to increase
> our monthly average users, or our retention rate, or decrease our COGS,
> or increase our revenue.
In article ,
Antoine Pitrou wrote:
> Steven D'Aprano pearwood.info> writes:
> >
> > I expect that as excuses for not migrating get fewer, and the deadline for
> > Python 2.7 end-of-life starts to loom closer, more and more haters^W
> > Concerned People will whine about the lack of version 2.8
Steven D'Aprano pearwood.info> writes:
>
> I expect that as excuses for not migrating get fewer, and the deadline for
> Python 2.7 end-of-life starts to loom closer, more and more haters^W
> Concerned People will whine about the lack of version 2.8 and ask for
> *somebody else* to fork Python.
>
On Mon, Dec 30, 2013 at 2:38 PM, Ethan Furman wrote:
> Wow -- another steaming pile! Mark, are you going for a record? ;)
Indeed. Every post that disagrees with my opinion and understanding of
the situation is complete BS and a conspiracy to spread fear,
uncertainty, and doubt. Henceforth I wil
Mark Lawrence wrote:
> http://blog.startifact.com/posts/alex-gaynor-on-python-3.html.
I quote:
"...perhaps a brave group of volunteers will stand up and fork Python 2, and
take the incremental steps forward. This will have to remain just an idle
suggestion, as I'm not volunteering myself."
I ex
Steven D'Aprano wrote:
> On Mon, 30 Dec 2013 19:41:44 +, Mark Lawrence wrote:
>
>> http://alexgaynor.net/2013/dec/30/about-python-3/ may be of interest to
>> some of you.
[...]
> I'd like to know where Alex gets the idea that the transition of Python 2
> to 3 was supposed to be a five year pl
On 30/12/2013 22:38, Ethan Furman wrote:
On 12/30/2013 01:29 PM, Mark Lawrence wrote:
On 30/12/2013 20:49, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
On Mon, 30 Dec 2013 19:41:44 +, Mark Lawrence wrote:
http://alexgaynor.net/2013/dec/30/about-python-3/ may be of interest to
some of you.
I don't know whethe
On 31/12/2013 01:09, Chris Angelico wrote:
On Tue, Dec 31, 2013 at 9:38 AM, Ethan Furman wrote:
On 12/30/2013 01:29 PM, Mark Lawrence wrote:
On 30/12/2013 20:49, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
On Mon, 30 Dec 2013 19:41:44 +, Mark Lawrence wrote:
http://alexgaynor.net/2013/dec/30/about-python-
On 12/30/2013 08:25 PM, Devin Jeanpierre wrote:
On Mon, Dec 30, 2013 at 2:38 PM, Ethan Furman wrote:
Wow -- another steaming pile! Mark, are you going for a record? ;)
Indeed. Every post that disagrees with my opinion and understanding of
the situation is complete BS and a conspiracy to spr
On Tue, Dec 31, 2013 at 3:38 PM, Mark Lawrence wrote:
> You never know, we might even end up with a thread whereby the discussion is
> Python, the whole Python and nothing but the Python.
What, on python-list??! [1] That would be a silly idea. We should
avoid such theories with all vigor.
ChrisA
On 30/12/2013 22:38, Ethan Furman wrote:
On 12/30/2013 01:29 PM, Mark Lawrence wrote:
On 30/12/2013 20:49, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
On Mon, 30 Dec 2013 19:41:44 +, Mark Lawrence wrote:
http://alexgaynor.net/2013/dec/30/about-python-3/ may be of interest to
some of you.
I don't know whethe
On Tue, Dec 31, 2013 at 9:38 AM, Ethan Furman wrote:
> On 12/30/2013 01:29 PM, Mark Lawrence wrote:
>>
>> On 30/12/2013 20:49, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
>>>
>>> On Mon, 30 Dec 2013 19:41:44 +, Mark Lawrence wrote:
>>>
http://alexgaynor.net/2013/dec/30/about-python-3/ may be of interest to
>>
On 12/30/2013 01:29 PM, Mark Lawrence wrote:
On 30/12/2013 20:49, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
On Mon, 30 Dec 2013 19:41:44 +, Mark Lawrence wrote:
http://alexgaynor.net/2013/dec/30/about-python-3/ may be of interest to
some of you.
I don't know whether to thank you for the link, or shout at y
On 30/12/2013 20:49, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
On Mon, 30 Dec 2013 19:41:44 +, Mark Lawrence wrote:
http://alexgaynor.net/2013/dec/30/about-python-3/ may be of interest to
some of you.
I don't know whether to thank you for the link, or shout at you for
sending eyeballs to look at such a pile
On Mon, 30 Dec 2013 19:41:44 +, Mark Lawrence wrote:
> http://alexgaynor.net/2013/dec/30/about-python-3/ may be of interest to
> some of you.
I don't know whether to thank you for the link, or shout at you for
sending eyeballs to look at such a pile of steaming bullshit.
I'd like to know wh
79 matches
Mail list logo
