Re: Python as Guido Intended

Antoon Pardon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> We don't talk much about how you produce buffer >> overfows in Python, but people have asked for that as well. Adding >> ways to write hard-to-read code is frowned upon. And so on. > Do you mean people have asked for the possibility that

Re: Python as Guido Intended

Antoon Pardon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 2005-11-30, Mike Meyer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > You'd be wrong. "Can" denotes a possibility, not a certainty. > > You didn't write: > Removing things can make a language more powerfull. > > You wrote: > You can make a language more powerfu

Re: Python as Guido Intended

On 2005-11-30, Mike Meyer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Antoon Pardon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> On 2005-11-29, Mike Meyer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>> Antoon Pardon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > You see, you can make languages more powerful by *removing* things > from it. You cas

Re: Python as Guido Intended

On 2005-11-30, Dave Hansen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 30 Nov 2005 10:57:04 GMT in comp.lang.python, Antoon Pardon ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >>On 2005-11-29, Mike Meyer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>> Antoon Pardon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > You see, you can make languages more powerf

Re: Python as Guido Intended

Antoon Pardon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On 2005-11-29, Mike Meyer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Antoon Pardon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: You see, you can make languages more powerful by *removing* things from it. >>> You cast this in way to general terms. The logic conclusion >>> fro

Re: Python as Guido Intended

Antoon Pardon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 2005-11-29, Mike Meyer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Antoon Pardon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > >> Mike Meyer wrote: > >>> You see, you can make languages more powerful by *removing* > >>> things from it. > >> You cast this in way to general terms. Th

Re: Python as Guido Intended

On 30 Nov 2005 10:57:04 GMT in comp.lang.python, Antoon Pardon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >On 2005-11-29, Mike Meyer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Antoon Pardon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: You see, you can make languages more powerful by *removing* things from it. >>> You cast this in wa

Re: Python as Guido Intended

On 2005-11-29, Mike Meyer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Antoon Pardon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >>> You see, you can make languages more powerful by *removing* things >>> from it. >> You cast this in way to general terms. The logic conclusion >> from this statements is that the most powerfull lang

Re: Python as Guido Intended

Antoon Pardon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> You see, you can make languages more powerful by *removing* things >> from it. > You cast this in way to general terms. The logic conclusion > from this statements is that the most powerfull language > is the empty language. The only way you reach that

Re: Python as Guido Intended

On 2005-11-28, Mike Meyer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Antoon Pardon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> Op 2005-11-25, Mike Meyer schreef <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: >>> Antoon Pardon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Well this is, is one thing I have a problem with. The python people seem to be more conc

Re: Python as Guido Intended

Antoon Pardon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Op 2005-11-25, Mike Meyer schreef <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: >> Antoon Pardon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >>> Well this is, is one thing I have a problem with. >>> The python people seem to be more concerned with fighting things >>> that could be used counter t

Re: Python as Guido Intended

Op 2005-11-25, EP schreef <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > What is the philosophy? I'm not the one to answer that, > but I do use "import this" for reference, and it seems to > answer some of the points in this thread: > import this > The Zen of Python, by Tim Peters > > Beautiful is better than ugly

Re: Python as Guido Intended

Op 2005-11-28, Serge Orlov schreef <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > Antoon Pardon wrote: >> No it wasn't. From what I have picked up, the ternary operator >> was finaly introduced after one of the developers tripped over >> the commonly used idiom to simulate a ternary operator, which >> can fail in certain

Re: Python as Guido Intended

Op 2005-11-25, Mike Meyer schreef <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > Antoon Pardon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> Well this is, is one thing I have a problem with. >> >> The python people seem to be more concerned with fighting things >> that could be used counter the python philosophy, than search for >> thin

Re: Python as Guido Intended

Op 2005-11-25, Mike Meyer schreef <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > Antoon Pardon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> Op 2005-11-24, Mike Meyer schreef <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: >>> Antoon Pardon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > The usual response is "That's not the Python way." That's not calling > someone dumb,

Re: Python as Guido Intended

Antoon Pardon wrote: > No it wasn't. From what I have picked up, the ternary operator > was finaly introduced after one of the developers tripped over > the commonly used idiom to simulate a ternary operator, which > can fail in certain cases. > > Anyway, when I was arguing for a ternary operator

RE: Python as Guido Intended

Bryan wrote: > i agree with you... pyrex should be part of the python distribution :) And this has been discussed on python-dev. Greg has stated though that he doesn't feel it's ready (there are other factors, but this one is overriding). There were also discussions about the fact that to get max

Re: Python as Guido Intended

Paul Rubin writes: > Mike Meyer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> Those two statements say the same thing. Part of the Python philosphy, >> from "import this", is that there should only be one obvious way to do >> it. By enabling that part of Python's philosphy, you're autom

Re: Python as Guido Intended

Mike Meyer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Those two statements say the same thing. Part of the Python philosphy, > from "import this", is that there should only be one obvious way to do > it. By enabling that part of Python's philosphy, you're automatically > limiting python to not allow other - spe

Re: Python as Guido Intended

Antoon Pardon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Well this is, is one thing I have a problem with. > > The python people seem to be more concerned with fighting things > that could be used counter the python philosophy, than search for > things that enable working in the python philosophy. And what's w

Re: Python as Guido Intended

Antoon Pardon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Op 2005-11-24, Mike Meyer schreef <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: >> Antoon Pardon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: The usual response is "That's not the Python way." That's not calling someone dumb, just pointing out that they don't yet fully understand t

Re: Python as Guido Intended

> But suppose someone came up with a Python compiler. It > would compile any Python program but there would be no > speed benefit unless you carefully wrote the code to not use > many of Python's dynamic features, so that either by type > inferencing or programmer supplied static declarations, th

Re: Python as Guido Intended

> Should the priority be to enable python's philosophy or should > it be the priority to limit python to only allow it's philosophy. > > One groups seems to think that python's spirit is not broken > by allowing things that seem counter to it, as long as people > can without much trouble, work wi

Re: Python as Guido Intended

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > And exactly what is "python's spirit/philosophy" ? It seems to me that > they are often used in a liberal way, just to support one's argument > that whatever is not in the CURRENT python should not be there. Yes, those contentious terms "pythonic" and "unpythonic" which,

Re: Python as Guido Intended

Ben Sizer wrote: > The problem you get, is that the only people who are ever likely to > need to ask questions, are those who don't fully understand Python, by > definition. really? I'd say that most people that ask questions on comp.lang.python do understand Python pretty well, and just needs h

Re: Python as Guido Intended

Delaney, Timothy (Tim) wrote: > It is without a doubt though incumbent on anyone proposing new > *features* to have a solid understanding of what they are proposing, > what it would affect, any backwards incompatibilities, and whether it > fits into the python philosophy (import this). Sure. Howev

Re: Python as Guido Intended

Antoon Pardon wrote: > Op 2005-11-24, Mike Meyer schreef <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > >> "Mike Meyer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > >>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > >>> > Different programming styles are appropriate for different > >>> > tasks, different times and different

Re: Python as Guido Intended

Op 2005-11-24, Delaney, Timothy (Tim) schreef <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > And this is the crux of it - the majority of such proposals come from > people who apparently haven't actually used python that much, and are > trying to impose things from other languages onto it. There's nothing > wrong with br

Re: Python as Guido Intended

Op 2005-11-24, Mike Meyer schreef <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: >> "Mike Meyer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: >>> > Different programming styles are appropriate for different >>> > tasks, different times and different places, different people. >>> > An

Re: Python as Guido Intended

Op 2005-11-24, Mike Meyer schreef <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > Antoon Pardon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >>> The usual response is "That's not the Python way." That's not calling >>> someone dumb, just pointing out that they don't yet fully understand >>> the Python way. >> "That is not the Python way",

Re: Python as Guido Intended

[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > "Mike Meyer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: >> > Different programming styles are appropriate for different >> > tasks, different times and different places, different people. >> > And like morality, government, or economics, I do not believe >>

RE: Python as Guido Intended

Ben Sizer wrote: > I agree with you that sometimes, the responses here can come across as > a bit condescending. I don't think this is intentional, as everybody > seems friendly enough, but I do see a pattern of people replying to a > query and implying that the original poster should know better

Re: Python as Guido Intended

"Mike Meyer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > > Different programming styles are appropriate for different > > tasks, different times and different places, different people. > > And like morality, government, or economics, I do not believe > > that one style of programming

Re: Python as Guido Intended

Antoon Pardon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> The usual response is "That's not the Python way." That's not calling >> someone dumb, just pointing out that they don't yet fully understand >> the Python way. > "That is not the Python way", is just saying "Python doesn't have it" > in other words. So

Re: Python as Guido Intended

On 24/11/05, Bengt Richter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >Where my first impulse is to think that one of decisions is wrong, > >nine times out of ten in time I'll come to find that I was wrong and > >he was right. > > > You have a reservation about that other 10% ? ;-) The other 10%, I've just not

Re: Python as Guido Intended

On Thu, 24 Nov 2005 10:49:59 +, Simon Brunning <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >On 24 Nov 2005 10:21:51 GMT, Antoon Pardon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> But only Guido, thinks like Guido and then even Guido may now think >> differently than he thought before. And what if Guido had a bad day >> when

Re: Python as Guido Intended

Op 2005-11-24, Simon Brunning schreef <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > On 24 Nov 2005 11:30:04 GMT, Antoon Pardon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> > But he's consistently a >> > better judge of language design than I am, and in all likelihood >> > better than you, too. If you like Python, it's 'cos you like the

Re: Python as Guido Intended

On 24 Nov 2005 11:30:04 GMT, Antoon Pardon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > But he's consistently a > > better judge of language design than I am, and in all likelihood > > better than you, too. If you like Python, it's 'cos you like the > > decisions he's made over many years. > > So, that makes tha

Re: Python as Guido Intended

Op 2005-11-24, Simon Brunning schreef <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > On 24 Nov 2005 10:21:51 GMT, Antoon Pardon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> But only Guido, thinks like Guido and then even Guido may now think >> differently than he thought before. And what if Guido had a bad day >> when he came up with so

Re: Python as Guido Intended

Antoon Pardon wrote: > When we notice that people are fighting the language, sometimes > the best approach is to change the language so that there is > less reason to fight the language. > I think just don't "disregard the other side" without considering their rationale is enough, and I mean the o

Re: Python as Guido Intended

Op 2005-11-24, Mike Meyer schreef <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> Mike Meyer wrote: >>> > I do think that the Python development community believes they do, >>> > or more accurately, that if someone wants to use a different style, >>> > they can go use some

Re: Python as Guido Intended

On 24 Nov 2005 10:21:51 GMT, Antoon Pardon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > But only Guido, thinks like Guido and then even Guido may now think > differently than he thought before. And what if Guido had a bad day > when he came up with something, should we just adopt to what he > had in mind without q

Re: Python as Guido Intended

Op 2005-11-23, [EMAIL PROTECTED] schreef <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > My own experience with adapting to Guido's design-view relates to > tuples and lists. To Guido, tuples are for records and lists are for > iteration. My own inclination is to view tuples as immutable lists. > Accordingly, it seems obv

Re: Python as Guido Intended

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Steve Holden wrote: > > > I agree that sometimes those who shoot such proposals down in flames > > might be more considerate of the feelings of the proposers, but life is > > short and we are all imperfect. > > Well, no one is obliged to be considerate about other's feeli

Re: Python as Guido Intended

Steve Holden wrote: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > Mike Meyer wrote: > > > >>"[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > >> > Maybe Python attracts people who share that belief. After all, TRTFTJ > is implies TSBOOWTDI, and vice versa. > >>> > >>>I was not talking about the believe,

Re: Python as Guido Intended

Steve Holden wrote: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > Mike Meyer wrote: > [...] > > > >>By the results of the vote, most people wanted ternary. The use > >>cases for it are well know. From what I recall, the debate was over > >>which of the many proposals should be adopted. > > > > That is not the im

Re: Python as Guido Intended

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Mike Meyer wrote: > >>"[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> Maybe Python attracts people who share that belief. After all, TRTFTJ is implies TSBOOWTDI, and vice versa. >>> >>>I was not talking about the believe, I was talking about the way you >>>pr

Re: Python as Guido Intended

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Mike Meyer wrote: [...] > >>By the results of the vote, most people wanted ternary. The use >>cases for it are well know. From what I recall, the debate was over >>which of the many proposals should be adopted. > > That is not the impression I get on here. The impressio

Re: Python as Guido Intended

Mike Meyer wrote: > "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > >> Maybe Python attracts people who share that belief. After all, TRTFTJ > >> is implies TSBOOWTDI, and vice versa. > > I was not talking about the believe, I was talking about the way you > > presented it. You are setting up a

Re: Python as Guido Intended

"[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> Maybe Python attracts people who share that belief. After all, TRTFTJ >> is implies TSBOOWTDI, and vice versa. > I was not talking about the believe, I was talking about the way you > presented it. You are setting up an "imaginary" me, which is no

Re: Python as Guido Intended

Mike Meyer wrote: > "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > >> You're the one that wants to use the hammer to do whatever it is, not > >> me. I don't believe in silver bullets. Python is good at what it > >> does. If I need a different tool, I use a different tool, rather than > >> try a

Re: Python as Guido Intended

"[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> You're the one that wants to use the hammer to do whatever it is, not >> me. I don't believe in silver bullets. Python is good at what it >> does. If I need a different tool, I use a different tool, rather than >> try and mangle a good tool into so

Re: Python as Guido Intended

Mike Meyer wrote: > Whatever it is, trying to turn Python into a tool for dealing with it > isn't the right thing to do. Still this tone, and logic. This statement alone is right except that it may not be what was about. > > >> > I think that it is possible to include in Python, things that are >

Re: Python as Guido Intended

"[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Mike Meyer wrote: >> > I do think that the Python development community believes they do, >> > or more accurately, that if someone wants to use a different style, >> > they can go use something else. >> In other words, they believe that you should u

Re: Python as Guido Intended

Mike Meyer wrote: > > I do think that the Python development community believes they do, > > or more accurately, that if someone wants to use a different style, > > they can go use something else. > > In other words, they believe that you should use a screwdriver to > drive screws, and not a hamme

Re: Python as Guido Intended

In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >Different programming styles are appropriate for different tasks, >different times and different places, different people. And like >morality, government, or economics, I do not believe that one style of >programming fits all situation

Re: Python as Guido Intended

[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > Different programming styles are appropriate for different > tasks, different times and different places, different people. > And like morality, government, or economics, I do not believe > that one style of programming fits all situations. If I read you right, what you

Re: Python as Guido Intended

<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > it seems that quite some people > > don't see the language as the creator or wants them to see it. > > Here's my two cents on this recurring theme. > > While nothing forces a particular programming style, the