On 02/14/2013 05:23 AM, Terry Reedy wrote:
On 2/13/2013 2:00 PM, stephenw...@gmail.com wrote:
Hello,
Would it be feasible to modify the Python grammar to allow ':' to
generate slice objects everywhere rather than just indexers and
top-level tuples of indexers?
Right now in Py
On Tue, 19 Feb 2013 22:38:32 -0500, Terry Reedy wrote:
> On 2/18/2013 7:18 PM, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
>> Terry Reedy wrote:
>>
>>> On 2/18/2013 6:47 AM, John Reid wrote:
>>>
>>>> I was hoping namedtuples could be used as replacements for tuples
&g
In article ,
Chris Angelico wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 20, 2013 at 2:38 PM, Terry Reedy wrote:
> > Liskov Substitution Principle (LSP): I met this over 15 years ago reading
> > debates among OOP enthusiasts about whether Rectangle should be a subclass
> > of Square or Square a subclass of Rectangle,
On Wed, Feb 20, 2013 at 2:38 PM, Terry Reedy wrote:
> Liskov Substitution Principle (LSP): I met this over 15 years ago reading
> debates among OOP enthusiasts about whether Rectangle should be a subclass
> of Square or Square a subclass of Rectangle, and similarly, whether Ostrich
> can be a legi
On 2/18/2013 7:18 PM, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
Terry Reedy wrote:
On 2/18/2013 6:47 AM, John Reid wrote:
I was hoping namedtuples could be used as replacements for tuples
in all instances.
This is a mistake in the following two senses. First, tuple is a class
with instances while named
On Mon, 18 Feb 2013 23:48:46 -0800, raymond.hettinger wrote:
[...]
> If your starting point is an existing iterable such as s=['Guido',
> 'BDFL', 1], you have a couple of choices: p=Person(*s) or
> p=Person._make(s). The latter form was put it to help avoid unpacking
> and repacking the argumen
On Mon, 18 Feb 2013 23:48:46 -0800, raymond.hettinger wrote:
[...]
> If your starting point is an existing iterable such as s=['Guido',
> 'BDFL', 1], you have a couple of choices: p=Person(*s) or
> p=Person._make(s). The latter form was put it to help avoid unpacking
> and repacking the argumen
Pardon me for the double-post, if any, my news client appears to have
eaten my first reply.
On Mon, 18 Feb 2013 23:48:46 -0800, raymond.hettinger wrote:
[...]
> If your starting point is an existing iterable such as s=['Guido',
> 'BDFL', 1], you have a couple of choices: p=Person(*s) or
> p=Pe
On Mon, 18 Feb 2013 23:48:46 -0800, raymond.hettinger wrote:
[...]
> If your starting point is an existing iterable such as s=['Guido',
> 'BDFL', 1], you have a couple of choices: p=Person(*s) or
> p=Person._make(s). The latter form was put it to help avoid unpacking
> and repacking the argumen
On 19/02/13 01:47, alex23 wrote:
> On Feb 18, 9:47 pm, John Reid wrote:
>> See http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.python.ipython.user/10270 for more
>> info.
>
> One quick workaround would be to use a tuple where required and then
> coerce it back to Result when needed as such:
>
> def sleep
On 19/02/13 00:18, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
> Terry Reedy wrote:
>
>> On 2/18/2013 6:47 AM, John Reid wrote:
>>
>>> I was hoping namedtuples could be used as replacements for tuples
>> > in all instances.
>>
>> This is a mistake in the
Steven D'Aprano wrote:
py> class MyDict(dict):
... @classmethod
... def fromkeys(cls, func):
... # Expects a callback function that gets called with no arguments
... # and returns two items, a list of keys and a default value.
... return super(MyDict, cls).fromkeys
Steven D'Aprano wrote:
Terry Reedy wrote:
In fact, one reason to subclass a class is to change the initialization
api.
That might be a reason that people give, but it's a bad reason from the
perspective of interface contracts, duck-typing and the LSP.
Only if you're going to pass the cla
rson = namedtuple('Person', ['name', 'rank', 'serial_number'])
With the current signature, instances can be created like this:
p = Person('Guido', 'BDFL', 1)
If instead, the __new__ signature matched that of regular tuples,
you wou
On 02/18/2013 10:14 PM, Dave Angel wrote:
On 02/18/2013 09:54 PM, Mitya Sirenef wrote:
>> On 02/18/2013 09:17 PM, Jon Reyes wrote:
>>> Thanks Dave and Mitya for enlightening me about dictionaries. I'm
>>> still confused about this though:
>> >
>> > " so that if two
>> > key objects are equal, t
On 02/18/2013 09:54 PM, Mitya Sirenef wrote:
On 02/18/2013 09:17 PM, Jon Reyes wrote:
Thanks Dave and Mitya for enlightening me about dictionaries. I'm
still confused about this though:
>
> " so that if two
> key objects are equal, they stay equal, and if they differ, they stay
> different
e the same
>>> initialization api.
>>
>> No, it is not a mistake. It is a problem with namedtuples that they
>> violate the expectation that they should have the same constructor
>> signature as other tuples. After all, namedtuples *are* tuples, they
>> should be cons
On 02/18/2013 09:17 PM, Jon Reyes wrote:
Thanks Dave and Mitya for enlightening me about dictionaries. I'm still
confused about this though:
>
> " so that if two
> key objects are equal, they stay equal, and if they differ, they stay
> different. "
>
> What does this mean? I won't be comparing
Oh, I see, thanks! I was thinking I'll study 2.7 and once I'm comfortable with
Python as a language I'll move to 3. Heck, I don't even know how to create a
simple main method.
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
On 19/02/2013 01:38, Jon Reyes wrote:
Hi Mark. Well, doesn't iteritems() work the same?
It's iteritems for Python 2, items for Python 3.
--
Cheers.
Mark Lawrence
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Thanks Dave and Mitya for enlightening me about dictionaries. I'm still
confused about this though:
" so that if two
key objects are equal, they stay equal, and if they differ, they stay
different. "
What does this mean? I won't be comparing key objects with one another. Also,
when I had two
On 02/18/2013 08:38 PM, Jon Reyes wrote:
Hi Mark. Well, doesn't iteritems() work the same? or am I missing something? By
the way I'm sure I read the dictionaries part of Python but I'm unsure if it
would take int's as a key for dictionaries. I've been weaned on Java where the
keys of hashmaps
On Feb 18, 9:47 pm, John Reid wrote:
> See http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.python.ipython.user/10270 for more
> info.
One quick workaround would be to use a tuple where required and then
coerce it back to Result when needed as such:
def sleep(secs):
import os, time, parallel_helper
On 02/18/2013 08:38 PM, Jon Reyes wrote:
Hi Mark. Well, doesn't iteritems() work the same? or am I missing something? By the way I'm
sure I read the dictionaries part of Python but I'm unsure if it would
take int's as a key for dictionaries. I've been weaned on Java where the
keys of hashmaps
is a problem with namedtuples that they violate
> the expectation that they should have the same constructor signature as
> other tuples. After all, namedtuples *are* tuples, they should be
> constructed the same way. But they aren't, so that violates a reasonable
> expectation.
Hi Mark. Well, doesn't iteritems() work the same? or am I missing something? By
the way I'm sure I read the dictionaries part of Python but I'm unsure if it
would take int's as a key for dictionaries. I've been weaned on Java where the
keys of hashmaps are always Strings.
PS: Just checked, wow
On 19/02/2013 00:52, Jon Reyes wrote:
So I have a dictionary and the key is a number. The values are either a single
tuple or a tuple of tuples. Is there a better way to go about accessing the
values of the dictionary? All the tuples contain four elements.
So say:
col = {"1": (0,
r (one of the colons should be a
comma).
> The values are either a
> single tuple or a tuple of tuples. Is there a better way to go about
> accessing the values of the dictionary? All the tuples contain four elements.
I would make all the values the same shape, i.e. all lists of
Sorry if I didn't check the code before I posted it, I just mocked it up in
Google's editor. That's what Mitya suggested too, yep, I guess I just need to
make it uniform to get rid of the extra checking. Thanks man!
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Terry Reedy wrote:
> Initializaing a namedtuple from an iterable is unusual, and
> hence gets the longer syntax. I
I quick look through our codebase agrees with that. I found 27
namedtuple classes. 21 were initialized with MyTuple(x, y, z) syntax.
Three used MyTuple(*data).
Most interesti
Wow, why didn't I think of that. Thanks! I'll try it now. By the way I think I
don't need to wrap the single tuples in runtime because I'm declaring that
dictionary anyway beforehand and I could just do it right there. I won't be
adding elements to the tuple.
--
http:
On 02/18/2013 07:52 PM, Jon Reyes wrote:
So I have a dictionary and the key is a number. The values are either a single tuple or a tuple of
tuples. Is there a better way to go about accessing the values of the
dictionary? All the tuples contain four elements.
>
> So say:
>
So I have a dictionary and the key is a number. The values are either a single
tuple or a tuple of tuples. Is there a better way to go about accessing the
values of the dictionary? All the tuples contain four elements.
So say:
col = {"1": (0,1,2,3): "2": ((0,1,2,3),(2,3,4,
Terry Reedy wrote:
> On 2/18/2013 6:47 AM, John Reid wrote:
>
>> I was hoping namedtuples could be used as replacements for tuples
> > in all instances.
>
> This is a mistake in the following two senses. First, tuple is a class
> with instances while namedtu
On 2/18/2013 6:47 AM, John Reid wrote:
I was hoping namedtuples could be used as replacements for tuples
> in all instances.
This is a mistake in the following two senses. First, tuple is a class
with instances while namedtuple is a class factory that produces
classes. (One could think
On 18/02/13 14:53, Oscar Benjamin wrote:
> On 18 February 2013 14:23, John Reid wrote:
> [snip]
>> That said it would be nice to know the rationale for
>> namedtuple.__new__ to have a different signature to tuple.__new__. I'm
>> guessing namedtuple._make has a similar interface to tuple.__new__. D
On 18 February 2013 14:23, John Reid wrote:
[snip]
> That said it would be nice to know the rationale for
> namedtuple.__new__ to have a different signature to tuple.__new__. I'm
> guessing namedtuple._make has a similar interface to tuple.__new__. Does
> anyone know what the rationale was for thi
On 18/02/13 14:15, Oscar Benjamin wrote:
> On 18 February 2013 14:09, John Reid wrote:
>> On 18/02/13 12:11, Dave Angel wrote:
>>> On 02/18/2013 06:47 AM, John Reid wrote:
>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>> I was hoping namedtuples could be used as replac
On 18 February 2013 13:51, John Reid wrote:
> On 18/02/13 12:03, Oscar Benjamin wrote:
>> On 18 February 2013 11:47, John Reid wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> I was hoping namedtuples could be used as replacements for tuples in all
>>> instances.
>&g
On 18/02/13 14:12, Oscar Benjamin wrote:
> On 18 February 2013 13:51, John Reid wrote:
>> On 18/02/13 12:03, Oscar Benjamin wrote:
>>> On 18 February 2013 11:47, John Reid wrote:
>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>> I was hoping namedtuples could be
On 18 February 2013 14:09, John Reid wrote:
> On 18/02/13 12:11, Dave Angel wrote:
>> On 02/18/2013 06:47 AM, John Reid wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> I was hoping namedtuples could be used as replacements for tuples in
>>> all instances. There seem to b
On 18/02/13 12:11, Dave Angel wrote:
> On 02/18/2013 06:47 AM, John Reid wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> I was hoping namedtuples could be used as replacements for tuples in
>> all instances. There seem to be some differences between how tuples
>> and namedtuples are created.
On 18/02/13 12:03, Oscar Benjamin wrote:
> On 18 February 2013 11:47, John Reid wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> I was hoping namedtuples could be used as replacements for tuples in all
>> instances.
> namedtuples are not really intended to serves as tuples anywhere.
On 18/02/13 12:05, Oscar Benjamin wrote:
> On 18 February 2013 12:03, Oscar Benjamin wrote:
>> On 18 February 2013 11:47, John Reid wrote:
>>> I'm seeing this problem because of the following code in IPython:
>>>
>>> def canSequence(obj):
>>> if isinstance(obj, (list, tuple)):
>>> t
On 02/18/2013 06:47 AM, John Reid wrote:
Hi,
I was hoping namedtuples could be used as replacements for tuples in all
instances. There seem to be some differences between how tuples and namedtuples
are created. For example with a tuple I can do:
a=tuple([1,2,3])
with namedtuples I get a
On 18 February 2013 12:03, Oscar Benjamin wrote:
> On 18 February 2013 11:47, John Reid wrote:
>> I'm seeing this problem because of the following code in IPython:
>>
>> def canSequence(obj):
>> if isinstance(obj, (list, tuple)):
>> t = type(obj)
>> return t([can(i) for i in o
On 18 February 2013 11:47, John Reid wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I was hoping namedtuples could be used as replacements for tuples in all
> instances.
namedtuples are not really intended to serves as tuples anywhere. They
are intended to provide lightweight, immutable, hashable objects
Hi,
I was hoping namedtuples could be used as replacements for tuples in all
instances. There seem to be some differences between how tuples and namedtuples
are created. For example with a tuple I can do:
a=tuple([1,2,3])
with namedtuples I get a TypeError:
from collections import namedtuple
On Thursday, February 14, 2013 4:01:39 PM UTC-6, steph...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Thursday, February 14, 2013 1:58:06 PM UTC-5, Ian wrote:
>
> [snip: quote noise!]
>
Dude! Please trim this quote noise from your posts. I know Google's quoting
mechanism is buggy, but dammit man YOU'RE A PROGRAMER!
On Thursday, February 14, 2013 1:58:06 PM UTC-5, Ian wrote:
>
> That's not ambiguous, because the former is simply invalid syntax.
>
> However, consider the following.
>
>
>
> if 1: 2:
>
>
>
> That could be either a one-line if statement where the condition is 1
>
> and the body is slice(2
On Thu, Feb 14, 2013 at 1:03 AM, Steven D'Aprano
wrote:
> E.g.:
>
> if x:
> pass
>
>
> Is that intended as "if slice(x, None, None)" with a missing colon, or
> "if x" with colon supplied?
That's not ambiguous, because the former is simply invalid syntax.
However, consider the following.
if 1
>
> You can't just allow ':' to generate slice objects everwhere without
>
> introducing ambiguity, so your proposal would have to be to allow slice
>
> objects in wider but still restricted contexts.
Yeah, I mentioned that in a follow-up. I'm pretty sure of just allowing it
within [] and ()
stephenw...@gmail.com wrote:
> Would it be feasible to modify the Python grammar to allow ':' to
> generate slice objects everywhere rather than just indexers and
> top-level tuples of indexers?
>
Would this be a dict with a slice as key or value, or a set with a slice
w
> Hah, yes. I basically wrote that exact example in my reply to Steven at the
> same time you replied. numpy.s_ is similar (although I think it does some
> extra work for odd reasons).
Oops, this is silly in retrospect...sorry, wasn't looking at the From: line
carefully enough and didn't realiz
On Thursday, February 14, 2013 3:03:50 AM UTC-5, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
> On Wed, 13 Feb 2013 21:54:43 -0800, stephenwlin wrote:
>
>
>
> >> I believe the idea of slice literals has been rejected.
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> > That's too bad...do you have a link to prior discussion on this and what
>
at all instead of requiring the user to build slice objects manually
all the time? It obviously is a convenient and simpler syntax, and there
doesn't seem to be any real reason for the artificial restriction that this
happens inside '[]' (and in a shallow manner, so no nested
On Wed, 13 Feb 2013 21:54:43 -0800, stephenwlin wrote:
>> I believe the idea of slice literals has been rejected.
>>
>>
> That's too bad...do you have a link to prior discussion on this and what
> the reasoning was for rejection?
http://osdir.com/ml/python.python-3000.devel/2006-05/msg00686.ht
On Wed, 13 Feb 2013 21:54:43 -0800, stephenwlin wrote:
>> I believe the idea of slice literals has been rejected.
>>
>>
> That's too bad...do you have a link to prior discussion on this and what
> the reasoning was for rejection? There doesn't seem to be any particular
> downside and things wou
dify the Python grammar to allow ':' to generate
> slice objects everywhere rather than just indexers and top-level tuples of
> indexers?
>
>
>
> Right now in Py2.7, Py3.3:
>
> "obj[:,2]" yields "obj[slice(None),2]"
>
> b
>
> I believe the idea of slice literals has been rejected.
>
That's too bad...do you have a link to prior discussion on this and what the
reasoning was for rejection? There doesn't seem to be any particular downside
and things would be more consistent with slice syntax allowed anywhere.
It w
On 2/13/2013 2:00 PM, stephenw...@gmail.com wrote:
Hello,
Would it be feasible to modify the Python grammar to allow ':' to generate
slice objects everywhere rather than just indexers and top-level tuples of
indexers?
Right now in Py2.7, Py3.3:
"obj[:,2]" yields &quo
Hello,
Would it be feasible to modify the Python grammar to allow ':' to generate
slice objects everywhere rather than just indexers and top-level tuples of
indexers?
Right now in Py2.7, Py3.3:
"obj[:,2]" yields "obj[slice(None),2]"
but
"obj[(:,
On Sun, Feb 3, 2013 at 6:14 PM, Michael Torrie wrote:
> TL;DR: I find your list freezing proposal to be needlessly complicated.
> No the burden of proof is not on me to explain why tuples are so.
We have a list-freezing mechanism already.
>>> list=[1,2,3,'logical']
is hardly
foolish. In this case, as is usually the case with your strange
criticisms of well-established practice, there are good reasons for it.
TL;DR: I find your list freezing proposal to be needlessly complicated.
No the burden of proof is not on me to explain why tuples are so.
--
http:/
?#
The problem with understanding Python collections is directly due to improper
naming.
First let's consider the sequence types "list" and "tuple". For the most part
lists and tuples are exactl
ted learning Python (2.7.3) but need a better
> explanation of how to use tuples and dictionaries.
This is an important question: To start off you need to digest whats
the diff between value oriented and object oriented. Since this is
more to do with paradigm than with a specific language you may
On Tue, 29 Jan 2013 22:14:42 -0800, Daniel W. Rouse Jr. wrote:
> "John Gordon" wrote in message
> news:keaa9v$1ru$1...@reader1.panix.com...
>> A tuple is a linear sequence of items, accessed via subscripts that
>> start at zero.
>>
>> Tuples are read-o
, and changed in many ways; tuples are what they are, and
there's no changing them (the objects inside it could be changed, but
WHAT objects are in it won't).
Python has no strict match to a C-style array with a fixed size and
changeable members; a Python list is closest to a C++ std::v
"John Gordon" wrote in message
news:keaa9v$1ru$1...@reader1.panix.com...
In "Daniel W. Rouse Jr."
writes:
I have recently started learning Python (2.7.3) but need a better
explanation of how to use tuples and dictionaries.
A tuple is a linear sequence of items, acc
In "Daniel W. Rouse Jr."
writes:
> I have recently started learning Python (2.7.3) but need a better
> explanation of how to use tuples and dictionaries.
A tuple is a linear sequence of items, accessed via subscripts that start
at zero.
Tuples are read-only; items cannot b
On 01/29/2013 09:55 PM, Daniel W. Rouse Jr. wrote:
Hi all,
>
> I have recently started learning Python (2.7.3) but need a better
explanation of how to use tuples and dictionaries.
>
> I am currently using "Learning Python" by Mark Lutz and David Ascher,
published by
On Wed, Jan 30, 2013 at 2:42 PM, Daniel W. Rouse Jr.
wrote:
> "Chris Angelico" wrote in message
> news:mailman.1197.1359515470.2939.python-l...@python.org...
>> Have you checked out the online documentation at
>> http://docs.python.org/ ? That might have what you're looking for.
>>
> I'll check t
92-464-9)--but I find the explanations
insufficient and the number of examples to be sparse. I do understand
some
ANSI C programming in addition to Python (and the book often wanders off
into a comparison of C and Python in its numerous footnotes), but I need
a
better real-world example of how tuples and di
understand some
> ANSI C programming in addition to Python (and the book often wanders off
> into a comparison of C and Python in its numerous footnotes), but I need a
> better real-world example of how tuples and dictionaries are being used in
> actual Python code.
Have you checked
Hi all,
I have recently started learning Python (2.7.3) but need a better
explanation of how to use tuples and dictionaries.
I am currently using "Learning Python" by Mark Lutz and David Ascher,
published by O'Reilly (ISBN 1-56592-464-9)--but I find the explanations
insuf
On 2012-12-04, Hans Mulder wrote:
> It's considered bad style to use map it you don't want the list it
> produces.
>
>> There are more ways:
>>
> from operator import add
> reduce(add, a)
>> (1, 2, 3, 4)
>
> There's a built-in that does "reduce(operator.add"; it's called "sum":
>
sum
On 4/12/12 10:44:32, Alexander Blinne wrote:
> Am 03.12.2012 20:58, schrieb subhabangal...@gmail.com:
>> Dear Group,
>>
>> I have a tuple of list as,
>>
>> tup_list=[(1,2), (3,4)]
>> Now if I want to covert as a simple list,
>>
>> list=[1,2,3,4]
>>
>> how may I do that?
>
> Another approach that h
Am 03.12.2012 20:58, schrieb subhabangal...@gmail.com:
> Dear Group,
>
> I have a tuple of list as,
>
> tup_list=[(1,2), (3,4)]
> Now if I want to covert as a simple list,
>
> list=[1,2,3,4]
>
> how may I do that?
Another approach that has not yet been mentioned here:
>>> a=[(1,2), (3,4)]
>>>
On 12/03/2012 11:58 AM, subhabangal...@gmail.com wrote:
[(1,2), (3,4)]
>>> L=[(1,2), (3,4)]
>>>
>>> [b for a in L for b in a]
[1, 2, 3, 4]
--
Dr. Gary Herron
Department of Computer Science
DigiPen Institute of Technology
(425) 895-4418
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-lis
On Mon, 03 Dec 2012 22:11:40 +, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
> On Mon, 03 Dec 2012 13:14:19 -0800, subhabangalore wrote:
>
>> Thanks. But I am not getting the counter "5posts 0 views"...if
>> moderator can please check the issue.
>
> What counter are you talking about?
>
> This is an email mailin
On Mon, 03 Dec 2012 13:14:19 -0800, subhabangalore wrote:
> Thanks. But I am not getting the counter "5posts 0 views"...if moderator
> can please check the issue.
What counter are you talking about?
This is an email mailing list, also copied to the Usenet newsgroup
comp.lang.python, and mirrore
In
subhabangal...@gmail.com writes:
> Thanks. But I am not getting the counter "5posts 0 views"...if
> moderator can please check the issue.
I logged in via Google Groups and all the replies were present. What
is your question?
(This group is not moderated.)
--
John Gordon
On Tuesday, December 4, 2012 1:28:17 AM UTC+5:30, subhaba...@gmail.com wrote:
> Dear Group,
>
>
>
> I have a tuple of list as,
>
>
>
> tup_list=[(1,2), (3,4)]
>
> Now if I want to covert as a simple list,
>
>
>
> list=[1,2,3,4]
>
>
>
> how may I do that?
>
>
>
> If any one can kindl
On Tue, Dec 4, 2012 at 7:04 AM, John Gordon wrote:
> In <6049bc85-6f8e-429b-a855-ecef47a9d...@googlegroups.com>
> subhabangal...@gmail.com writes:
>
>> Dear Group,
>
>> I have a tuple of list as,
>
>> tup_list=[(1,2), (3,4)]
>> Now if I want to covert as a simple list,
>
>> list=[1,2,3,4]
>
>> ho
On 2012-12-03 20:04, John Gordon wrote:
In <6049bc85-6f8e-429b-a855-ecef47a9d...@googlegroups.com>
subhabangal...@gmail.com writes:
Dear Group,
I have a tuple of list as,
tup_list=[(1,2), (3,4)]
Now if I want to covert as a simple list,
list=[1,2,3,4]
how may I do that?
new_list
On Mon, Dec 3, 2012 at 11:58 AM, wrote:
> Dear Group,
>
> I have a tuple of list as,
>
> tup_list=[(1,2), (3,4)]
> Now if I want to covert as a simple list,
>
> list=[1,2,3,4]
>
> how may I do that?
>
> If any one can kindly suggest? Googling didn't help much.
If you know they are always exactly
In <6049bc85-6f8e-429b-a855-ecef47a9d...@googlegroups.com>
subhabangal...@gmail.com writes:
> Dear Group,
> I have a tuple of list as,
> tup_list=[(1,2), (3,4)]
> Now if I want to covert as a simple list,
> list=[1,2,3,4]
> how may I do that?
new_list = []
for t in tup_list:
for item in
Dear Group,
I have a tuple of list as,
tup_list=[(1,2), (3,4)]
Now if I want to covert as a simple list,
list=[1,2,3,4]
how may I do that?
If any one can kindly suggest? Googling didn't help much.
Regards,
Subhabrata.
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
On 11/25/12 20:24, Smaran Harihar wrote:
> I was able to solve it using the following loop,
>
> conn=psycopg2.connect(connstr)
> cursor=conn.cursor()
> cursor.execute("SELECT tablename FROM pg_tables where tablename like '%"+
> inp +"%'")
> records = cursor.fetchall()
> str=""
> for rec in record
I was able to solve it using the following loop,
conn=psycopg2.connect(connstr)
cursor=conn.cursor()
cursor.execute("SELECT tablename FROM pg_tables where tablename like '%"+
inp +"%'")
records = cursor.fetchall()
str=""
for rec in records:
if str == "":
str="".join(rec)
else:
m="".join(rec)
st
On 25Nov2012 19:09, Smaran Harihar wrote:
| I am connecting to postgres database and fetching the table names but it
| seems that they are being returned in
|
| How can I convert them to string?
Please show:
- the code fetching the names; we do not know what library you are
using or how
Hi Guys,
I am connecting to postgres database and fetching the table names but it
seems that they are being returned in
How can I convert them to string?
--
Thanks & Regards
Smaran Harihar
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
On Monday, May 21, 2012 9:39:59 AM UTC-4, Jon Clements wrote:
> > def experience_text(self):
> > return dict(CHOICES).get("self.level", "???")
> Haven't used django in a while, but doesn't the model provide a
> get_experience_display() method which you could use...
Duh, I totally mi
of readability, which would you
> find easier to understand when reading some new code? Assume the list
> of choices is short enough that the cost of building a temporary dict on
> each call is negligible. I'm just after style and readability here.
Haven't used django in a
On 05/21/12 08:10, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
> On Mon, 21 May 2012 08:37:29 -0400, Roy Smith wrote:
>
> [...]
>> The above code works, but it occurs to me that I could use the much
>> shorter:
>>
>> def experience_text(self):
>> return dict(CHOICES).get("self.level", "???")
>>
>> So, the
One suggestion is to construct the dictionary first:
CHOICES = dict(
NONE = 'No experience required',
SAIL = 'Sailing experience, new to racing',
RACE = 'General racing experience',
GOOD = 'Experienced racer',
ROCK = 'Rock star'
)
def experience_text(self):
try:
On Mon, 21 May 2012 08:37:29 -0400, Roy Smith wrote:
[...]
> The above code works, but it occurs to me that I could use the much
> shorter:
>
> def experience_text(self):
> return dict(CHOICES).get("self.level", "???")
>
> So, the question is, purely as a matter of readability, which
On Mon, May 21, 2012 at 10:37 PM, Roy Smith wrote:
> The above code works, but it occurs to me that I could use the much
> shorter:
>
> def experience_text(self):
> return dict(CHOICES).get("self.level", "???")
>
> So, the question is, purely as a matter of readability, which would you
>
I've got this code in a django app:
CHOICES = [
('NONE', 'No experience required'),
('SAIL', 'Sailing experience, new to racing'),
('RACE', 'General racing experience'),
('GOOD', 'Experienced racer'),
('ROCK', 'Rock star'),
]
def experience_
Wow, that is so elegant. Python is awesome.
-- Gnarlie
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
401 - 500 of 1465 matches
Mail list logo
