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?
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
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 have
[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 a bit of
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, often
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 this possible and
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
please explain
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 ways to do
[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 would say
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 around
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 that
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 the
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 potential
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 Python
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
[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 language.
I
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
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 rather
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 the
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
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..while or do..until
[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
preferred way, why not ? As I said, the
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 doing
[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
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.
Actually, I've gotten used
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 far, I
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.
Actually, I've gotten used
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 the
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/python-list
[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 think
[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
etc.)
if
[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 me. So where
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 prompt) is There should be one
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 +1 800 494 3119
Holden
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 changed
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 piece
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 an interactive command prompt) is There
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 understand on
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
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, couple of ways).
[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
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
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?
--
* 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
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, and ears.
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
course
[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 obvious
46 matches
Mail list logo
