On Fri, Aug 5, 2016 at 4:37 AM, Terry Reedy wrote:
> Making repeat a keyword would have such an extremely high cost
> that it is out of the question and not a sane proposal.
> To start with, it is used in two major, widely used APIs.
>
> itertools.repeat + 50 uses in other itertools and tests
> ti
Making repeat a keyword would have such an extremely high cost
that it is out of the question and not a sane proposal.
To start with, it is used in two major, widely used APIs.
itertools.repeat + 50 uses in other itertools and tests
+ all the imports and and uses of repeat()
in code all over th
On Thursday 04 August 2016 19:13, BartC wrote:
> On 04/08/2016 04:23, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
>> On Wed, 3 Aug 2016 08:16 pm, BartC wrote:
>
>>> So the idea that remembering 'repeat N' is a cognitive burden, and the
>>> myriad string operations for example are not, is ridiculous.
>>
>> Who says it
On Thu, Aug 4, 2016 at 7:13 PM, BartC wrote:
> On 04/08/2016 04:23, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, 3 Aug 2016 08:16 pm, BartC wrote:
>
>
>>> So the idea that remembering 'repeat N' is a cognitive burden, and the
>>> myriad string operations for example are not, is ridiculous.
>>
>>
>> Who sa
On 04/08/2016 04:23, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
On Wed, 3 Aug 2016 08:16 pm, BartC wrote:
So the idea that remembering 'repeat N' is a cognitive burden, and the
myriad string operations for example are not, is ridiculous.
Who says it isn't a cognitive burden? Of course it is.
The difference is
On Wed, 3 Aug 2016 08:16 pm, BartC wrote:
> On 03/08/2016 06:43, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
>
>> Not everything that is done is worth the cognitive burden of memorising a
>> special case.
>
>
>> In some ways, Python is a more minimalist language than you like. That's
>> okay, you're allowed to
On 03/08/2016 23:31, Chris Angelico wrote:
On Thu, Aug 4, 2016 at 8:21 AM, BartC wrote:
But is this a generic mechanism that works for /any/ .dll file, or does
there have to be dedicated support for each of the 60 built-in modules?
I'm talking about the former.
Frankly, I don't want that. Mo
On 04/08/2016 00:25, Paul Rubin wrote:
BartC writes:
sometimes you try to find a .py import module and it
doesn't seem to exist anywhere. (sys.py for example).
I would like to see how such references are translated to Lisp.
(require 'sys)
What does that do?
Don't tell me that every Lisp c
BartC writes:
> sometimes you try to find a .py import module and it
> doesn't seem to exist anywhere. (sys.py for example).
> I would like to see how such references are translated to Lisp.
(require 'sys)
--
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
On Thu, Aug 4, 2016 at 8:21 AM, BartC wrote:
> But is this a generic mechanism that works for /any/ .dll file, or does
> there have to be dedicated support for each of the 60 built-in modules?
>
> I'm talking about the former.
Frankly, I don't want that. Most C APIs are horrendously unPythonic,
s
On 03/08/2016 22:39, Chris Angelico wrote:
On Thu, Aug 4, 2016 at 6:53 AM, BartC wrote:
On 03/08/2016 21:12, Chris Angelico wrote:
Fairly common approach - and it means you'll never find those .py
files. So it's no different from looking for sys.py and not finding
it, except that in the case
On Thu, Aug 4, 2016 at 6:53 AM, BartC wrote:
> On 03/08/2016 21:12, Chris Angelico wrote:
>>
>> Fairly common approach - and it means you'll never find those .py
>> files. So it's no different from looking for sys.py and not finding
>> it, except that in the case of CPython's sys, it's not even a
On 03/08/2016 21:12, Chris Angelico wrote:
On Thu, Aug 4, 2016 at 4:52 AM, BartC wrote:
On 03/08/2016 14:31, Chris Angelico wrote:
On Wed, Aug 3, 2016 at 11:23 PM, BartC wrote:
On 03/08/2016 09:58, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
But sometimes you try to find a .py import module and it doesn't see
On Wed, 03 Aug 2016 14:06:06 +, Grant Edwards wrote:
> On 2016-08-03, Rustom Mody wrote:
>
>> The first nokia I used never crashed but could still run out of battery
>> And the round-dial landlines of 30 years ago had not even that problem
>
> Yes, technically, it did. Except the batteries
On Thu, Aug 4, 2016 at 4:52 AM, BartC wrote:
> On 03/08/2016 14:31, Chris Angelico wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, Aug 3, 2016 at 11:23 PM, BartC wrote:
>>>
>>> On 03/08/2016 09:58, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
>>>
>>> But sometimes you try to find a .py import module and it doesn't seem to
>>> exist anywhere. (s
On 03/08/2016 14:31, Chris Angelico wrote:
On Wed, Aug 3, 2016 at 11:23 PM, BartC wrote:
On 03/08/2016 09:58, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
Python is sometimes described as a Lisp with more sensible syntax, so its
not
surprising that it is relatively simple to translate Python to Lisp and
visa
versa
On 2016-08-03, Rustom Mody wrote:
> The first nokia I used never crashed but could still run out of
> battery And the round-dial landlines of 30 years ago had not even
> that problem
Yes, technically, it did. Except the batteries were kept elsewhere,
and the telco went to a lot of trouble to ma
"D'Arcy J.M. Cain" wrote:
>On Mon, 01 Aug 2016 00:25:58 +1000
>Gordon Levi wrote:
>> "D'Arcy J.M. Cain" wrote:
>> >I don't care if you are using carrier pigeon. If you send an email
>> >address, make it a valid one.
>>
>> I admire those who use a valid email address on Usenet but it is an
>>
On Wed, Aug 3, 2016 at 11:23 PM, BartC wrote:
> On 03/08/2016 09:58, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
>
>> Python is sometimes described as a Lisp with more sensible syntax, so its
>> not
>> surprising that it is relatively simple to translate Python to Lisp and
>> visa
>> versa.
>
>
> Translating Python wo
On Wed, Aug 3, 2016 at 11:04 PM, BartC wrote:
> On 03/08/2016 13:36, Chris Angelico wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, Aug 3, 2016 at 10:16 PM, Rustom Mody
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> There he comes waddling in… Your cute-n-cudly strawman!!
>>> A more realistic analogy would be phones
>>> The cellphones we use today of
On 03/08/2016 09:58, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
Python is sometimes described as a Lisp with more sensible syntax, so its not
surprising that it is relatively simple to translate Python to Lisp and visa
versa.
Translating Python would be easier if everything was implemented as
Python. But sometim
On Wed, Aug 3, 2016 at 8:16 PM, BartC wrote:
> On 03/08/2016 06:43, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
>
>> Not everything that is done is worth the cognitive burden of memorising a
>> special case.
>
>
>
>> In some ways, Python is a more minimalist language than you like. That's
>> okay,
>> you're allow
On 03/08/2016 13:36, Chris Angelico wrote:
On Wed, Aug 3, 2016 at 10:16 PM, Rustom Mody wrote:
There he comes waddling in… Your cute-n-cudly strawman!!
A more realistic analogy would be phones
The cellphones we use today often crash
The first nokia I used never crashed but could still run out
On Wednesday, August 3, 2016 at 6:08:08 PM UTC+5:30, Marko Rauhamaa wrote:
> Rustom Mody :
>
> > Note: You CAN use python scheme-ishly but few people do that.
> > eg here is SICP in python with the first examples pure useful powerful
> > functions:
> > http://www-inst.eecs.berkeley.edu/~cs61a/sp12
Rustom Mody :
> Note: You CAN use python scheme-ishly but few people do that.
> eg here is SICP in python with the first examples pure useful powerful
> functions:
> http://www-inst.eecs.berkeley.edu/~cs61a/sp12/book/functions.html#first-example
I see nothing there that is not ordinary Python.
On Wed, Aug 3, 2016 at 10:16 PM, Rustom Mody wrote:
> There he comes waddling in… Your cute-n-cudly strawman!!
> A more realistic analogy would be phones
> The cellphones we use today often crash
> The first nokia I used never crashed but could still run out of battery
> And the round-dial landli
Rustom Mody :
> As I said earlier what they (the MIT profs) seem to be saying is that
> the topical relevance of python — a library for making robots — trumps
> scheme’s abstract beauty
Python is an excellent choice.
As far as abstract beauty is concerned, I'm wondering why Python
abolished brace
On Wednesday, August 3, 2016 at 5:53:44 PM UTC+5:30, Rustom Mody wrote:
> On Wednesday, August 3, 2016 at 5:39:25 PM UTC+5:30, Marko Rauhamaa wrote:
> > Rustom Mody :
> > I don't know who or what you are referring to.
>
> I put it in the next line!
>
> > Scheme for beginning programmers could be
On Wednesday, August 3, 2016 at 5:39:25 PM UTC+5:30, Marko Rauhamaa wrote:
> Rustom Mody :
> > So yes scheme are python have similar underbellies but the culture of
> > use is quite different.
>
> I don't know if there's enough Scheme activity out there to call it a
> culture.
>
> As far as under
On Wednesday, August 3, 2016 at 5:11:23 PM UTC+5:30, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
> On Wednesday 03 August 2016 05:22, Paul Rubin wrote:
>
> >> The Halting Problem is easily solved for Bloop languages: they always
> >> halt.
> >
> > If Bloop is powerful enough to "solve the halting problem" as you
> >
Rustom Mody :
> So yes scheme are python have similar underbellies but the culture of
> use is quite different.
I don't know if there's enough Scheme activity out there to call it a
culture.
As far as underbellies go, Scheme macros and operators are not
first-class. The Kernel programming languag
On Wednesday, August 3, 2016 at 1:57:43 PM UTC+5:30, Antoon Pardon wrote:
> Op 02-08-16 om 14:29 schreef Rustom Mody:
> > So I was talking of 3 very different levels:
> >
> > 1. print x vs print(x)
> > — a difference too petty for me to waste my time with
> >
> > 2. Procedure vs Function as somethi
On Wednesday 03 August 2016 05:22, Paul Rubin wrote:
>> The Halting Problem is easily solved for Bloop languages: they always
>> halt.
>
> If Bloop is powerful enough to "solve the halting problem" as you
> describe, that gives it capabilities that Turing-complete languages
> lack. (Of course it
On 03/08/2016 06:43, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
Not everything that is done is worth the cognitive burden of memorising a
special case.
In some ways, Python is a more minimalist language than you like. That's okay,
you're allowed to disagree with some design decisions.
Well it's minimalist
On Wednesday, August 3, 2016 at 12:53:02 AM UTC+5:30, Paul Rubin wrote:
> Steven D'Aprano writes:
> > where power is defined (rather fuzzily) as the expressiveness
> > of the language, how easy it is for the programmer to read, write and
> > maintain code, how efficient/fast you can implement it,
Op 02-08-16 om 14:29 schreef Rustom Mody:
> So I was talking of 3 very different levels:
>
> 1. print x vs print(x)
> — a difference too petty for me to waste my time with
>
> 2. Procedure vs Function as something very necessary for beginner
> thinking-ontology which Pascal gets right
>
> 3. The fa
On Wednesday 03 August 2016 05:14, BartC wrote:
> It's fundamental in that, when giving instructions or commands in
> English, it frequently comes up when you want something done a set
> number of times:
>
> "Give me 20 push-ups"
At which point the person will invariable drop to the ground and s
On 02/08/2016 22:27, Terry Reedy wrote:
On 8/2/2016 7:05 AM, BartC wrote:
Your objection to a feature such as 'repeat N' doesn't really stack up.
My objection is that there is a real cost that MUST be stacked up
against the benefit.
...
Anyway, if that was a valid objection, it would apply
Terry Reedy writes:
> I think it is you who is unwilling to admit that nearly everything
> that would be useful also has a cost, and that the ultimate cost of
> adding every useful feature, especially syntax features, would be to
> make python less unusable.
I think you meant "usable" ;). Some o
On 8/2/2016 7:05 AM, BartC wrote:
On 31/07/2016 19:58, Terry Reedy wrote:
On 7/31/2016 6:18 AM, BartC wrote:
repeat N:
The benefit is not so much performance, but being able to express
something very easily and quickly.
The cost of the 'repeat' contraction is that one cannot use the loo
On Wed, Aug 3, 2016 at 5:55 AM, Christian Gollwitzer wrote:
>> - Arbitrary-precision non-integers
>
>
> https://pypi.python.org/pypi/bigfloat/
>
> ?
Wasn't aware of that. Cool. Not that I need it very often (and when I
do, I can use Pike, which has MPFR support built-in). Or I can use
decimal.Dec
Am 02.08.16 um 16:58 schrieb Chris Angelico:
- A more free-form declarative syntax for laying out GUI code
Actually, the Tkinter wrapper misses one feature of grid in Tcl/Tk: You
can write something like
grid .a .b
grid .c .d
to lay out a GUI 2x2 grid using "ASCII-art". There is a package i
Steven D'Aprano wrote:
> It could be, but won't be. Outside of a very few tiny niches, including
> Squeak which is designed for children, such user-interfaces are far too
> cumbersome to ever get widespread use.
Unfortunately, many people use LabView in my field... even for
sufficiently complex
On 2016-08-02, BartC wrote:
> On 02/08/2016 18:54, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
>> On Wed, 3 Aug 2016 02:56 am, BartC wrote:
>>
>>> (And I expect that next they will eliminate languages altogether. All
>>> you need is some way of specifying a sequence of calls to library
>>> functions and sprinkling aro
Steven D'Aprano writes:
> where power is defined (rather fuzzily) as the expressiveness
> of the language, how easy it is for the programmer to read, write and
> maintain code, how efficient/fast you can implement it, etc.
Scheme guru Matthias Felleisen takes a stab at a precise definition here
(
On Wed, Aug 3, 2016 at 3:57 AM, Steven D'Aprano
wrote:
> On Wed, 3 Aug 2016 03:12 am, BartC wrote:
>
>> That's not a fundamental language feature. Repeat-N is. And if properly
>> designed, isn't an extra feature at all but a special case of a generic
>> loop.
>
> Which means it is NOT a fundamenta
On 02/08/2016 18:54, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
On Wed, 3 Aug 2016 02:56 am, BartC wrote:
(And I expect that next they will eliminate languages altogether. All
you need is some way of specifying a sequence of calls to library
functions and sprinkling around some control statements;
That would be
On 02/08/2016 18:57, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
On Wed, 3 Aug 2016 03:12 am, BartC wrote:
That's not a fundamental language feature. Repeat-N is. And if properly
designed, isn't an extra feature at all but a special case of a generic
loop.
Which means it is NOT a fundamental language feature.
"R
On Wed, Aug 3, 2016 at 3:54 AM, Steven D'Aprano
wrote:
> On Wed, 3 Aug 2016 02:56 am, BartC wrote:
>
>> (And I expect that next they will eliminate languages altogether. All
>> you need is some way of specifying a sequence of calls to library
>> functions and sprinkling around some control stateme
On Wed, 3 Aug 2016 03:12 am, BartC wrote:
> That's not a fundamental language feature. Repeat-N is. And if properly
> designed, isn't an extra feature at all but a special case of a generic
> loop.
Which means it is NOT a fundamental language feature.
"Repeat N without tracking the loop variable
On Tue, 2 Aug 2016 11:28 pm, Rustom Mody wrote:
>> I think the real reason is not willing to admit that the language lacks
>> something that could actually be useful, and especially not to an
>> upstart on usenet who is not even an expert in that language.
>
> And earlier you said:
>
>> But dedi
On Wed, 3 Aug 2016 02:56 am, BartC wrote:
> (And I expect that next they will eliminate languages altogether. All
> you need is some way of specifying a sequence of calls to library
> functions and sprinkling around some control statements;
That would be called "a language".
> it could be
> dr
On 02/08/2016 15:58, Chris Angelico wrote:
On Tue, Aug 2, 2016 at 9:05 PM, BartC wrote:
I think the real reason is not willing to admit that the language lacks
something that could actually be useful, and especially not to an upstart on
usenet who is not even an expert in that language.
I kno
On 02/08/2016 14:28, Rustom Mody wrote:
I think the real reason is not willing to admit that the language lacks
something that could actually be useful, and especially not to an
upstart on usenet who is not even an expert in that language.
However a case may be made that syntax is one of the m
On Tue, Aug 2, 2016 at 9:05 PM, BartC wrote:
> I think the real reason is not willing to admit that the language lacks
> something that could actually be useful, and especially not to an upstart on
> usenet who is not even an expert in that language.
I know what features I miss from the languages
> I think the real reason is not willing to admit that the language lacks
> something that could actually be useful, and especially not to an
> upstart on usenet who is not even an expert in that language.
And earlier you said:
> But dedicated forms (even if they just map to 'while' or 'for') wou
On Tuesday, August 2, 2016 at 4:01:25 PM UTC+5:30, Antoon Pardon wrote:
> Op 30-07-16 om 18:15 schreef Rustom Mody:
> >
> > The more general baby that is significant is that beginners should have
> > it easy to distinguish procedure and function and python does not naturally
> > aid that. print w
On 31/07/2016 19:58, Terry Reedy wrote:
On 7/31/2016 6:18 AM, BartC wrote:
repeat N:
The benefit is not so much performance, but being able to express
something very easily and quickly.
The cost of the 'repeat' contraction is that one cannot use the loop
variable, either as part of a mod
Op 30-07-16 om 18:15 schreef Rustom Mody:
>
> The more general baby that is significant is that beginners should have
> it easy to distinguish procedure and function and python does not naturally
> aid that. print was something procedure-ish in python2 but the general
> notion being
> absent is
Op 30-07-16 om 05:49 schreef Steven D'Aprano:
> On Sat, 30 Jul 2016 04:32 am, Antoon Pardon wrote:
>
>
> Perhaps its *you* who doesn't understand. The subject line talks
> about "empty code blocks", and Bart has suggested that instead of having to
> write
>
> ...
>
> So now you're changing your sto
On Monday, 1 August 2016 11:12:30 UTC+1, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
> On Monday 01 August 2016 18:05, bart4...@gmail.com wrote:
> No offense intended Bart, but for all we know every single one of your
> benchmarks are faked, your interpreters are buggy pieces of garbage, and for
> all your self-pro
Gordon Levi :
> In contrast, your valid email address will become the target of many
> spam emails even if you manage to block them. It will also be used as
> the source of spam so somebody at vex.net may be fooled into believing
> that they are receiving a proper email.
Spammers aren't going to c
"D'Arcy J.M. Cain" wrote:
>On Sun, 31 Jul 2016 11:53:47 -0400
>"D'Arcy J.M. Cain" wrote:
>> On Mon, 01 Aug 2016 00:25:58 +1000
>> On the other hand I have no throwaway accounts. Every address I use
>> is a primary one. I have all sorts of methods to block spam. None of
>> those methods involv
On Monday, 1 August 2016 10:50:20 UTC+1, alister wrote:
> Actually the more you make these claims the more I think you are
> suffering from NIH (Not Invented Here) syndrome.
That's not surprising. I started out developing hardware such as microprocessor
boards and video displays. My languages
On Monday, 1 August 2016 11:12:30 UTC+1, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
> On Monday 01 August 2016 18:05, bart4...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > You think that my nearly 30 years' experience of designing interpreted
> > languages and writing fast bytecode interpreters doesn't make my opinions
> > have any more
On Monday 01 August 2016 18:05, bart4...@gmail.com wrote:
> You think that my nearly 30 years' experience of designing interpreted
> languages and writing fast bytecode interpreters doesn't make my opinions
> have any more merit, that's fine.
If you are the only one who has ever seen or used the
On Mon, 01 Aug 2016 01:05:53 -0700, bart4858 wrote:
> On Monday, 1 August 2016 01:33:37 UTC+1, Chris Angelico wrote:
>> On Mon, Aug 1, 2016 at 10:21 AM, wrote:
>
>> > However I do 'drive' as I've been programming for decades. And I can
>> > have an opinion about a model of car that I don't nor
On Mon, 01 Aug 2016 09:49:46 +1000, Chris Angelico wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 1, 2016 at 9:43 AM, wrote:
>> On Sunday, 31 July 2016 21:01:52 UTC+1, Michael Torrie wrote:
>>
>>> That said, I wish he'd stop posting his arguments here on this list as
>>> he clearly doesn't use Python for anything, and h
On Monday, 1 August 2016 01:33:37 UTC+1, Chris Angelico wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 1, 2016 at 10:21 AM, wrote:
> > However I do 'drive' as I've been programming for decades. And I can have
> > an opinion about a model of car that I don't normally drive. An opinion
> > which you might well not get f
On Monday, 1 August 2016 01:22:02 UTC+1, Chris Angelico wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 1, 2016 at 10:11 AM, wrote:
> > (128MB or 128KB? In the 1980s we were all running in 64KB to 640KB of
> > memory. 128MB might be what a well-endowed mainframe might have had!)
>
> Yes, and we didn't have Python then.
On Mon, Aug 1, 2016 at 12:09 PM, Paul Rubin wrote:
> Chris Angelico writes:
>> But out of 20MB, I easily had *space* for a compiler. The problem was
>> compilation time. I could mess around in BASIC with reasonable
>> turnaround times; I could mess around in DEBUG with excellent
>> turnaround tim
Chris Angelico writes:
> But out of 20MB, I easily had *space* for a compiler. The problem was
> compilation time. I could mess around in BASIC with reasonable
> turnaround times; I could mess around in DEBUG with excellent
> turnaround times. Doing even the tiniest work in C meant delays long
> e
On Sunday 31 July 2016 12:39:00 Dennis Lee Bieber wrote:
> On Mon, 01 Aug 2016 01:31:42 +1000, Steven D'Aprano
>
>
> declaimed the following:
> >And you know what? That's fine. It's *good* that there are language
> >designers with different ideas of what's valuable. That gives us a
> > rich eco-s
On Mon, Aug 1, 2016 at 10:55 AM, Paul Rubin wrote:
> Chris Angelico writes:
>> Yes, and we didn't have Python then. When I had a computer with 640KB
>> of memory, my options were (1) BASIC or (2) 8086 assembly language,
>> using DEBUG.EXE and its mini-assembler. Later on (much much later), I
>> a
Chris Angelico writes:
> Yes, and we didn't have Python then. When I had a computer with 640KB
> of memory, my options were (1) BASIC or (2) 8086 assembly language,
> using DEBUG.EXE and its mini-assembler. Later on (much much later), I
> added C to the available languages, but it was tedious and
On Mon, Aug 1, 2016 at 10:21 AM, wrote:
> On Monday, 1 August 2016 00:50:09 UTC+1, Chris Angelico wrote:
>> On Mon, Aug 1, 2016 at 9:43 AM, wrote:
>> > On Sunday, 31 July 2016 21:01:52 UTC+1, Michael Torrie wrote:
>> >
>> >> That said, I wish he'd stop posting his arguments here on this list
On Monday, 1 August 2016 00:50:09 UTC+1, Chris Angelico wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 1, 2016 at 9:43 AM, wrote:
> > On Sunday, 31 July 2016 21:01:52 UTC+1, Michael Torrie wrote:
> >
> >> That said, I wish he'd stop posting his arguments here on this list as
> >> he clearly doesn't use Python for anythi
On Mon, Aug 1, 2016 at 10:11 AM, wrote:
>> In that same thread, one of the lead Python devs Victor Stinner talks about
>> some of his work on embedded devices where he has a hard limit of 128MB for
>> *everything*: boot loader, kernel, OS, applications, etc.
>
> (128MB or 128KB? In the 1980s we w
On Sunday, 31 July 2016 16:31:56 UTC+1, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
> On Sun, 31 Jul 2016 08:18 pm, BartC wrote:
> The whole point of an optimizing compiler is that you don't have to detect
> patterns yourself. The compiler does it. There's a whole science to writing
> optimizing compilers these days,
On Mon, Aug 1, 2016 at 9:43 AM, wrote:
> On Sunday, 31 July 2016 21:01:52 UTC+1, Michael Torrie wrote:
>
>> That said, I wish he'd stop posting his arguments here on this list as
>> he clearly doesn't use Python for anything, and hasn't used Python for
>> any real amount of coding. He has no ve
On Sunday, 31 July 2016 21:01:52 UTC+1, Michael Torrie wrote:
> That said, I wish he'd stop posting his arguments here on this list as
> he clearly doesn't use Python for anything, and hasn't used Python for
> any real amount of coding. He has no vested interest in Python so why
> should his opi
On 07/31/2016 10:04 AM, D'Arcy J.M. Cain wrote:
> On Sun, 31 Jul 2016 11:53:47 -0400
> "D'Arcy J.M. Cain" wrote:
>> On Mon, 01 Aug 2016 00:25:58 +1000
>> On the other hand I have no throwaway accounts. Every address I use
>> is a primary one. I have all sorts of methods to block spam. None of
>
On Mon, Aug 1, 2016 at 4:58 AM, Terry Reedy wrote:
>
> As for the original topic: Guido judged that a uniform rule "Compound
> statement headers end with ':' and the next line has an additional indent"
> would make correct code easier to write and parse and make it visually more
> obvious. Some P
On 31 Jul 2016, at 19:22, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
On Mon, 1 Aug 2016 12:25 am, Gordon Levi wrote:
I admire those who use a valid email address on Usenet but it is an
open invitation for spammers. I doubt if there is anybody who uses
their primary email address.
Spammers have moved on from U
On 7/31/2016 6:18 AM, BartC wrote:
The costs are near zero: at minimum, a syntactic construct such as:
repeat N:
that expands to:
for _ in range(N):
The benefit is not so much performance, but being able to express
something very easily and quickly.
The cost of the 'repeat' contraction i
Steven D'Aprano writes:
> There's a real mystery why concatenative/postfix languages have
> received so little attention from the academic community compared to
> prefix languages.
There's a wiki with lots of info: http://www.concatenative.org
This LTU thread and the article it links to is kind
On Mon, 1 Aug 2016 12:25 am, Gordon Levi wrote:
> I admire those who use a valid email address on Usenet but it is an
> open invitation for spammers. I doubt if there is anybody who uses
> their primary email address.
Spammers have moved on from Usenet. Those few that haven't are
indistinguishab
On Sun, 31 Jul 2016 05:39 pm, Gregory Ewing wrote:
> Steven D'Aprano wrote:
>> It has always perplexed me that Lisp's prefix notation is held up as
>> the /sine qua non/ of elegance and power, while Forth is ignored if not
>> ridiculed.
>
> The reason Lisp is easier to program in than Forth is no
Gordon Levi :
> I admire those who use a valid email address on Usenet but it is an
> open invitation for spammers. I doubt if there is anybody who uses
> their primary email address.
Feel free to keep admiring me.
Marko
--
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
"D'Arcy J.M. Cain" writes:
> So I have to examine every address I reply to or deal with the bounce
> message later. Way to move your spam problem to someone else.
It's not entirely about spam. I stopped posting addresses because
people kept insisting on replying to my posts by email instead of
Ian Kelly writes:
> What does JSON have to do with LISP?
JSON is a crappy form of S-expressions.
--
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
On Sun, 31 Jul 2016 11:53:47 -0400
"D'Arcy J.M. Cain" wrote:
> On Mon, 01 Aug 2016 00:25:58 +1000
> On the other hand I have no throwaway accounts. Every address I use
> is a primary one. I have all sorts of methods to block spam. None of
> those methods involves moving my spam problem to someo
On Mon, 01 Aug 2016 00:25:58 +1000
Gordon Levi wrote:
> "D'Arcy J.M. Cain" wrote:
> >I don't care if you are using carrier pigeon. If you send an email
> >address, make it a valid one.
>
> I admire those who use a valid email address on Usenet but it is an
> open invitation for spammers. I doub
On Sun, 31 Jul 2016 08:18 pm, BartC wrote:
> On 31/07/2016 03:10, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
>> On Sun, 31 Jul 2016 04:46 am, BartC wrote:
>
>>> No named loop variable to invent, create, maintain, and destroy. No
>>> range object to create, destroy etc. If you're looking for ways for a
>>> language t
"D'Arcy J.M. Cain" wrote:
>On Sat, 30 Jul 2016 16:14:18 +0100
>BartC wrote:
>> > By the way, the last time I replied to you it went to the list but
>> > your address bounced. Was that a glitch or are you using an
>> > invalid address in a mailing list?
>>
>> Do you mean my email address? That
On Sun, Jul 31, 2016 at 1:51 AM, Marko Rauhamaa wrote:
> It is quite astounding how Lisp is steadily being reinvented by the
> down-to-earth programming community. It was famously observed by Paul
> Graham in 2002 (http://www.paulgraham.com/icad.html>). The
> evolution has kept on going since then
On 31/07/2016 03:10, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
On Sun, 31 Jul 2016 04:46 am, BartC wrote:
No named loop variable to invent, create, maintain, and destroy. No
range object to create, destroy etc. If you're looking for ways for a
language to be more efficient, then why disregard this possibility?
Marko Rauhamaa writes:
> Gregory Ewing :
>> If Forth had come out of a computer science department and Lisp had
>> been invented by an astronomer, Lisp would still be the easier
>> language to use.
>
> It is quite astounding how Lisp is steadily being reinvented by the
> down-to-earth programming
Gregory Ewing writes:
> The reason Lisp is easier to program in than Forth is not
> because of prefix vs. postfix. It's because in Lisp a function
> call is syntactically grouped together with its arguments,
> whereas in Forth it's not. Forth requires you to mentally
> simulate the stack to figure
Gregory Ewing :
> If Forth had come out of a computer science department and Lisp had
> been invented by an astronomer, Lisp would still be the easier
> language to use.
It is quite astounding how Lisp is steadily being reinvented by the
down-to-earth programming community. It was famously observe
1 - 100 of 248 matches
Mail list logo
