[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I can't thank you enough for your reply and for everyones' great info
on this thread. The end of your email gave a rock solid reason why it
is impossible to improve upon ()'s for tuples
Actually, you missed the point. The parentheses don't have anything to do with
the
Roy Smith wrote:
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> Reinhold Birkenfeld <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > >>+<< being an operator
>
> Looks more like a smiley for "guy wearing a bowtie"
:)), I had a nice laugh with this one.
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Roel Schroeven wrote:
Rocco Moretti wrote:
So to summarize:
Commas define tuples, except when they don't, and parentheses are only
required when they are necessary.
I hope that clears up any confusion.
You have my vote for QOTW.
+1 as well
By the way, since we seem to be commenting on sigs in this
Brian van den Broek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
...
> > Have you heard of Villanova, often named as the birthplace of Italian
> > civilization? That's about 15 km away, where I generally go for major
> > grocery shopping at a hypermarket when I _do_ have a car.
>
>
>
> > Alex
>
> 'Hypermarke
Hi all,
a question about using parenthesis for tuples veered very far off topic
before I returned from a trip and found the thread. I've a comment on
the original topic, and then a comment off-topic even for the off-topic
direction in which the thread ended up :-)
The on-topic:
the use of '(' a
Jeff Shannon wrote:
Alex Martelli wrote:
Carl Banks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Then again, millenia past didn't have Frank Gehry (i.e., the Perl of
modern architecture).
Uhm -- I count the Guggenheim Museum in Bilbao among the _successes_ of
modern architecture...
I'll give you the Bilbao Guggen
Alex Martelli wrote:
Carl Banks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Then again, millenia past didn't have Frank Gehry (i.e., the Perl of
modern architecture).
Uhm -- I count the Guggenheim Museum in Bilbao among the _successes_ of
modern architecture...
I'll give you the Bilbao Guggenheim, which (at least
Carl Banks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Alex Martellix wrote:
> > I think a tiny minority of today's
> > architecture and sculpture can rightfully be compared with the
> > masterpieces of millennia past.
>
> Not that I disagree with your overall point, but I suspect a tiny
> minority of the archi
Alex Martellix wrote:
> I think a tiny minority of today's
> architecture and sculpture can rightfully be compared with the
> masterpieces of millennia past.
Not that I disagree with your overall point, but I suspect a tiny
minority of the architecture and sculpture from millenia past can be
right
Alex Martelli wrote:
> Jeff Shannon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>...
>> to remember and type some arcane alt-keycode formula to be able to do
>> basic scripting would be obnoxious, to say the least. Most keyboards
>> worldwide provide decent support for the ASCII character set (though
>> some
On Thu, 30 Dec 2004 15:58:07 GMT, Roel Schroeven wrote:
> Rocco Moretti wrote:
>> So to summarize:
>>
>> Commas define tuples, except when they don't, and parentheses are only
>> required when they are necessary.
>>
>> I hope that clears up any confusion.
>
> You have my vote for QOTW.
>
+1
:-
Jeff Shannon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
...
> to remember and type some arcane alt-keycode formula to be able to do
> basic scripting would be obnoxious, to say the least. Most keyboards
> worldwide provide decent support for the ASCII character set (though
> some add a few extra national char
Dan Sommers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
...
> > I was pretty sure that « and » were guillmots, but google sure
> > preferred the sea bird when I asked it.
>
> They're guillemets (with an "e"); this is a [relatively] well-known
> Adobe SNAFU. (A quick google search or two failed to find an
> aut
John Roth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
...
> and division. We've allowed ourselves to be limited by the
> ASCII character set for so long that improving that seems to be
> outside of most people's boxes.
APL didn't allow itself to be limited that way. Anybody who's used it
can hardly be accused
Rocco Moretti wrote:
So to summarize:
Commas define tuples, except when they don't, and parentheses are only
required when they are necessary.
I hope that clears up any confusion.
You have my vote for QOTW.
--
"Codito ergo sum"
Roel Schroeven
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Ed Leafe wrote:
Exactly! Now can we clear anything else up for you? ;-)
How about a computer program than can correctly count the number of letter E's
in your signature? :)
Cheers,
Nick.
I like the sig, if you hadn't guessed. . .
--
Nick Coghlan | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | Brisbane, Austral
On Dec 29, 2004, at 3:38 PM, Rocco Moretti wrote:
So to summarize:
Commas define tuples, except when they don't, and parentheses are only
required when they are necessary.
Exactly! Now can we clear anything else up for you? ;-)
___/
/
__/
/
/
Ed Leafe
http://leafe.com/
ht
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Aahz)
wrote:
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> Roy Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Aahz)
> >wrote:
> >> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> >> Roy Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>>In
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Roy Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Aahz)
>wrote:
>> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>> Roy Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>>> Reinhold Birkenfeld <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Aahz)
wrote:
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> Roy Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> > Reinhold Birkenfeld <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>
> >> >>+<< being an operator
> >
> >Looks more like a smiley for "gu
John Roth wrote:
"Roy Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
If Python had originally been invented in a unicode world, I suppose we
wouldn't have this problem. We'd just be using guillemots for tuples
(and have keyboards which made it easy to type them).
I suppose t
On 2004-12-29, Dan Sommers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> They're guillemets (with an "e"); this is a [relatively] well-known
> Adobe SNAFU.
Ah. Googling for "guillemots punctuation" did turn up enough
hits that it didn't occur to me that I was using the wrong
spelling.
--
Grant Edwards
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Roy Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> Reinhold Birkenfeld <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> >>+<< being an operator
>
>Looks more like a smiley for "guy wearing a bowtie"
You know Ben Yalow?
--
Aahz ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) <*
Dan Sommers wrote:
On 29 Dec 2004 21:03:59 GMT,
Grant Edwards <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 2004-12-29, Reinhold Birkenfeld <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Perl6 experiments with the use of guillemots as part of the syntax.
As if Perl didn't look like bird-tracks already...
http://www.seabird.org/educa
Brian
I am so thankful for your reply and for Alex's and everyone else's on
this thread. (See my reply to Alex.) This email may seem minor but it
was bugging me for months. You just
pointed out what I should have remembered on my own...
*<>'s wouldn't have been a perfect choice because they wo
> There just isn't enough
> neat-looking punctuation in the ASCII character set.
Alex
I can't thank you enough for your reply and for everyones' great info
on this thread. The end of your email gave a rock solid reason why it
is impossible to improve upon ()'s for tuples
*There simply isn't
On 29 Dec 2004 21:03:59 GMT,
Grant Edwards <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 2004-12-29, Reinhold Birkenfeld <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Perl6 experiments with the use of guillemots as part of the syntax.
>>>
>>> As if Perl didn't look like bird-tracks already...
>>>
>>> http://www.seabird.org
On 2004-12-29, Reinhold Birkenfeld <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> Perl6 experiments with the use of guillemots as part of the syntax.
>>
>> As if Perl didn't look like bird-tracks already...
>>
>> http://www.seabird.org/education/animals/guillemot.html
>> http://www.birdguides.com/html/vidlib/sp
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Reinhold Birkenfeld <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>+<< being an operator
Looks more like a smiley for "guy wearing a bowtie"
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Grant Edwards wrote:
> On 2004-12-29, Reinhold Birkenfeld <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> Perl6 experiments with the use of guillemots as part of the syntax.
>
> As if Perl didn't look like bird-tracks already...
>
> http://www.seabird.org/education/animals/guillemot.html
> http://www.birdguides
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Why tuples use parentheses ()'s instead of something else like <>'s?
>
> Please enlighten me as I really want to know.
So to summarize:
Commas define tuples, except when they don't, and parentheses are only
required when they are necessary.
On 2004-12-29, Reinhold Birkenfeld <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Perl6 experiments with the use of guillemots as part of the syntax.
As if Perl didn't look like bird-tracks already...
http://www.seabird.org/education/animals/guillemot.html
http://www.birdguides.com/html/vidlib/species/Uria_aalge.
Roy Smith wrote:
> "John Roth" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > If Python had originally been invented in a unicode world, I suppose we
>> > wouldn't have this problem. We'd just be using guillemots for tuples
>> > (and have keyboards which made it easy to type them).
>>
>> I suppose the forces of
"John Roth" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > If Python had originally been invented in a unicode world, I suppose we
> > wouldn't have this problem. We'd just be using guillemots for tuples
> > (and have keyboards which made it easy to type them).
>
> I suppose the forces of darkness will forever k
"Roy Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Grant Edwards <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 2004-12-29, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Tuples are defined with regards to parentheses ()'s as everyone knows.
Except they're not.
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Grant Edwards <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 2004-12-29, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Tuples are defined with regards to parentheses ()'s as everyone knows.
>
> Except they're not.
>
> >>> x = 1,2,3,4
> >>> type(x)
>
> >>>
>
> Tuples
On 2004-12-29, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Tuples are defined with regards to parentheses ()'s as everyone knows.
Except they're not.
>>> x = 1,2,3,4
>>> type(x)
>>>
Tuples are defined by the infix comma "operator".
--
Grant Edwards grante
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Tuples are defined with regards to parentheses ()'s as everyone knows.
To expand on what Alex Martelli said:
Tuples don't use parentheses except for the special case of the
empty tuple. Those are expression parentheses. The two most
obvio
Marius Bernklev wrote:
* [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Perhaps ()'s are a good idea for some other reason I don't know?
One-element tuples are written as (4,).
And, even there, the parenthesis is only required when it would
otherwise be embiguous:
>>> x = 4,
>>> x
(4,)
>>> print 4,
4
>>>
regards
Steve
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Wouldn't it have been better to define tuples with <>'s or {}'s or
something else to avoid this confusion??
Well, to comment on the part that nobody else did...
< and > are binary operators, a la 3 > 1, "one" < "two"
and {}'s are clearly already used for dictionaries.
--
Br
[EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Tuples are defined with regards to parentheses ()'s as everyone knows.
Well, then, "everyone knows" wrong:
x = 1, 2, 3
x is a tuple. The _commas_ make it one -- parentheses don't matter.
An _empty_ tuple uses parentheses, (), as there's nowhere t
* [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Perhaps ()'s are a good idea for some other reason I don't know?
One-element tuples are written as (4,).
--
Marius Bernklev
http://www.ping.uio.no/~mariube/ >
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Wouldn't it have been better to define tuples with <>'s or {}'s or
something else to avoid this confusion??
The way I see it, tuples are just a way of having a function return
multiple values at once. When you think of them that way, you don't even
need parenthesis:
def
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Tuples are defined with regards to parentheses ()'s as everyone knows.
This causes confusion for 1 item tuples since (5) can be interpreted
as a tuple OR as the number 5 in a mathematical expression
such as x = (5) * (4+6).
No, (5) is always the number 5. To make a one-ele
Tuples are defined with regards to parentheses ()'s as everyone knows.
This causes confusion for 1 item tuples since (5) can be interpreted
as a tuple OR as the number 5 in a mathematical expression
such as x = (5) * (4+6).
Wouldn't it have been better to define tuples with <>'s or {}'s or
someth
45 matches
Mail list logo
