Hi Friends,Let me know the use of ' ** ' operator and ' \\' use.f=(3*s**2) how is it different, if use only single '*' and also the divide operator.Thanks in advance,Santosh
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Hi,
Check out some examples:
In [16]: 9./2
Out[16]: 4.5
In [17]: 9.//2
Out[17]: 4
In [18]: 2*3
Out[18]: 6
In [19]: 2**3
Out[19]: 8
Here is the documentation for these operations:
http://docs.python.org/lib/typesnumeric.html
Regards,
Ray
Santosh Chikkerur wrote:
> Hi Friends,
> Let me know th
I do not have a clue what is happening in the code below.
>>> a=[[2,4],[9,3]]
>>> b=a
>>> [map(list.sort,b)]
[[None, None]]
>>> b
[[2, 4], [3, 9]]
>>> a
[[2, 4], [3, 9]]
I want to make a copy of matrix a and then make changes to the
matrices separately. I assume that I am missing a fundamental
c
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> I do not have a clue what is happening in the code below.
>
a=[[2,4],[9,3]]
b=a
[map(list.sort,b)]
> [[None, None]]
b
> [[2, 4], [3, 9]]
a
> [[2, 4], [3, 9]]
>
> I want to make a copy of matrix a and then make changes to the
> matrices separate
name b to the same object that is
bound to the name a. If you want a copy, ask for a copy.
>>> a = [1,2]
>>> import copy
>>> b = copy.copy(a) #shallow copy
>>> a.append(3)
>>> a,b
([1, 2, 3], [1, 2])
>>>
You may need to do something else depending on exactly what copy
semantics you want, read the docs on the copy module.
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> I do not have a clue what is happening in the code below.
> >>> a=[[2,4],[9,3]]
> >>> b=a
> >>> [map(list.sort,b)]
> [[None, None]]
> >>> b
> [[2, 4], [3, 9]]
> >>> a
> [[2, 4], [3, 9]]
> I want to make a copy of matrix a and then make changes to the
> matrices separate
If you want to copy lists, you do it by using the [:] operator. e.g.:
>>> a = [1,2]
>>> b = a[:]
>>> a
[1, 2]
>>> b
[1, 2]
>>> b[0] = 2
>>> a
[1, 2]
>>> b
[2, 2]
If you want to copy a list of lists, you can use a list comprehension
if you do not want to use the copy module:
>>> a = [[1,2],[3,4]]
All,
It works great now. Thank you for all of your incredibly quick
replies.
Rob
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> All,
> It works great now. Thank you for all of your incredibly quick
> replies.
> Rob
You should have a read of these:
http://wiki.python.org/moin/BeginnersGuide
http://effbot.org/zone/python-objects.htm
Cheers,
Tim Delaney
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listin
En Mon, 26 Feb 2007 11:26:43 -0300, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> escribió:
> It works great now. Thank you for all of your incredibly quick
> replies.
Now that you have solved your immediate problem, you could read:
http://effbot.org/zone/python-objects.htm
--
Gabriel Genellina
--
http://mail.python.
;].split(os.sep) is wrong on Windows for the case when
PATH="c:\\A;B";c:\\D;
where there is a ';' embedded in the quoted path.
Does anyone know of a simple way (addons ok) which would do it in a
cross platform way? If not - I will roll my own. My search has shown
that general
Fellow Pythonistas,
Please check out
http://spyced.blogspot.com/2005/04/how-well-do-you-know-python-part-3.html
if you haven't done so yet. It appears that you can specify a function
explicitly to take n-tuples as arguments. It actually works, checked
this myself. If you read the reference manua
'PATH'].split(os.sep) is wrong on Windows for the case when
PATH="c:\\A;B";c:\\D;
where there is a ';' embedded in the quoted path.
Does anyone know of a simple way (addons ok) which would do it in a
cross platform way? If not - I will roll my own. My search has shown
%PATH%, etc) but
I
> > am not able to find a simple function to do so.
> >
> > os.environ['PATH'].split(os.sep) is wrong on Windows for the case
when
> > PATH="c:\\A;B";c:\\D;
> > where there is a ';' embedded in the quoted path.
> >
if your goal is to search for files on a windows-style path environment
variable, maybe you don't want to take this approach, but instead wrap
and use the _wsearchenv or _searchenv C library functions
http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/en-us/vclib/html/_crt__searchenv.2c_._wsearchenv.asp
Incid
chirayuk wrote:
However, I just realized that the following is also a valid PATH in
windows.
PATH=c:\A"\B;C"\D;c:\program files\xyz"
(The quotes do not need to cover the entire path)
Too bad! What a crazy format!
So here is my handcrafted solution.
def WinPathList_to_PyList (pathL
exe do was discovered when I tried
C:\temp>dir \Pro
C:\temp>dir "\Program Files"
C:\temp>dir "\Program Files"\vim
...and it worked. That's when I placed something in c:\temp\a;b\c and set
path to begin with c:\temp"\a;b"\c;%path% and realized that cmd
The C code that Python uses to find the initial value of sys.path based
on PYTHONPATH seems to be simple splitting on the equivalent of
os.pathsep. See the source file Python/sysmodule.c, function
makepathobject().
for (i = 0; ; i++) {
p = strchr(path, delim); // ";" on win
I do agree that it is a crazy format - and am amazed that it works at
the prompt.
For the first case - you have a mismatched double quote for test2 at
the end of the string. test2 should be r'c:\A"\B;C"\D;c:\program
files\xyz' instead. For the 2nd case - my code swallowed the
Its good to see what cpython did with the PATH. I now feel good about
taking the simple approach. It would be crazy if that sort of quoting
in the middle becomes something which works with too many applications
- and others are expected to keep up with it.
I guess I dont need to worry about unix P
efined__cmp__()
PythonObject_classWithDefined__cmp__instanceB =
PythonObject_classWithDefined__cmp__()
print "min(A,B) is A: "
print "in case of classes with defined __cmp__() as parameter: " +
str(min(PythonObject_classWithDefined__cmp__instanceA,
PythonObject_cla
[Claudio Grondi]
> The still open question for me then is:
> Why does min() not raise an error in case
> there is no comparison function definition
> for the feeded objects available?
Actually, there is a comparison function for
class instances. Unfortunately, the default
method is not very usefu
You can always unpack a tuple that way, like in:
.>>> import sys
.>>> for (index, (key, value)) in enumerate(sys.modules.iteritems()):
pass
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
s *.py
# For def [\w]+\(\(
c:\python23\lib\test\test_compile.py(49) def comp_args((a, b)):
c:\python23\lib\test\test_compile.py(53) def comp_args((a, b)=(3, 4)):
c:\python23\lib\test\test_grammar.py(159) def f5((compound, first), two): pass
c:\python23\lib\test\test_scope.py(318)
"AdSR" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Small wonder since it looks like one of those language features
that make committing atrocities an order of magnitude easier.
eh?
def f((a, b)):
...
is short for
def f(tmp):
a, b = tmp
...
if you think this is an &
def f(tmp):
a, b = tmp
...
back to the original source form
def f((a, b)):
...
but that has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with how argument passing
works at run time.
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
> if you think this is an "atrocity", maybe programming isn't for you.
My resume might suggest otherwise but I guess that's not the main topic
here. Maybe I got carried away -- this one took me completely by
surprise.
Anyway, this gets interesting:
def z(((a, b), (c,
AdSR wrote:
> Fellow Pythonistas,
>
> Please check out
>
> http://spyced.blogspot.com/2005/04/how-well-do-you-know-python-part-3.html
>
> if you haven't done so yet. It appears that you can specify a function
> explicitly to take n-tuples as arguments. It actually works, checked
> this myself.
> Yes, but usually not so much in function arguments but more in
> list-comprehensions or other places where unpacking was useful. I
love the
> feature - I just don't have nested enough data to use it more :)
I use tuple unpacking in its typical uses, it's one of the first
language features I lear
[Diez B. Roggisch]
> AdSR wrote:
> > It appears that you can specify a function explicitly to take
> > n-tuples as arguments. [...] Has anyone actually used it in real
> > code?
I do not use it often in practice, but sometimes, yes. If the feature
was not there, it would be easy to do an explici
On 18 Apr 2005 13:05:57 -0700, "AdSR" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Fellow Pythonistas,
>
>Please check out
>
>http://spyced.blogspot.com/2005/04/how-well-do-you-know-python-part-3.html
>
>if you haven't done so yet. It appears that you can specify a function
>explicitly to take n-tuples as argument
hink about it the whole positional argument passing is nothing
more than tuple unpacking. Its like having an anonymous variable that gets
unpacked:
def foo(a,b,c = i_m_so_anonymous):
pass
So it's just orthogonal to have the full functionality of unpacking
available for function arg
> Thanks for pointing this out. However I see no atrocity potential
here
> -- what did you have in mind?
Bad choice of words. I meant obfuscated, something like
def z(((a, b), (c, d)), e, f):
pass
but much worse. But it looks like there is nothing unusual about it
after all. Oh
François Pinard wrote:
> The most useful place for implicit tuple unpacking, in my experience,
> is likely at the left of the `in' keyword in `for' statements (and
> it is even nicer when one avoids extraneous parentheses).
... and would be nicest (IMO) if default arguments and *varargs were
all
[George Sakkis]
> François Pinard wrote:
> > The most useful place for implicit tuple unpacking, in my
> > experience, is likely at the left of the `in' keyword in `for'
> > statements (and it is even nicer when one avoids extraneous
> > parentheses).
> ... and would be nicest (IMO) if default ar
. Let's
keep the "should python become lazy ?" question for a future thread :-)
Concerning default argument expressions, a neat feature would be to
allow an expression to refer to other arguments, as in "def
foo(a,b,s=a+b)" instead of the current workaround which goes like
t not otherwise,
and from what I saw so far, less meaningful in other contexts anyway.
However, I think laziness is available explicitely if needed (there is
library function that returns a "promise" of its argument).
> Or for a more exotic use:
> def prologLikeSum
"François Pinard" wrote:
> > > keywords may be abbreviated, and much more hairy,
>
> > Hmm.. -1 on this. It may save a few keystrokes, but it's not good
for
> > readability and maintenability.
>
> That was my first impression too. Yet, interactively, I found that
> feature very convenient. Alread
= arg[1]
self.y = 'default for non-tuple'
else:
self.x = arg[1][0]
self.y = len(arg[1])==2 and arg[1][1] or 'default'
u = property(fset=_fset)
def __iter__(self):
return iter((self.a, self.x, self.y))
def test():
upk = Tupk
AdSR wrote:
if you haven't done so yet. It appears that you can specify a function
explicitly to take n-tuples as arguments.
Has anyone actually used it in real code?
Yes. In PyGUI I have some point and rectangle manipulation
utilities that do things like
def add_pt((x1, y1), (x2, y2)):
retur
a = b | 1
a = b if b != nil
else a =1
Is there such expression in python?
Thanks a lot!
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Steven Bethard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>I believe what Peter Otten was pointing out is that calling __eq__ is
>not the same as using ==, presumably because the code for == checks the
>types of the two objects and returns False if they're different before
>the __eq
Mel Wilson wrote:
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Steven Bethard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I believe what Peter Otten was pointing out is that calling __eq__ is
not the same as using ==, presumably because the code for == checks the
types of the two objects and returns False if they're different b
Mel Wilson wrote:
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Steven Bethard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I believe what Peter Otten was pointing out is that calling __eq__ is
not the same as using ==, presumably because the code for == checks the
types of the two objects and returns False if they're different b
owing, depending on the operator and the types of A and B:
A.__op__(B)
B.__op__(A)
B.__rop__(A)
The latter two get invoked when B is a proper subclass of A (using 'op' for
commutative operations, and 'rop' for potentially non-commutative ones). This is
so that subclasses
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Steven Bethard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Mel Wilson wrote:
>> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>> Steven Bethard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>>>I believe what Peter Otten was pointing out is that calling __eq__ is
>>>not the same as using ==, presumably because th
[Mel Wilson]
> :) Seems to:
>
>
> Python 2.3 (#46, Jul 29 2003, 18:54:32) [MSC v.1200 32 bit (Intel)] on win32
> Type "help", "copyright", "credits" or "license" for more information.
> >>> class Eq(object):
> ... def __eq__(self, other):
> ... return True
> ...
> >>> class Neq(Eq
Tim Peters wrote:
> See the Python (language, not library) reference manual, section 3.3.8
> ("Coercion rules"), bullet point starting with:
>
> Exception to the previous item: if the left operand is an
> instance of a built-in type or a new-style class, and the right
> operand is an
is getting coerced. It's just that "A binop B" gets translated to a
method call differently depending on the types of A and B. The options being:
A.__binop__(B) # 1 - the usual case
B.__binop__(A) # 2.1 - commutative op, and B is a proper subclass of A
B.__rbinop__(A) # 2.2 - p
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Peter Otten <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Tim Peters wrote:
>
>> See the Python (language, not library) reference manual, section 3.3.8
>> ("Coercion rules"), bullet point starting with:
>>
>> Exception to the previous item: if the left operand is an
>> instanc
Wenhua Zhao wrote:
> a = b | 1
>
> a = b if b != nil
> else a =1
>
> Is there such expression in python?
Soon there will be, but currently: no. What you are after is a ternary
operator like _?_:_ in C. There have been plenty of discussions about
these - search this NG.
[Wenhua Zhao]
> a = b | 1
> a = b if b != nil
> else a =1
> Is there such expression in python?
Hi. Merely write:
a = b or 1
In Python, there is no `nil'. `a' will receive 1 instead of the value of
`b' only if `b' is either zero, None, False, or empty i
Wenhua Zhao <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Is there such expression in python?
Not in the current version but one is being added.
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
On 2005-10-05, Wenhua Zhao <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> a = b | 1
Yes, Python supports that expression.
> a = b if b != nil
> else a =1
But that's not what it means.
> Is there such expression in python?
>>> b=0
>>> b = 0
>>> a = b | 1
>&
In the process of learning about some deeper details of Python I am
curious if it is possible to write a 'prefix' code assigning to a and b
something special, so, that Python gets trapped in an endless loop in a
line with:
if a==b: print 'OK'
I mean, it would be of much
I have been trying to find documentation on the behavior
Can anyone tell me why the first example works and the second doesn't
and where I can read about it in the language reference?
Steve
print os.path.join(os.path.dirname(os.tmpnam()),*("a","b","c"))
#work
x is
path = os.path.join("part1", "part2", "part3")
your first example
> print os.path.join(os.path.dirname(os.tmpnam()),*("a","b","c"))
is equivalent to
print os.path.join(os.path.dirname(os.tmpnam()), "a", "b&qu
Claudio Grondi wrote:
> In the process of learning about some deeper details of Python I am
> curious if it is possible to write a 'prefix' code assigning to a and b
> something special, so, that Python gets trapped in an endless loop in a
> line with:
>
> if a==b: pri
Claudio Grondi wrote:
> In the process of learning about some deeper details of Python I am
> curious if it is possible to write a 'prefix' code assigning to a and b
> something special, so, that Python gets trapped in an endless loop in a
> line with:
>
> if a==b
Steve Holden wrote:
> Claudio Grondi wrote:
>
>> In the process of learning about some deeper details of Python I am
>> curious if it is possible to write a 'prefix' code assigning to a and
>> b something special, so, that Python gets trapped in an endless loop
Claudio Grondi wrote:
[snip..]
> Thanks for the quick reply.
>
> I see, that I have overseen, that as Fredrik also stated, one can
> directly manipulate __eq__() as the easiest way to achieve what I
> requested.
>
> To explain why I am not happy with it, I will try here to give some more
> backgro
hing special, so, that Python gets trapped in an endless loop
>>>in a line with:
>>>
>>>if a==b: print 'OK'
>>>
>>>I mean, it would be of much help to me on my way to understanding
>>>Python to know how such prefix code leading to
Fuzzyman wrote:
> Claudio Grondi wrote:
> [snip..]
>
>>Thanks for the quick reply.
>>
>>I see, that I have overseen, that as Fredrik also stated, one can
>>directly manipulate __eq__() as the easiest way to achieve what I
>>requested.
>>
>>To explain why I am not happy with it, I will try here to
prefix' code assigning to a
>>>> and b something special, so, that Python gets trapped in an endless
>>>> loop in a line with:
>>>>
>>>> if a==b: print 'OK'
>>>>
>>>> I mean, it would be of much help to me on my
bjects storing the integer value 1, what I mean
> can happen when there is enough other code between the Python code lines
> assigning the integer value 1 to a list element or any other identifier.
Perhaps you could try again in English? :-) Sorry, that's a very complex
sentence and it i
Claudio Grondi wrote:
[snip..]
> Yes, I know about 'is',
>
> but I mean, that it is not possible to use 'is' as replacement for '=='
> operator to achieve in Python same behaviour as it is the case in C and
> Javascript when comparing values with '=='.
> 'is' does the C, Javascript job when compar
Claudio Grondi wrote:
> Steve Holden wrote:
[snip..]
> The problem here is, that I mean, that in Python it makes no sense to
> talk about a value of an object, because it leads to weird things when
> trying to give a definition what a value of an object is.
>
You're saying that C and Java get rou
t;
>
> Perhaps you could try again in English? :-) Sorry, that's a very complex
> sentence and it isn't clear what yo mean.
Here in English ;-) :
a=[1]
... many other statements here ...
b=[1]
a is b # False
a == b # True
a[0] is b[0] # unpredictable(?)
a[0] == b[0] # True
Claudio Grondi wrote:
[snip..]> > Perhaps you could try again in English? :-) Sorry, that's a
very complex
> > sentence and it isn't clear what yo mean.
> Here in English ;-) :
> a=[1]
> ... many other statements here ...
> b=[1]
> a is b # False
> a ==
Oops... my misreading, sorry.
The reason that, in Python, short ints have the same identity is not
fickle - it's just True. Python creates a new reference (pointer) to
the same object.
You're saying you want one comparison operator that for :
> a=[1]
> ... many other statements here ...
> b=[1]
hy you say that.
> It seems, that in Python there is a lack of operator able to compare
> values as it is the case in C and Javascript, simply because in Python
> there are no really such things as values, so there is no need to
> compare them.
>
That is simply incorrect. The e
Fuzzyman wrote:
> Claudio Grondi wrote:
> > Steve Holden wrote:
> [snip..]
> > The problem here is, that I mean, that in Python it makes no sense to
> > talk about a value of an object, because it leads to weird things when
> > trying to give a definition what a value of an object is.
> >
>
> You'
Claudio Grondi wrote:
> but I mean, that it is not possible to use 'is' as replacement for '=='
> operator to achieve in Python same behaviour as it is the case in C and
> Javascript when comparing values with '=='.
> 'is' does the C, Javascript job when comparing lists, but I mean it
> fails to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Fuzzyman wrote:
> > Claudio Grondi wrote:
> > > Steve Holden wrote:
> > [snip..]
> > > The problem here is, that I mean, that in Python it makes no sense to
> > > talk about a value of an object, because it leads to weird things when
> > > trying to give a definition wha
Fuzzyman wrote:
> The above gentleman is asserting that in *Python* the term value has no
> meaning.
I don't know what he meant and don't want to get into that
value/reference/object thingy discussion as it would be a never ending
thing. I just want to say that '==' in C is very clear to me, wheth
Script/Javascript being more like Python is. It is _important to
distinguish_ between Java as a programming language with its VM and
Javascript as an engine working inside dynamic HTML pages (unless one is
on Windows and has the JScript engine available for both purposes:
inside HTML and stand-alone
Fuzzyman wrote:
> Ok... so I'm now assuming that the information about '==' provided by
> the above gentleman *and* that I understand it correctly.
>
> The only confusion in C (which doesn't have classes) is that two list
> (like) objects can't be tested by value - only identity.
>
In C, they are
Ok... so I'm now assuming that the information about '==' provided by
the above gentleman *and* that I understand it correctly.
The only confusion in C (which doesn't have classes) is that two list
(like) objects can't be tested by value - only identity.
In Java, comparing strings using '==' comp
are container objects of the same type, with the same contents. That's
> very counter intuitive.
As also the fact, that when
a = [1,2.0,3L]
b = [1.0,2,3 ]
a==b # gives True
even if the objects in the lists are actually different,
or when the objects being members of the list redef
I'm not familiar with the C basic datatypes - I assume it has an array
or list like object.
Would it contain a sequence of poitners to the members ? In which case
they would only be equal if the pointers are the same.
In this case :
a = ['some string']
b = ['somestring'
Claudio Grondi wrote:
> As also the fact, that when
> a = [1,2.0,3L]
> b = [1.0,2,3 ]
> a==b # gives True
> even if the objects in the lists are actually different,
they all compare equal:
>>> 1 == 1.0
True
>>> 2.0 == 2
True
>>> 3L == 3
True
>
Claudio Grondi wrote:
> As also the fact, that when
> a = [1,2.0,3L]
> b = [1.0,2,3 ]
> a==b # gives True
> even if the objects in the lists are actually different,
> or when the objects being members of the list redefine __eq__ so, that
> no matter how different they
gt;
> a = ['some string']
> b = ['somestring']
> a == b
> False (probably)
>
Oops... definitely False unless it is corrected to :
a = ['some string']
b = ['some string']
a == b
False (probably)
All the best,
Fuzzyman
http://www.voidspace.or
So you're no longer wanting to test for equality (as Fredrik has
pointed out).
All the best,
Fuzzyman
http://www.voidspace.org.uk/python/index.shtml
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
gt;
> a = ['some string']
> b = ['somestring']
> a == b
> False (probably)
the "value" of a C array is the address of its first argument. two separate
arrays will never compare equal, no matter what they contain.
(C programs tend to use various "cmp&qu
Peter Hansen wrote:
> Claudio Grondi wrote:
> > but I mean, that it is not possible to use 'is' as replacement for '=='
> > operator to achieve in Python same behaviour as it is the case in C and
> > Javascript when comparing values with '=='.
> > 'is' does the C, Javascript job when comparing lis
gt;
> a = ['some string']
> b = ['somestring']
> a == b
> False (probably)
>
> Incorrectly using Python syntax for a C example of course :-)
>
That depends, the C syntax is like this :
char *a="hello";
char *b="hello";
assert(a==b);
// true,
he pointers are the same.
> >
> > In this case :
> >
> > a = ['some string']
> > b = ['somestring']
> > a == b
> > False (probably)
>
> the "value" of a C array is the address of its first argument. two separate
> ar
as it is the case in C and Javascript, simply because in Python
>> there are no really such things as values, so there is no need to
>> compare them.
>>
> That is simply incorrect. The expression a == b is true under
> well-defined circumstances usually referred to as &q
Claudio Grondi wrote:
>
>
>
> Subject:
> Re: Can a simple a==b 'hang' in and endless loop?
> From:
> Claudio Grondi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date:
> Wed, 18 Jan 2006 19:59:12
On Wed, 18 Jan 2006 17:03:23 +0100 in comp.lang.python, Claudio Grondi
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[...]
>
> >>> a = 1L
> >>> b = 1L
> >>> a is b
>False
>
>Python fails to reuse the long integer object. It would be interesting
>to know why, because it seems to be strange, that in case of integers
ch case
>> they would only be equal if the pointers are the same.
>>
>> In this case :
>>
>> a = ['some string']
>> b = ['somestring']
>> a == b
>> False (probably)
>>
>> Incorrectly using Python syntax for a C examp
value of that Python object: the int 1
Python object 4.7
The value of that Python object: the float 4.7
Python object "abc"
The value of that Python object: a string consisting of characters a, b
and c.
Python object [1, 4.7, "abc"]
The value of that Python object: a list conta
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Claudio Grondi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
...
> It is probably true, that it doesn't much matter when writing Python
> code when one do not understand how Python works internally. The rare
> practical cases of getting into trouble because of lack of such
> unders
only be equal if the pointers are the same.
> >>
> >> In this case :
> >>
> >> a = ['some string']
> >> b = ['somestring']
> >> a == b
> >> False (probably)
> >>
> >> Incorrectly using Python syntax fo
ners to the members ? In which case
>>>>they would only be equal if the pointers are the same.
>>>>
>>>>In this case :
>>>>
>>>>a = ['some string']
>>>>b = ['somestring']
>>>>a == b
>
possible to say
> a[0], but ... if here
> if(a==b):
> print "True"
> _does not_ print True, the Python engine is definitely broken.
Why are you comparing C behaviour to Python behaviour?
What is the point of the discussion?
--
Steven.
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
; data structures which provide strings as arrays where it is possible
>> to say a[0], but ... if here
>> if(a==b):
>> print "True"
>> _does not_ print True, the Python engine is definitely broken.
>
>
>
> Why are you comparing C behaviour to Py
ion what a value of an object is.
>
>
> Python object: 1
> The value of that Python object: the int 1
>
> Python object 4.7
> The value of that Python object: the float 4.7
>
> Python object "abc"
> The value of that Python object: a string consisting of ch
ly, in terms of C, pointer to Python object
>>>data structures which provide strings as arrays where it is possible
>>>to say a[0], but ... if here
>>>if(a==b):
>>> print "True"
>>>_does not_ print True, the Python engine is definitely brok
1 - 100 of 146 matches
Mail list logo
