* Steven D'Aprano:
On Fri, 29 Jan 2010 07:10:01 +0100, Alf P. Steinbach wrote:
>>> L = ["æ", "ø", "å"] # This is in SORTED ORDER in Norwegian L
[...]
>>> L.sort( key = locale.strxfrm )
>>> L
['å', 'æ', 'ø']
>>> locale.strcoll( "å", "æ" )
1
>>> locale.strcoll( "æ", "ø"
On 29 Jan, 06:56, Terry Reedy wrote:
> On 1/28/2010 6:47 PM, Paul Boddie wrote:
>
> > What would annoy me if I used Python 3.x would be the apparent lack of
> > the __cmp__ method for conveniently defining comparisons between
> > instances of my own classes. Having to define all the rich compariso
Steven D'Aprano wrote:
> If that's too verbose for you, stick this as a helper function in your
> application:
>
>
> def CmpToKey(mycmp):
> 'Convert a cmp= function into a key= function'
> class K(object):
> def __init__(self, obj, *args):
> self.obj = obj
>
On Fri, 29 Jan 2010 07:10:01 +0100, Alf P. Steinbach wrote:
>>>> L = ["æ", "ø", "å"] # This is in SORTED ORDER in Norwegian L
[...]
>>>> L.sort( key = locale.strxfrm )
>>>> L
>['å', 'æ', 'ø']
>>>> locale.strcoll( "å", "æ" )
>1
>>>> locale.strcoll( "æ", "ø" )
>-1
* Steve Holden:
While I am fully aware that premature optimization, etc., but I cannot
resist an appeal to efficiency if it finally kills off this idea that
"they took 'cmp()' away" is a bad thing.
Passing a cmp= argument to sort provides the interpreter with a function
that will be called eac
On 1/28/2010 6:47 PM, Paul Boddie wrote:
On 27 Jan, 13:26, Xah Lee wrote:
So, for practical reasons, i think a “key” parameter is fine. But
chopping off “cmp” is damaging. When your data structure is complex,
its order is not embedded in some “key”. Taking out “cmp” makes it
impossible to sort
On Thu, 28 Jan 2010 21:26:43 -0500, Roy Smith wrote:
> In article <03720b25$0$1309$c3e8...@news.astraweb.com>,
> Steven D'Aprano wrote:
>
>> In any case, while such a idiom works in code, it plays havoc with the
>> interactive interpreter:
>>
>> >>> while 1:
>> ..."pass"
>> ...
>> 'pass'
>
Roy Smith wrote:
> I'm inclined to call it a docs bug that these keywords are not in the HTML
> index. Yes?
No. The indices don't list the named parameters for any other built-
in, so why would they for print()?
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
On Jan 29, 12:21 pm, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
> "Comes to their senses"?
>
> There's nothing you can do with __cmp__ that you can't do better with
> rich comparisons, and plenty that rich comparisons can do that __cmp__ is
> utterly incapable of dealing with. __cmp__ is crippled since it can only
>
Steven D'Aprano wrote:
> On Thu, 28 Jan 2010 17:38:23 -0800, mdj wrote:
>
>> On Jan 29, 9:47 am, Paul Boddie wrote:
>>> On 27 Jan, 13:26, Xah Lee wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
So, for practical reasons, i think a “key” parameter is fine. But
chopping off “cmp” is damaging. When your data structur
Roy Smith wrote:
> In article <03720b25$0$1309$c3e8...@news.astraweb.com>,
> Steven D'Aprano wrote:
>
>> In any case, while such a idiom works in code, it plays havoc with the
>> interactive interpreter:
>>
> while 1:
>> ..."pass"
>> ...
>> 'pass'
>> 'pass'
>> 'pass'
>> 'pass'
>> 'pass
In article ,
"Alf P. Steinbach" wrote:
> * Roy Smith:
> > In article ,
> > Mitchell L Model wrote:
> >
> >> I use the sep and end keywords all the time.
> >
> > What are 'sep' and 'end'? I'm looking in
> > http://docs.python.org/3.1/genindex-all.html and don't see those mentioned
> > at a
In article <03720b25$0$1309$c3e8...@news.astraweb.com>,
Steven D'Aprano wrote:
> In any case, while such a idiom works in code, it plays havoc with the
> interactive interpreter:
>
> >>> while 1:
> ..."pass"
> ...
> 'pass'
> 'pass'
> 'pass'
> 'pass'
> 'pass'
It's not particularly useful
On Thu, 28 Jan 2010 17:38:23 -0800, mdj wrote:
> On Jan 29, 9:47 am, Paul Boddie wrote:
>> On 27 Jan, 13:26, Xah Lee wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> > So, for practical reasons, i think a “key” parameter is fine. But
>> > chopping off “cmp” is damaging. When your data structure is complex,
>> > its order is
On Jan 29, 9:47 am, Paul Boddie wrote:
> On 27 Jan, 13:26, Xah Lee wrote:
>
>
>
> > So, for practical reasons, i think a “key” parameter is fine. But
> > chopping off “cmp” is damaging. When your data structure is complex,
> > its order is not embedded in some “key”. Taking out “cmp” makes it
> >
Steven D'Aprano writes:
> If you were designing your own language from scratch, so that backwards
> compatibility wasn't an issue, why would you make print a statement?
As another real estate analogy, my apartment has some problems with its
plumbing, plus an ugly spot on the kitchen wall that co
On Wed, 27 Jan 2010 23:50:55 -0800, Jonathan Gardner wrote:
> I agree on "assert". I don't like running a program in test mode and
> then running it in production mode with different code. I would rather
> test what I am going to actually run. "assert" should be a function, and
> support for remov
On Thu, 28 Jan 2010 18:37:56 +0100, Alf P. Steinbach wrote:
> * Lie Ryan:
>> On 01/28/10 20:12, Alf P. Steinbach wrote:
>>> >>> import builtins
>>> >>>
>>> >>> org_print = print
>>> >>> builtins.print = 666
>>> >>>
>>> >>> print( "trallala" )
>>> Traceback (most recent call last):
>>
On 27 Jan, 13:26, Xah Lee wrote:
>
> So, for practical reasons, i think a “key” parameter is fine. But
> chopping off “cmp” is damaging. When your data structure is complex,
> its order is not embedded in some “key”. Taking out “cmp” makes it
> impossible to sort your data structure.
What would a
On Thu, 28 Jan 2010 13:20:02 -0500, Terry Reedy wrote:
> On 1/28/2010 3:37 AM, Paul Rubin wrote:
>> Jonathan Gardner writes:
>>> If you're going to have statements, you're going to need the null
>>> statement. That's "pass".
>>
>> Why? Expressions are statements, so you could just say "pass" (in
On Jan 28, 2010, at 1:40 PM, Terry Reedy wrote
...
On 1/28/2010 11:03 AM, Mitchell L Model wrote:
I have been working with Python 3 for over a year. ...
I agree completely.
Such sweet words to read!
Conversion of old code is greatly facilitied by the 2to3 tool that
comes
with Pyth
On Jan 28, 2010, at 12:00 PM, python-list-requ...@python.org wrote:
From: Roy Smith
Date: January 28, 2010 11:09:58 AM EST
To: python-list@python.org
Subject: Re: python 3's adoption
In article ,
Mitchell L Model wrote:
I use the sep and end keywords all the time.
What are
On 2010-01-28 17:03, Mitchell L Model wrote:
I have been working with Python 3 for over a year. I used it in writing
my book "Bioinformatics Programming Using Python"
(http://oreilly.com/catalog/9780596154509).
That book sounds very interesting, even though I am more interested in
the bioinfor
On 1/28/2010 11:03 AM, Mitchell L Model wrote:
I have been working with Python 3 for over a year. I used it in writing
my book "Bioinformatics Programming Using Python"
(http://oreilly.com/catalog/9780596154509). I didn't see any point in
teaching an incompatible earlier version of a language in
On 1/28/2010 3:37 AM, Paul Rubin wrote:
Jonathan Gardner writes:
If you're going to have statements, you're going to need the null
statement. That's "pass".
Why? Expressions are statements, so you could just say "pass" (in
quotes, denoting a string literal), or 0, or None, os anything else l
* Lie Ryan:
On 01/28/10 20:12, Alf P. Steinbach wrote:
>>> import builtins
>>>
>>> org_print = print
>>> builtins.print = 666
>>>
>>> print( "trallala" )
Traceback (most recent call last):
File "", line 1, in
TypeError: 'int' object is not callable
>>> org_print( "but is t
On 01/28/10 20:12, Alf P. Steinbach wrote:
> * Steven D'Aprano:
>> On Wed, 27 Jan 2010 18:29:25 +0100, Alf P. Steinbach wrote:>
>> Instead of:
>>
>> print >>fileObj, x, y, z
>>
>> you use regular function syntax with a meaningful keyword:
>>
>> print(x, y, z, file=fileObj)
>>
>> If you want suppres
On 01/28/10 19:37, Paul Rubin wrote:
> Jonathan Gardner writes:
>> If you're going to have statements, you're going to need the null
>> statement. That's "pass".
>
> Why? Expressions are statements, so you could just say "pass" (in
> quotes, denoting a string literal), or 0, or None, os anything
* Roy Smith:
In article ,
Mitchell L Model wrote:
I use the sep and end keywords all the time.
What are 'sep' and 'end'? I'm looking in
http://docs.python.org/3.1/genindex-all.html and don't see those mentioned
at all. Am I just looking in the wrong place?
>>> print( print.__doc__ )
In article ,
Mitchell L Model wrote:
> I use the sep and end keywords all the time.
What are 'sep' and 'end'? I'm looking in
http://docs.python.org/3.1/genindex-all.html and don't see those mentioned
at all. Am I just looking in the wrong place?
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/p
I have been working with Python 3 for over a year. I used it in
writing my book "Bioinformatics Programming Using Python" (http://oreilly.com/catalog/9780596154509
). I didn't see any point in teaching an incompatible earlier version
of a language in transition. In preparing the book and its e
Luis M. González wrote:
Please don't post more noise and ad hominem attacks to the group, Steve.
"Ad hominem"?
Please, operor non utor lingua non notus per vulgaris populus.
Gratias ago vos...
"ad hominem" is "lingua notus per vulgaris populus", the vulgar pop of these
parts, anyway.
--
ht
> Please don't post more noise and ad hominem attacks to the group, Steve.
"Ad hominem"?
Please, operor non utor lingua non notus per vulgaris populus.
Gratias ago vos...
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
* Steven D'Aprano:
On Wed, 27 Jan 2010 18:29:25 +0100, Alf P. Steinbach wrote:
The main problem with the incompatibility is for porting code, not for
writing code from scratch.
Correct. It's a trivial problem, but still a problem.
It's also a problem wrt. learning the language.
This makes
Jonathan Gardner writes:
> If you're going to have statements, you're going to need the null
> statement. That's "pass".
Why? Expressions are statements, so you could just say "pass" (in
quotes, denoting a string literal), or 0, or None, os anything else like
that, instead of having a special st
On Jan 27, 4:25 pm, Paul Rubin wrote:
> What about assert and pass?
>
If you're going to have statements, you're going to need the null
statement. That's "pass". It could be renamed "null_statement" but
"pass" is a better description. "None" and "pass" are cousins of
sorts, since "None" is the n
Steven D'Aprano wrote:
On Wed, 27 Jan 2010 02:28:00 +0100, Alf P. Steinbach wrote:
* Print is now a function. Great, much improvement.
Actually not, IMHO. All it does is is to provide incompatibility. They
forgot Ronald Reagan's old maxim: if it don't need fixin', don't fix it.
The aphor
On Thu, Jan 28, 2010 at 9:25 AM, Paul Rubin wrote:
> I don't mind that 3.x is breaking stuff for the sake of improving
> things. That's the whole idea of 3.x, after all. What bugs me is that
> the improvements are mostly quite superficial, and the breakage seems
> often gratuitous. I'd rather
On Wed, 27 Jan 2010 16:44:18 -0800, Carl Banks wrote:
>> You're referring to the O(N**2) bit, right? I am sure he knew it was O
>> (N*log(N)), which is still worse than O(N) for key.
>>
>> If he didn't, well, Python has some fundamental flaws in its basic sort
>> algorithm.
>
> Quicksort is O(N**
On Wed, 27 Jan 2010 16:16:59 -0800, Jonathan Gardner wrote:
> On Jan 27, 3:54 pm, Paul Rubin wrote:
>> Steven D'Aprano writes:
>> > always much better written with key rather than cmp: key adds an O(N)
>> > overheard to the sorting, while cmp makes sorting O(N**2).
>>
>> Whaa ..
On Wed, 27 Jan 2010 00:36:52 -0800, Paul Rubin wrote:
> Steven D'Aprano writes:
>> Without becoming a purely functional language, you won't get rid of all
>> statements.
>
> Why not? GCC lets you use any statement in an expression:
I stand corrected. Whether it is a good idea or not is another
On Wed, 27 Jan 2010 18:29:25 +0100, Alf P. Steinbach wrote:
> The main problem with the incompatibility is for porting code, not for
> writing code from scratch.
Correct. It's a trivial problem, but still a problem.
> It's also a problem wrt. learning the language.
This makes no sense. Why is i
On Jan 27, 4:16 pm, Jonathan Gardner
wrote:
> On Jan 27, 3:54 pm, Paul Rubin wrote:
>
> > Steven D'Aprano writes:
> > > always much better written with key rather than cmp: key adds an O(N)
> > > overheard to the sorting, while cmp makes sorting O(N**2).
>
> > Whaa .. No I don'
Jonathan Gardner writes:
> You're referring to the O(N**2) bit, right? I am sure he knew it was O
> (N*log(N)), which is still worse than O(N) for key.
It's O(n log n) for both key and cmp. key is usually more convenient
and usually gives a constant-factor speedup (DSU pattern), but it uses
more
Jonathan Gardner writes:
>> What about assert, import, and pass?
>...
> For instance, how can you call an "if" function ...
> If "yield", "break", and "continue" were functions, ...
> "import" ... does something very special. It assigns
> to values in the namespace of the code from which it was ca
On Jan 27, 3:54 pm, Paul Rubin wrote:
> Steven D'Aprano writes:
> > always much better written with key rather than cmp: key adds an O(N)
> > overheard to the sorting, while cmp makes sorting O(N**2).
>
> Whaa .. No I don't think so.
You're referring to the O(N**2) bit, right?
On Jan 27, 12:36 am, Paul Rubin wrote:
> Steven D'Aprano writes:
> > Without becoming a purely functional language, you won't get rid of all
> > statements.
>
> Why not? GCC lets you use any statement in an expression:
>
> #include
>
> main()
> {
> int i, x, p=0;
> x = (
Steven D'Aprano writes:
> always much better written with key rather than cmp: key adds an O(N)
> overheard to the sorting, while cmp makes sorting O(N**2).
Whaa .. No I don't think so.
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
On Jan 26, 10:12 pm, Steven D'Aprano
wrote:
>
> I did too, when I first heard cmp was to be dumped. But I changed my mind
> and now agree with the decision to drop cmp. Custom sorts are nearly
> always much better written with key rather than cmp: key adds an O(N)
> overheard to the sorting, while
On Jan 27, 9:38 am, Luis M. González wrote:
> > Please don't post more noise and ad hominem attacks to the group, Steve.
>
> "Ad hominem"?
> Please, operor non utor lingua non notus per vulgaris populus.
> Gratias ago vos...
My rough, machine-assisted translation:
"Don't try to use language that
Xah Lee writes:
> Someone is badmouthing me, and it has been doing so over the years. I
> feel obliged to post a off topic relpy. See:
>
> • DreamHost.com and A Incidence of Harassment
> http://xahlee.org/Periodic_dosage_dir/t2/harassment.html
Dreamhost is not the only ISP that has agreed with
* Adam Tauno Williams:
On Wed, 2010-01-27 at 18:52 +0100, Alf P. Steinbach wrote:
* Steve Holden:
Alf P. Steinbach wrote:
[...]
The main problem with the incompatibility is for porting code, not for
writing code from scratch. It's also a problem wrt. learning the
language. And I see no good re
On Wed, 2010-01-27 at 18:52 +0100, Alf P. Steinbach wrote:
> * Steve Holden:
> > Alf P. Steinbach wrote:
> > [...]
> >> The main problem with the incompatibility is for porting code, not for
> >> writing code from scratch. It's also a problem wrt. learning the
> >> language. And I see no good reaso
On 2010-01-27, Alf P. Steinbach wrote:
> * Steve Holden:
>> Alf P. Steinbach wrote:
>> [...]
>>> The main problem with the incompatibility is for porting code, not for
>>> writing code from scratch. It's also a problem wrt. learning the
>>> language. And I see no good reason for it: print can't re
* Steve Holden:
Alf P. Steinbach wrote:
[...]
The main problem with the incompatibility is for porting code, not for
writing code from scratch. It's also a problem wrt. learning the
language. And I see no good reason for it: print can't really do more,
or less, or more conveniently (rather, one
Alf P. Steinbach wrote:
[...]
> The main problem with the incompatibility is for porting code, not for
> writing code from scratch. It's also a problem wrt. learning the
> language. And I see no good reason for it: print can't really do more,
> or less, or more conveniently (rather, one has to writ
* Daniel Fetchinson:
* Print is now a function. Great, much improvement.
Actually not, IMHO. All it does is is to provide incompatibility.
What incompatibility are you exactly talking about?
Python 2.6.2 (r262:71600, Aug 21 2009, 12:23:57)
[GCC 4.4.1 20090818 (Red Hat 4.4.1-6)] on linux2
T
>>> * Print is now a function. Great, much improvement.
> Actually not, IMHO. All it does is is to provide incompatibility.
What incompatibility are you exactly talking about?
Python 2.6.2 (r262:71600, Aug 21 2009, 12:23:57)
[GCC 4.4.1 20090818 (Red Hat 4.4.1-6)
On 2010-01-27, Alf P. Steinbach wrote:
> I'm responding to the original message by Xah Lee, which is
> not carried by my Usenet provider.
A Usenet provider that doesn't carry messages from Xah Lee.
So... many... jokes.
--
Grant
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Xah Lee, 27.01.2010 00:47:
> Any comment on this?
No, sorry. Not worth bothering.
Stefan
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
* Daniel Fetchinson:
* Print is now a function. Great, much improvement.
Actually not, IMHO. All it does is is to provide incompatibility.
What incompatibility are you exactly talking about?
Python 2.6.2 (r262:71600, Aug 21 2009, 12:23:57)
[GCC 4.4.1 20090818 (Red Hat 4.4.1-6)] on linux2
> * Print is now a function. Great, much improvement.
>>> Actually not, IMHO. All it does is is to provide incompatibility.
>>
>>
>> What incompatibility are you exactly talking about?
>>
>> Python 2.6.2 (r262:71600, Aug 21 2009, 12:23:57)
>> [GCC 4.4.1 20090818 (Red Hat 4.4.1-6)] on linux2
* Daniel Fetchinson:
* Print is now a function. Great, much improvement.
Actually not, IMHO. All it does is is to provide incompatibility.
What incompatibility are you exactly talking about?
Python 2.6.2 (r262:71600, Aug 21 2009, 12:23:57)
[GCC 4.4.1 20090818 (Red Hat 4.4.1-6)] on linux2
On Jan 26, 3:47 pm, Xah Lee wrote:
> * Many functions that return lists now returns “Views” or
> “Iterators” Instead. A fucking fuck all fucked up shit. A extraneous
> “oop engineering” complication. (See: Lambda in Python 3000)
See also:
“Iterators: Signs of Weakness in Object-Oriented Lan
Someone is badmouthing me, and it has been doing so over the years. I
feel obliged to post a off topic relpy. See:
• DreamHost.com and A Incidence of Harassment
http://xahlee.org/Periodic_dosage_dir/t2/harassment.html
• Why Can't You Be Normal?
http://xahlee.org/Netiquette_dir/why_cant_you_be
Paul Rubin wrote:
> Steven D'Aprano writes:
>> Without becoming a purely functional language, you won't get rid of all
>> statements.
>
> Why not? GCC lets you use any statement in an expression:
>
> #include
>
> main()
> {
> int i, x, p=0;
> x = ({ for (i=1; i<=10;
>>> * Print is now a function. Great, much improvement.
>
> Actually not, IMHO. All it does is is to provide incompatibility.
What incompatibility are you exactly talking about?
Python 2.6.2 (r262:71600, Aug 21 2009, 12:23:57)
[GCC 4.4.1 20090818 (Red Hat 4.4.1-6)] on linux2
Type "help", "co
Steven D'Aprano writes:
> Without becoming a purely functional language, you won't get rid of all
> statements.
Why not? GCC lets you use any statement in an expression:
#include
main()
{
int i, x, p=0;
x = ({ for (i=1; i<=10; i++) p += i; p;});
printf ("x=%d\n
On Tue, 26 Jan 2010 23:37:00 -0800, Paul Rubin wrote:
> Steven D'Aprano writes:
>> Sorry, I meant consistent with the rest of Python, which mostly uses
>> functions/methods and only rarely statements (e.g. del and import).
>
> yield, assert, if/else, return, etc. If we're after that kind of
> c
Steven D'Aprano writes:
> Sorry, I meant consistent with the rest of Python, which mostly uses
> functions/methods and only rarely statements (e.g. del and import).
yield, assert, if/else, return, etc. If we're after that kind of
consistency, why not get rid of all those statements too? They h
On Tue, Jan 26, 2010 at 10:23 PM, Paul Rubin wrote:
> Steven D'Aprano writes:
> > print as a function is more consistent and more convenient than print as
> > a statement.
>
> Convenience is subjective, but the 3.x 'print' behavior is definitely
> inconsistent (i.e. different from 2.x).
This is
On Tue, 26 Jan 2010 22:23:11 -0800, Paul Rubin wrote:
> Steven D'Aprano writes:
>> print as a function is more consistent and more convenient than print
>> as a statement.
>
> Convenience is subjective, but the 3.x 'print' behavior is definitely
> inconsistent (i.e. different from 2.x).
Sorry
Steven D'Aprano writes:
> print as a function is more consistent and more convenient than print as
> a statement.
Convenience is subjective, but the 3.x 'print' behavior is definitely
inconsistent (i.e. different from 2.x). The change makes a lot of my
code silently produce wrong results, too.
On 1/26/2010 6:47 PM, Xah Lee wrote:
Some thoughts about Python 3 Adoption.
Xah Lee, 2010-01-26
Some notes of Wikipedia readings related to Python.
Unladen Swallow, a new project from Google. It is a new python
compiler with the goal of 5 times faster than the de facto standand
implementation
"Alf P. Steinbach" writes:
> * John Bokma:
>> "Alf P. Steinbach" writes:
>>
>>> Please don't post more noise and ad hominem attacks to the group,
>>> Steve.
>>
>> Funny that you talk about noise while replying yourself to noise. Xah
>> Lee is just a pathetic spammer. He's not going to reply in t
* John Bokma:
"Alf P. Steinbach" writes:
Please don't post more noise and ad hominem attacks to the group,
Steve.
Funny that you talk about noise while replying yourself to noise. Xah
Lee is just a pathetic spammer. He's not going to reply in this
thread. He just shits out his stuff in as ma
"Alf P. Steinbach" writes:
> Please don't post more noise and ad hominem attacks to the group,
> Steve.
Funny that you talk about noise while replying yourself to noise. Xah
Lee is just a pathetic spammer. He's not going to reply in this
thread. He just shits out his stuff in as many groups as p
* Steve Holden:
[Off-list]
alex23 wrote:
"Alf P. Steinbach" wrote:
Actually not, IMHO. All it does is is to provide incompatibility. They forgot
Ronald Reagan's old maxim: if it don't need fixin', don't fix it.
[...]
Probably there must have been some rationale, but to put it bluntly removin
* alex23:
"Alf P. Steinbach" wrote:
Actually not, IMHO. All it does is is to provide incompatibility. They forgot
Ronald Reagan's old maxim: if it don't need fixin', don't fix it.
[...]
Probably there must have been some rationale, but to put it bluntly removing the
comparator is more like mo
[Off-list]
alex23 wrote:
> "Alf P. Steinbach" wrote:
>> Actually not, IMHO. All it does is is to provide incompatibility. They forgot
>> Ronald Reagan's old maxim: if it don't need fixin', don't fix it.
> [...]
>> Probably there must have been some rationale, but to put it bluntly removing
>> the
Alf P. Steinbach wrote:
I'm responding to the original message by Xah Lee, which is not carried
by my Usenet provider.
* Alan Harris-Reid:
Xah Lee wrote:
Some thoughts about Python 3 Adoption.
Xah Lee, 2010-01-26
Some notes of Wikipedia readings related to Python.
Unladen Swallow, a new pr
"Alf P. Steinbach" wrote:
> Actually not, IMHO. All it does is is to provide incompatibility. They forgot
> Ronald Reagan's old maxim: if it don't need fixin', don't fix it.
[...]
> Probably there must have been some rationale, but to put it bluntly removing
> the
> comparator is more like moroni
I'm responding to the original message by Xah Lee, which is not carried by my
Usenet provider.
* Alan Harris-Reid:
Xah Lee wrote:
Some thoughts about Python 3 Adoption.
Xah Lee, 2010-01-26
Some notes of Wikipedia readings related to Python.
Unladen Swallow, a new project from Google. It is
Xah Lee wrote:
Some thoughts about Python 3 Adoption.
Xah Lee, 2010-01-26
Some notes of Wikipedia readings related to Python.
Unladen Swallow, a new project from Google. It is a new python
compiler with the goal of 5 times faster than the de facto standand
implementation CPython. Also note Sta
Some thoughts about Python 3 Adoption.
Xah Lee, 2010-01-26
Some notes of Wikipedia readings related to Python.
Unladen Swallow, a new project from Google. It is a new python
compiler with the goal of 5 times faster than the de facto standand
implementation CPython. Also note Stackless Python, wh
85 matches
Mail list logo
