On Oct 30, 2:33 am, Johannes Bauer wrote:
> I'm currently looking for a good solution to the following problem: I
> have two classes A and B, which interact with each other and which
> interact with the user. Instances of B are always created by A.
>
> Now I want A to call some private methods of
Thanks, I did find this...
pdf_timeStamp =
time.strftime("%m%d%y%H%M%S",time.localtime(os.path.getmtime(pdf)))
>> pdf_timestamp
>> '102909133000'
... but now how to do the comparison? Cannot just do a raw string comparison,
gotta declare it a date
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/p
On Mon, Oct 29, 2012 at 11:00 AM, Andrew Robinson
wrote:
>
> Let's look at the source code rather than the web notes -- the source must
> be the true answer anyhow.
>
> I downloaded the source code for python 3.3.0, as the tbz;
> In the directory "Python-3.3.0/Python", look at Python-ast.c, line 2
if I do time.time() I get 1351562187.757, do it again I get 1351562212.2650001
--- so I can compare those, the latter is later then the former. Good. SO how
do I turn pdf_timeStamp (a string) above into time in this (as from
time.time()) format? Am I on the right track -- is that the way to d
I guess I get there eventually!
This seems to work
pdf_timeStamp =
time.strftime("%m%d%y%H%M%S",time.localtime(os.path.getmtime(pdf)))
intermediateTime = time.strptime(pdf_timeStamp, "%m%d%y%H%M%S")
pdfFile_compareTime = time.mktime(intermediateTime)
(and I'll do the same to the us
On 10/29/2012 05:02 PM, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
On Mon, 29 Oct 2012 08:42:39 -0700, Andrew Robinson wrote:
But, why can't I just overload the existing __getitem__ for lists and
not bother writing an entire class?
You say that as if writing "an entire class" was a big complicated
effort. It isn'
On 10/29/2012 10:13 PM, noydb wrote:
> I guess I get there eventually!
> This seems to work
>
> pdf_timeStamp =
> time.strftime("%m%d%y%H%M%S",time.localtime(os.path.getmtime(pdf)))
> intermediateTime = time.strptime(pdf_timeStamp, "%m%d%y%H%M%S")
> pdfFile_compareTime = time.mktime(
On 2012-10-30 03:11, Dave Angel wrote:
On 10/29/2012 10:13 PM, noydb wrote:
I guess I get there eventually!
This seems to work
pdf_timeStamp =
time.strftime("%m%d%y%H%M%S",time.localtime(os.path.getmtime(pdf)))
intermediateTime = time.strptime(pdf_timeStamp, "%m%d%y%H%M%S")
pdfFile
On Monday, October 29, 2012 11:11:55 PM UTC-4, Dave Angel wrote:
> On 10/29/2012 10:13 PM, noydb wrote:
>
> > I guess I get there eventually!
>
> > This seems to work
>
> >
>
> > pdf_timeStamp =
> > time.strftime("%m%d%y%H%M%S",time.localtime(os.path.getmtime(pdf)))
>
> > intermedia
On 10/29/2012 06:49 PM, Chris Kaynor wrote:
Every Python object requires two pieces of data, both of which are
pointer-sized (one is a pointer, one is an int the size of a pointer).
These are: a pointer to the object's type, and the object's reference
count. A tuple actually does not need a hea
On 10/29/2012 01:34 PM, Andrew Robinson wrote:
> No, I don't think it big and complicated. I do think it has timing
> implications which are undesirable because of how *much* slices are used.
> In an embedded target -- I have to optimize; and I will have to reject
> certain parts of Python to ma
On Mon, Oct 29, 2012 at 12:00 PM, Andrew Robinson
wrote:
> I downloaded the source code for python 3.3.0, as the tbz;
> In the directory "Python-3.3.0/Python", look at Python-ast.c, line 2089 &
> ff.
Python-ast.c is part of the compiler code. That's not the struct used
to represent the object at
On Tue, Oct 30, 2012 at 3:20 PM, noydb wrote:
> But for the user supplied date... I'm not sure of the format just yet...
> testing with a string for now (actual date-date might be possible, tbd
> later), so like '10292012213000' (oct 29, 2012 9:30pm). How would you get
> that input into a form
Hi Ian,
There are several interesting/thoughtful things you have written.
I like the way you consider a problem before knee jerk answering.
The copying you mention (or realloc) doesn't re-copy the objects on the
list.
It merely re-copies the pointer list to those objects. So lets see what
it w
On Mon, Oct 29, 2012 at 4:39 PM, Andrew Robinson
wrote:
> In addition to those items you mention, of which the reference count is not
> even *inside* the struct -- there is additional debugging information not
> mentioned. Built in objects contain a "line number", a "column number", and
> a "cont
On 10/29/2012 04:01 PM, Ian Kelly wrote:
On Mon, Oct 29, 2012 at 9:20 AM, Andrew Robinson
wrote:
FYI: I was asking for a reason why Python's present implementation is
desirable...
I wonder, for example:
Given an arbitrary list:
a=[1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12]
Why would someone *want* to do:
101 - 116 of 116 matches
Mail list logo