🌐 Mailman 3 June 2010 - Python-list - python.org

Re: I strongly dislike Python 3
by Lie Ryan July 1, 2010

July 1, 2010

On 06/27/10 02:33, Thomas Jollans wrote: >> > >> > And here's the disadvantages: >> > >> > -The Python 3 syntax actually requires more keystrokes. > Typically ONE extra character: the closing bracket. The opening bracket > can replace the whitespace previously required. What really matters is not the number of extra characters, but the number of keystrokes. On a typical keyboard, producing a '(' requires 2 keystrokes (Shift + 9) and another 2 keystrokes for ')' (Shift + 0). Also, spacebar is a key in the home position of the thumb, while 9 and 0 are on the top row of the weaker fingers (ring and little finger). All in all, the new syntax requires 4 keystrokes, none of which are home keys; compared with old syntax which requires 1 keystroke in thumb's home position. Producing print function takes a little bit more effort than producing a print statement.

9 12

Re: Why are String Formatted Queries Considered So Magical?
by Jorgen Grahn July 1, 2010

July 1, 2010

On Tue, 2010-06-29, Stephen Hansen wrote: > On 6/29/10 5:41 AM, Roy Smith wrote: >> Nobody<nobody(a)nowhere.com> wrote: >> >>>> And what about regular expressions? >>> >>> What about them? As the saying goes: >>> >>> Some people, when confronted with a problem, think >>> "I know, I'll use regular expressions." >>> Now they have two problems. >> >> That's silly. RE is a good tool. Like all good tools, it is the right >> tool for some jobs and the wrong tool for others. > > There's nothing silly about it. > > It is an exaggeration though: but it does represent a good thing to keep > in mind. Not an exaggeration: it's an absolute. It literally says that any time you try to solve a problem with a regex, (A) it won't solve the problem and (B) it will in itself become a problem. And it doesn't tell you why: you're supposed to accept or reject this without thinking. How can that be a good thing to keep in mind? I wouldn't normally be annoyed by the quote, but it is thrown around a lot in various places, not just here. > Yes, re is a tool -- and a useful one at that. But its also a tool which > /seems/ like an omnitool capable of tackling everything. That's more like my attitude towards them. /Jorgen -- // Jorgen Grahn <grahn@ Oo o. . . \X/ snipabacken.se> O o .

4 6

Re: optphart (alpha2)
by rantingrick July 1, 2010

July 1, 2010

On Jun 29, 1:30 am, Stephen Hansen <me+list/pyt...(a)ixokai.io> wrote: > This is just stupid. > It isn't worthy of any more elaborate response. Well gee thanks Stephen. Why don't you just kick me in the balls while your at it? *Maybe* you don't find it useful. *Maybe* no one will find it useful. However, i did manage to move D'Aprano's cesarcipher module up one peg from index zero on the community totem pole, so i *would* say it has at least *some* usage to him! > You just don't get the point, do you? And just what *point* an i supposed to be "getting" Stephen? That you don't like my contribution? If thats your point then i very much "get" it.

3 2

Re: Need instruction on how to use isinstance
by alex23 July 1, 2010

July 1, 2010

Stephen Hansen <me+list/pyt...(a)ixokai.io> wrote: > P.S. The removal of callable is something I don't understand in Python > 3: while generally speaking I do really believe and use duck typing, I > too have on occassion wanted to dispatch based on 'is callable? do x'. > Sometimes its not convenient to do so via duck typing. Its rare. But it > is there. That isinstance()/issubclass got a boost in power with the > ABC's and registering, while at the same time the ability to introspect > about the function-y callable-y ness of a function was removed? Makes no > sense to me. But alas! There's always: isinstance(<object>, collections.Callable)

4 6

Re: I strongly dislike Python 3
by Martin v. Loewis July 1, 2010

July 1, 2010

> I agree that there may be not much reason to port custom proprietary > apps that are working fine and which would hardly benefit from, let > alone need, and new Py3 features. In the long run, there will be a benefit: at some point in the future (surely years from now), /usr/bin/python will be Python 3. So scripts that use /usr/bin/python (or "/usr/bin/env python") will stop working. As a quick fix, it might then be possible to have them run with /usr/bin/python2. Some time more into the future, this will also stop working, as Python 2.x won't be available anymore in the OS distributions. If the custom proprietary app is then still used, it better be ported. The same happened with other kinds of deprecations and removals through the life of 2.x. Some applications where tied to a specific Python release, or to a specific feature that had been deprecated. These either needed to be ported, or dropped. Regards, Martin

8 8

Re: Why Is Escaping Data Considered So Magical?
by Paul Rubin June 30, 2010

June 30, 2010

Cameron Simpson <cs(a)zip.com.au> writes: > The original V7 (and probably earlier) UNIX filesystem has 16 byte directory > entries: 2 bytes for an inode and 14 bytes for the name. You could use 14 > bytes of that name, and strncpy makes it effective to work with that data > structure. Why not use memcpy for that?

2 1

Re: I strongly dislike Python 3
by Steven D'Aprano June 30, 2010

June 30, 2010

On Wed, 30 Jun 2010 17:21:32 -0400, geremy condra wrote: > On Wed, Jun 30, 2010 at 4:34 PM, Steven D'Aprano > <steve(a)remove-this-cybersource.com.au> wrote: >> On Wed, 30 Jun 2010 22:52:06 +1000, Lie Ryan wrote: >> >>> On 06/27/10 11:24, Steven D'Aprano wrote: >>>>> > Producing print function takes a little bit more effort than >>>>> > producing a print statement. >>>> >>>> (1) The main use-cases for print are quick (and usually dirty) >>>> scripts, interactive use, and as a debugging aid. >>> >>> That is precisely how the quick-and-dirty syntax of print statement >>> can be justified. While debugging, you'll need to be able to quickly >>> add and delete prints here and there, and the extra parens can quickly >>> become irritating. >> >> *rolls eyes* >> >> Not as irritating as people who complain about having to type >> parentheses. > > http://www.xkcd.net/297/ > > Actually, I agree with this complaint though- it is much easier to type > spaces than parens. Yes. And typing "p" is easier than typing "print". Perhaps we should replace all Python built-ins with one letter names so that we can *really* optimize our typing effort? i m d sin2pi(x): r m.s(x*2*m.p) f n == '__main__': p "Sine of 1.3*2*pi is," sin2pi(1.3) Perhaps not. The rule against premature optimization doesn't just apply to *code*. -- Steven

3 2

Hwy doesn't len(None) return zero ?
by Stef Mientki June 30, 2010

June 30, 2010

hello, I've lot of functions that returns their result in some kind of tuple / list / array, and if there is no result, these functions return None. Now I'm often what to do something if I've more than 1 element in the result. So I test: if len ( Result ) > 1 : But to prevent exceptions, i've to write ( I often forget) if Result and ( len ( Result ) > 1 ) : So I wonder why len is not allowed on None and if there are objections to extend the len function . thanks, Stef Mientki

9 10

Re: Hwy doesn't len(None) return zero ?
by Steven D'Aprano June 30, 2010

June 30, 2010

Please pardon me for breaking threading, but Stef's original post has not come through to me. On 6/30/10 11:39 AM, Stef Mientki wrote: > hello, > > I've lot of functions that returns their result in some kind of tuple / > list / array, > and if there is no result, these functions return None. Well there's your problem right there. If you have a function that returns a list of X, and there are no X to return, you should return an empty list, not None. >>> filter(lambda n: n%2 == 0, [1, 3, 5, 7]) # return even numbers [] There are good use-cases for functions that sometimes return X and sometimes return None, but they're rare. -- Steven

1 0

Re: Ignorance and Google Groups (again)
by rantingrick June 30, 2010

June 30, 2010

On Jun 30, 3:55 pm, "D'Arcy J.M. Cain" <da...(a)druid.net> wrote: > I have had it with GG. For the last few months I have been filtering > all mail from gmail.com that comes through the news gateway into a > separate folder to see where the spam and abuse comes from. Over that > time about 99% of all the useless crap has been caught in that filter. > It's unfortunate that there are some decent posts as well but I have > finally decided that the peace and quiet is worth more than the odd > missed gem. So, if you are accessing this list through GG and wonder > why I seem to be ignoring your brilliant arguments, this is why. "Just filter out %s and your done with this nitwit." % (''.join(map(chr, [66, 85, 83, 84, 65, 82, 68, 83]))) PS: I really hope the "BUSTARDS" find this guy soon and shut him up! I would trade this guy for ten xah's right now! At least xah's rants *are* computer related and far less frequent!

1 0