[Python-Dev] PEP 259: Omit printing newline after newline

[David C. Ullrich]

On Thu, 14 Jun 2001 20:17:10 -0400, "Steve Holden"
<sholden at holdenweb.com> wrote:

>
>
>--
>http://www.holdenweb.com/
>
>
>"David C. Ullrich" <ullrich at math.okstate.edu> wrote ...
>> On Thu, 14 Jun 2001 17:19:05 GMT, bokr at accessone.com (Bengt Richter)
>> wrote:
>>
>> >On Wed, 13 Jun 2001 13:33:51 GMT, ullrich at math.okstate.edu (David C.
>> >Ullrich) wrote:
>> >
>> >>On Tue, 12 Jun 2001 19:25:25 GMT, bokr at accessone.com (Bengt Richter)
>> >>wrote:
>> >>
>> >>>[...] In general, I'd prefer that a language
>> >>>provide a clean way to create a solution to a problem,
>> >>>rather than having a particular solution built in.
>> >>>I like orthogonality too.
>> >>
>> >[...]
>> >>So just out of curiosity: Roughly what do you
>> >>mean by "orthogonality" above?
>> >Roughly, zero dot products ;-)
>>
>> Thanks. Best answer so far... (so a language
>> in which it was essentially impossible to do
>> mathematical programming would automatically
>> have achieved this orthogonality: no math, hence
>> no dot products, for a net total of zero dot
>> products altogether. Suddenly Perl seems much
>> more orthogonal than Python, who woulda guessed?)
>>
>Nope. "print" is a feature. "exec" is a feature. Changing the "print"
>statement (i.e. moving the language one way or another along the "print"
>dimension) does not affect "exec". Hence the two features are orthogonal. If
>you multiply its "print"ness by its "exec"ness you get zero. Sort of.

Um, thanks for clarifying that. Remind me to include the <g> next
time...

>Heavens, it's a long time since I studied infinite-dimensional Banach
>spaces.

I started to make a different silly joke about all this in reply
to what Bengt said, decided not to be pedantic. But you mention
Banach spaces, now I have to (because there are no "dot products"
in Banach spaces; you meant to say "Hilbert spaces" here):

"Of course this use of the word 'orthogonal' is really more
like the mathematical notion of linear independence than
orthogonality. Heh-heh: now the challenge is to define a
suitable inner product on feature space, so we can
actually talk about features being orthogonal."

>feeling-old-ly y'rs -- stEVe
>
>> >That is, if you view program language feature space
>> >as n dimensional, and writing code using a particular
>> >feature as movement along a feature vector.
>> >
>> >Well, roughly something like that. 8-<:^P
>
>



David C. Ullrich
*********************
"Sometimes you can have access violations all the 
time and the program still works." (Michael Caracena, 
comp.lang.pascal.delphi.misc 5/1/01)