Digest Number 1936

Estevão Cavinato cavvinas at terra.com.br
Fri Mar 23 19:03:14 CET 2001


Unsubscribe!!!
----- Original Message -----
From: <python-list at yahoogroups.com>
To: <python-list at yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Wednesday, March 21, 2001 7:15 PM
Subject: Digest Number 1936


> ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~-~>
> We give away $70,000 a month! Come to iWin.com for
> your chance to win!
> http://us.click.yahoo.com/olMXHC/BJVCAA/4ihDAA/stAVlB/TM
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------_->
>
> There are 25 messages in this issue.
>
> Topics in this digest:
>
>       1. Re: learning python...
>            From: Simon Kesenci <tomega at earthlink.net>
>       2. Re: Private Business Relationship (Urgent)
>            From: "Terry Reedy" <tjreedy at udel.edu>
>       3. Substitute for join()
>            From: "Daniel Klein" <DanielK at jBASE.com>
>       4. Re: learning python...
>            From: "Bubba Brains" <chocolate at toblerone.yum>
>       5. Re: learning python...
>            From: Joshua Marshall <jmarshal at mathworks.com>
>       6. Re: learning python...
>            From: Timothy Grant <tjg at exceptionalminds.com>
>       7. RE: Substitute for join()
>            From: "Sean 'Shaleh' Perry" <shaleh at valinux.com>
>       8. Re: Substitute for join()
>            From: matt at mondoinfo.com (Matthew Dixon Cowles)
>       9. Re: Substitute for join()
>            From: Siggy Brentrup <bsb at winnegan.de>
>      10. Re: Substitute for join()
>            From: Steve Purcell <stephen_purcell at yahoo.com>
>      11. RE: Substitute for join()
>            From: "Sean 'Shaleh' Perry" <shaleh at valinux.com>
>      12. Re: learning python...
>            From: scarblac at pino.selwerd.nl (Remco Gerlich)
>      13. Re: Substitute for join()
>            From: "Daniel Klein" <DanielK at jBASE.com>
>      14. Useless spam reporting (was Re: Private Business Relationship
(Urgent))
>            From: aahz at panix.com (Aahz Maruch)
>      15. Re: learning python...
>            From: aahz at panix.com (Aahz Maruch)
>      16. Re: learning python...
>            From: Benoit Dupire <bdupire at seatech.fau.edu>
>      17. Re: learning python...
>            From: "Benjamin.Altman" <benjamin.altman at noaa.gov>
>      18. Re: learning python...
>            From: "Benjamin.Altman" <benjamin.altman at noaa.gov>
>      19. Re: New PEP: The directive statement
>            From: hzhu at users.sourceforge.net (Huaiyu Zhu)
>      20. Dynamically reloading extension modules
>            From: "Ken Seehof" <kens at sightreader.com>
>      21. Re: learning python...
>            From: Benoit Dupire <bdupire at seatech.fau.edu>
>      22. RE: What IDE are you'all using for Python 2.1 for Windows?
>            From: digitig at cix.co.uk (Tim Rowe)
>      23. Re: The most important modules
>            From: digitig at cix.co.uk (Tim Rowe)
>      24. Re: python suitability for large critical run forever apps
>            From: digitig at cix.co.uk (Tim Rowe)
>      25. I'm sure there's a good reason!
>            From: digitig at cix.co.uk (Tim Rowe)
>
>
> ________________________________________________________________________
> ________________________________________________________________________
>
> Message: 1
>    Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2001 19:20:25 GMT
>    From: Simon Kesenci <tomega at earthlink.net>
> Subject: Re: learning python...
>
> If you know programming, forget _Learning_ _Python_.  I tried
_Programming_
> _Python_ last year, but it covered version 1.3.  A good book if they
> updated it since then.  As a programmer, you should find the online
> tutorial easy and helpful <http://python.org/doc/current/tut/tut.html>.
>
> --S.
>
> Benjamin.Altman wrote:
>
> > Hello.  From the perspective of someone who already has programming
> > experience, would anyone know if O'reillys "Learning Python" book would
> > be better than say Prentice Hall's "Core Python Programming"?  Or would
> > it be better to go straight into something like "Programming Python"?
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Ben
> >
> >
>
> --
> http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
>
>
> ________________________________________________________________________
> ________________________________________________________________________
>
> Message: 2
>    Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2001 14:26:19 -0500
>    From: "Terry Reedy" <tjreedy at udel.edu>
> Subject: Re: Private Business Relationship (Urgent)
>
> Crimanal scam reported to abuse at baymountain.net for appropriate action.
>
>
> --
> http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
>
>
> ________________________________________________________________________
> ________________________________________________________________________
>
> Message: 3
>    Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2001 11:35:53 -0800
>    From: "Daniel Klein" <DanielK at jBASE.com>
> Subject: Substitute for join()
>
> I've got to make a script (written in version 2.0) to work on a machine
> running 1.5.2. The only incompatible line is one that uses the
> "".join(mylist) method. To 'get out of the woods' quickly, I substituted
it
> with
>
> s = ''
> for element in mylist: s = s + element
>
> Is this the most efficient way to code this?
>
> Thanks,
> Daniel Klein
>
>
> --
> http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
>
>
> ________________________________________________________________________
> ________________________________________________________________________
>
> Message: 4
>    Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2001 14:35:02 -0500
>    From: "Bubba Brains" <chocolate at toblerone.yum>
> Subject: Re: learning python...
>
> Forget Learning Python?  I think it's the best reference/tutorial around.
I
> use python once every couple months, and sometimes forget the simple
python
> syntax.  The Learning Python book is great for getting up to speed fast,
and
> to look up common stuff.  The other OReilly book (Programming Python) is
> absolutely annoying to use.  It's not even a good reference book (good
luck
> finding the info you want quickly).  Don't know about the Prentice book.
>
> M
> http://www.mp3.com/maddogskullcap
>
> "Simon Kesenci" <tomega at earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:Z97u6.16733$Im6.1761313 at newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
> > If you know programming, forget _Learning_ _Python_.  I tried
> _Programming_
> > _Python_ last year, but it covered version 1.3.  A good book if they
> > updated it since then.  As a programmer, you should find the online
> > tutorial easy and helpful <http://python.org/doc/current/tut/tut.html>.
> >
> > --S.
> >
> > Benjamin.Altman wrote:
> >
> > > Hello.  From the perspective of someone who already has programming
> > > experience, would anyone know if O'reillys "Learning Python" book
would
> > > be better than say Prentice Hall's "Core Python Programming"?  Or
would
> > > it be better to go straight into something like "Programming Python"?
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > > Ben
> > >
> > >
> >
>
>
>
>
> -----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
> http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
> -----==  Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----
> --
> http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
>
>
> ________________________________________________________________________
> ________________________________________________________________________
>
> Message: 5
>    Date: 21 Mar 2001 19:46:46 GMT
>    From: Joshua Marshall <jmarshal at mathworks.com>
> Subject: Re: learning python...
>
> Bubba Brains <chocolate at toblerone.yum> wrote:
> > Forget Learning Python?  I think it's the best reference/tutorial
around.  I
> > use python once every couple months, and sometimes forget the simple
python
> > syntax.  The Learning Python book is great for getting up to speed fast,
and
> > to look up common stuff.  The other OReilly book (Programming Python) is
> > absolutely annoying to use.  It's not even a good reference book (good
luck
> > finding the info you want quickly).  Don't know about the Prentice book.
>
> I agree about Programming Python.  It _is_ a great book for
> programmers to use to learn Python, but it can be tedious to try look
> up something specific.
> --
> http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
>
>
> ________________________________________________________________________
> ________________________________________________________________________
>
> Message: 6
>    Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2001 12:05:03 -0800
>    From: Timothy Grant <tjg at exceptionalminds.com>
> Subject: Re: learning python...
>
> > additional advanced concepts. From there, I would recommend "Programming
> > Python 2nd Ed." as well as the indispensible "Python Essential
Reference"
> > (altho I think a new edition is in the works so you might want to wait
for
> > that).
>
> I'm am searching for a review of PP2nd. Is it a significantly
> different book from PP1st?
>
> Also. I'd love to see a new version of Beazley's book. I know
> that Ivan isn't reading this list at the moment, but I found
> the colophon of PER to be a fascinating and enjoyable bit of
> reading. Hope he gets to do something in the update too.
>
>
> --
> Stand Fast,
>     tjg.
>
> Timothy Grant                         tjg at exceptionalminds.com
> Red Hat Certified Engineer            www.exceptionalminds.com
> Avalon Technology Group, Inc.         <><       (503) 246-3630
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>Linux, because rebooting is *NOT* normal<<<<<<<<<
> >>>>This machine was last rebooted:  64 days     1 hours ago<<
>
> --
> http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
>
>
> ________________________________________________________________________
> ________________________________________________________________________
>
> Message: 7
>    Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2001 12:09:05 -0800 (PST)
>    From: "Sean 'Shaleh' Perry" <shaleh at valinux.com>
> Subject: RE: Substitute for join()
>
>
> On 21-Mar-2001 Daniel Klein wrote:
> > I've got to make a script (written in version 2.0) to work on a machine
> > running 1.5.2. The only incompatible line is one that uses the
> > "".join(mylist) method. To 'get out of the woods' quickly, I substituted
it
> > with
> >
> > s = ''
> > for element in mylist: s = s + element
> >
> > Is this the most efficient way to code this?
> >
>
> or use the syntax that works in both:
>
> import string # or from string import join
>
> string.join(mylist, "")
>
> --
> http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
>
>
> ________________________________________________________________________
> ________________________________________________________________________
>
> Message: 8
>    Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2001 19:52:45 GMT
>    From: matt at mondoinfo.com (Matthew Dixon Cowles)
> Subject: Re: Substitute for join()
>
> On Wed, 21 Mar 2001 11:35:53 -0800, Daniel Klein <DanielK at jBASE.com>
> wrote:
>
> >I've got to make a script (written in version 2.0) to work on a machine
> >running 1.5.2. The only incompatible line is one that uses the
> >"".join(mylist) method.
>
> >>> import string
> >>> string.join(mylist,"")
>
> Will do what you want.
>
> Regards,
> Matt
> --
> http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
>
>
> ________________________________________________________________________
> ________________________________________________________________________
>
> Message: 9
>    Date: 21 Mar 2001 21:08:18 +0100
>    From: Siggy Brentrup <bsb at winnegan.de>
> Subject: Re: Substitute for join()
>
> "Daniel Klein" <DanielK at jBASE.com> writes:
>
> > I've got to make a script (written in version 2.0) to work on a machine
> > running 1.5.2. The only incompatible line is one that uses the
> > "".join(mylist) method. To 'get out of the woods' quickly, I substituted
it
> > with
> >
> > s = ''
> > for element in mylist: s = s + element
> >
> > Is this the most efficient way to code this?
>
> Nope, use
>
> import string
> string.join(mylist,'')
>
> HIH
>   Siggy
> --
> Siggy Brentrup - bsb at winnegan.de - http://www.winnegan.de/
> ****** ceterum censeo javascriptum esse restrictam *******
>
>
> --
> http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
>
>
> ________________________________________________________________________
> ________________________________________________________________________
>
> Message: 10
>    Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2001 21:12:46 +0100
>    From: Steve Purcell <stephen_purcell at yahoo.com>
> Subject: Re: Substitute for join()
>
> Daniel Klein wrote:
> > I've got to make a script (written in version 2.0) to work on a machine
> > running 1.5.2. The only incompatible line is one that uses the
> > "".join(mylist) method. To 'get out of the woods' quickly, I substituted
it
> > with
> >
> > s = ''
> > for element in mylist: s = s + element
> >
> > Is this the most efficient way to code this?
>
> No. Instead, try:
>
>     import string
>     s = string.join(mylist, '')
>
> -Steve
>
> --
> Steve Purcell, Pythangelist
> Get testing at http://pyunit.sourceforge.net/
> Any opinions expressed herein are my own and not necessarily those of
Yahoo
>
> --
> http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
>
>
> ________________________________________________________________________
> ________________________________________________________________________
>
> Message: 11
>    Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2001 12:09:05 -0800 (PST)
>    From: "Sean 'Shaleh' Perry" <shaleh at valinux.com>
> Subject: RE: Substitute for join()
>
>
> On 21-Mar-2001 Daniel Klein wrote:
> > I've got to make a script (written in version 2.0) to work on a machine
> > running 1.5.2. The only incompatible line is one that uses the
> > "".join(mylist) method. To 'get out of the woods' quickly, I substituted
it
> > with
> >
> > s = ''
> > for element in mylist: s = s + element
> >
> > Is this the most efficient way to code this?
> >
>
> or use the syntax that works in both:
>
> import string # or from string import join
>
> string.join(mylist, "")
> --
> http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
>
>
> ________________________________________________________________________
> ________________________________________________________________________
>
> Message: 12
>    Date: 21 Mar 2001 20:29:12 GMT
>    From: scarblac at pino.selwerd.nl (Remco Gerlich)
> Subject: Re: learning python...
>
> Benjamin.Altman <ben at .> wrote in comp.lang.python:
> > Hello.  From the perspective of someone who already has programming
> > experience, would anyone know if O'reillys "Learning Python" book would
> > be better than say Prentice Hall's "Core Python Programming"?  Or would
> > it be better to go straight into something like "Programming Python"?
>
> I thought Learning Python was a very good introduction, I was a CS student
> with experience in several languages. There are a few things to you need
to
> "get" once about Python, and the book explains them well. It doesn't go
very
> deep, but then, there's not that much to know, Python is simplicity.
>
> Programming Python I found a bit chaotic, never really used it much.
>
> Don't know Core Python Programming.
>
> --
> Remco Gerlich
> --
> http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
>
>
> ________________________________________________________________________
> ________________________________________________________________________
>
> Message: 13
>    Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2001 12:30:22 -0800
>    From: "Daniel Klein" <DanielK at jBASE.com>
> Subject: Re: Substitute for join()
>
> Thanks everyone for your public and private answers. This is the greatest
> bunch of folks I have ever had the pleasure of being a part of!
>
> I have indeed recoded to use string.join().
>
> Again thanks,
> Dan
>
> "Daniel Klein" <DanielK at jBASE.com> wrote in message
> news:Mo7u6.58$Hp.2896 at typhoon.aracnet.com...
> > I've got to make a script (written in version 2.0) to work on a machine
> > running 1.5.2. The only incompatible line is one that uses the
> > "".join(mylist) method. To 'get out of the woods' quickly, I substituted
> it
> > with
> >
> > s = ''
> > for element in mylist: s = s + element
> >
> > Is this the most efficient way to code this?
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Daniel Klein
> >
> >
>
>
> --
> http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
>
>
> ________________________________________________________________________
> ________________________________________________________________________
>
> Message: 14
>    Date: 21 Mar 2001 12:47:59 -0800
>    From: aahz at panix.com (Aahz Maruch)
> Subject: Useless spam reporting (was Re: Private Business Relationship
(Urgent))
>
> [posted & e-mailed]
>
> In article <99av6p$b87$1 at news.udel.edu>, Terry Reedy <tjreedy at udel.edu>
wrote:
> >
> >Crimanal scam reported to abuse at baymountain.net for appropriate action.
>
> That's useless.  baymountain.net is the netnews injection point for the
> news/mail gateway of python-list at python.org; the spam got sent to the
> e-mail list, not the newsgroup.  There's unfortunately no way to track
> that spammer down without access to the python.org mailserver.
> --
>                       --- Aahz  <*>  (Copyright 2001 by aahz at pobox.com)
>
> Androgynous poly kinky vanilla queer het Pythonista
http://www.rahul.net/aahz/
> Hugs and backrubs -- I break Rule 6
>
> "I won't accept a model of the universe in which free will, omniscient
> gods, and atheism are simultaneously true."  -- M
> --
> http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
>
>
> ________________________________________________________________________
> ________________________________________________________________________
>
> Message: 15
>    Date: 21 Mar 2001 12:49:32 -0800
>    From: aahz at panix.com (Aahz Maruch)
> Subject: Re: learning python...
>
> In article <3ab90559_6 at goliath.newsfeeds.com>,
> Bubba Brains <chocolate at toblerone.yum> wrote:
> >
> >Forget Learning Python?  I think it's the best reference/tutorial around.
I
> >use python once every couple months, and sometimes forget the simple
python
> >syntax.  The Learning Python book is great for getting up to speed fast,
and
> >to look up common stuff.  The other OReilly book (Programming Python) is
> >absolutely annoying to use.  It's not even a good reference book (good
luck
> >finding the info you want quickly).  Don't know about the Prentice book.
>
> If you look at http://www.oreilly.com/catalog/python2/ you'll see that
> Programming Python just got a second edition; I've heard that there were
> a lot of improvements.
> --
>                       --- Aahz  <*>  (Copyright 2001 by aahz at pobox.com)
>
> Androgynous poly kinky vanilla queer het Pythonista
http://www.rahul.net/aahz/
> Hugs and backrubs -- I break Rule 6
>
> "I won't accept a model of the universe in which free will, omniscient
> gods, and atheism are simultaneously true."  -- M
> --
> http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
>
>
> ________________________________________________________________________
> ________________________________________________________________________
>
> Message: 16
>    Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2001 15:33:10 -0500
>    From: Benoit Dupire <bdupire at seatech.fau.edu>
> Subject: Re: learning python...
>
>
>
> Simon Kesenci wrote:
>
> > If you know programming, forget _Learning_ _Python_.  I tried
_Programming_
> > _Python_ last year, but it covered version 1.3.  A good book if they
> > updated it since then.  As a programmer, you should find the online
> > tutorial easy and helpful <http://python.org/doc/current/tut/tut.html>.
>
> Programming Python was updated and now covers Python 2.0
> I am reading it, actually, and, till now, I find it great.. (but I am only
page
> 35! ;o) ).
>
>
> This edition is intended to be the 'sequel' to " Learning Python"... so
yes,
> you can try to read the Python tutorial and this book...
>
>
> --
> http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
>
>
> ________________________________________________________________________
> ________________________________________________________________________
>
> Message: 17
>    Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2001 16:13:59 -0500
>    From: "Benjamin.Altman" <benjamin.altman at noaa.gov>
> Subject: Re: learning python...
>
> Do you know how it compares to the first edition in terms of presentation
and
> indexing?  I have heard from a few people that it is difficult to look up
things in
> the 1st edition.  The only review on amazon of the 2nd ed. claims it is a
complete
> rewrite despite his admitance that he has never read the book...
>
> Thanks,
> Ben
>
> Benoit Dupire wrote:
>
> > Simon Kesenci wrote:
> >
> > > If you know programming, forget _Learning_ _Python_.  I tried
_Programming_
> > > _Python_ last year, but it covered version 1.3.  A good book if they
> > > updated it since then.  As a programmer, you should find the online
> > > tutorial easy and helpful
<http://python.org/doc/current/tut/tut.html>.
> >
> > Programming Python was updated and now covers Python 2.0
> > I am reading it, actually, and, till now, I find it great.. (but I am
only page
> > 35! ;o) ).
> >
> > This edition is intended to be the 'sequel' to " Learning Python"... so
yes,
> > you can try to read the Python tutorial and this book...
>
> --
> http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
>
>
> ________________________________________________________________________
> ________________________________________________________________________
>
> Message: 18
>    Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2001 16:07:54 -0500
>    From: "Benjamin.Altman" <benjamin.altman at noaa.gov>
> Subject: Re: learning python...
>
> It would be good to know if the new edition really is all that different
(other than
> the topics added) to the 1st ed.  The only review on Amazon says he never
read it...
>
> Ben
>
> Aahz Maruch wrote:
>
> > In article <3ab90559_6 at goliath.newsfeeds.com>,
> > Bubba Brains <chocolate at toblerone.yum> wrote:
> > >
> > >Forget Learning Python?  I think it's the best reference/tutorial
around.  I
> > >use python once every couple months, and sometimes forget the simple
python
> > >syntax.  The Learning Python book is great for getting up to speed
fast, and
> > >to look up common stuff.  The other OReilly book (Programming Python)
is
> > >absolutely annoying to use.  It's not even a good reference book (good
luck
> > >finding the info you want quickly).  Don't know about the Prentice
book.
> >
> > If you look at http://www.oreilly.com/catalog/python2/ you'll see that
> > Programming Python just got a second edition; I've heard that there were
> > a lot of improvements.
> > --
> >                       --- Aahz  <*>  (Copyright 2001 by aahz at pobox.com)
> >
> > Androgynous poly kinky vanilla queer het Pythonista
http://www.rahul.net/aahz/
> > Hugs and backrubs -- I break Rule 6
> >
> > "I won't accept a model of the universe in which free will, omniscient
> > gods, and atheism are simultaneously true."  -- M
>
> --
> http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
>
>
> ________________________________________________________________________
> ________________________________________________________________________
>
> Message: 19
>    Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2001 21:37:16 GMT
>    From: hzhu at users.sourceforge.net (Huaiyu Zhu)
> Subject: Re: New PEP: The directive statement
>
> With the __future__ PEP, I envision there could also be things like
>
> from __future__ import nested_scope
> from __experimentatal__ import stackless
> from __optional__ import static_type
> from __mandatory__ import string_methods
>
> New feature would migrate from __experimental__, to __future__, then to
> either __optional__ or __mandatory__.  Things in __experimental__ are not
> guaranteed to be there in later versions.  Things in __future__ will
> definitely be there in a later version.  The __mandatory__ could be used
to
> make the intention about version requirement more explicit than
__version__
> would allow. (Someone asked about whether __future__ should be phased out
in
> later code.) The __optional__ could be used for permament optional
features
> that affect syntax.
>
> So with this directive PEP, the parallel would be
>
> directive transitional nested_scope
> directive experimentatal stackless
> directive optional static_type
> directive mandatory string_methods
>
> Is this correspondence correct?  (You may not agree on the need for other
> directives, but I want to know if the keyword translations are correct.)
>
> If so, I see two problems.
> 1. It introduces a new syntax while an existing syntax could be reused
>    without much cost.
> 2. There is no place for version and documentation info.
>
> So far as I can see, the impetus for directive keyword is that import is a
> run time action, while the __future__ is a compile time declaration.  But
is
> it so far a stretch?  All Python __magic__ words go beyond normal meaning.
> Defining __setattr__ will affect more than this method alone.  Having
> __init__.py will cause other modules to be imported.  And so on.
>
> If we look more broadly, in *nix, devices, processes, pipe and others are
> also represented as files.  Would it better to assign special syntax to
all
> of them?
>
> IMHO, reusing existing syntax is closer to Python than Perl, which
> introduces new syntax for many things that are only slightly different.
>
> Huaiyu
> --
> http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
>
>
> ________________________________________________________________________
> ________________________________________________________________________
>
> Message: 20
>    Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2001 14:01:44 -0800
>    From: "Ken Seehof" <kens at sightreader.com>
> Subject: Dynamically reloading extension modules
>
> Has anyone found a technique for dynamically unloading and
> reloading an extension module?  I want to be able to modify,
> build, and reload an extension module from within my program.
>
> Unfortunately python apparently doesn't use FreeLibrary when
> a module object is released.  Maybe I can do some kind of
> hack to call FreeLibrary explicitly.  Is there a way to do this that
> is portable?
>
> ----------------------------------------------------
> Copyright (c) 2001 by Ken Seehof
> This document may not be distributed, copied,
> duplicated, or replicated in any form without
> express written permission by Ken Seehof.
> Express permission is hereby granted.
> kens at neuralintegrator.com
> ----------------------------------------------------
>
>
>
> --
> http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
>
>
> ________________________________________________________________________
> ________________________________________________________________________
>
> Message: 21
>    Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2001 16:55:06 -0500
>    From: Benoit Dupire <bdupire at seatech.fau.edu>
> Subject: Re: learning python...
>
>
>
> Benjamin Altman wrote:
>
> > Do you know how it compares to the first edition in terms of
presentation and
> > indexing?  I have heard from a few people that it is difficult to look
up things in
> > the 1st edition.  The only review on amazon of the 2nd ed. claims it is
a complete
> > rewrite despite his admitance that he has never read the book...
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Ben
> >
>
> Yes, I also found "programming Python", 1st edition, from Mark Lutz,
difficult to
> read...
> it was the most complete book at the time it was written. I still think
it's the most
> complete and the more advanced book about Python (I did not see any
others.., tell me
> if I am wrong).  The 2nd chapter, which was intended to be a 'sneak
preview of Python'
> or 'a view from 10.000 feet'  was very long, and tedious to understand.. I
guess that
> 10000 feet, it's too high for my poor stomach. There were even backward
references to
> this chapter from many other chapters... The other pb, you mentionned it,
was the
> organization... but it was not intended to be a reference book...rather a
'linear
> book'.
>
> The second edition seems to be better organized, but once again, Ive just
read a small
> fraction of it.
> Anyway, it is stated in the introduction that it is still not a reference
book. The
> book presents Python's libraries, tools and programming techniques. Its
aim is "how to
> use the Core language in applications." So, there are some big examples...
>
> Anyway the book is  intended for those who already know the Core Language
and want to
> see some applications using it...
> the book was refocused, since the 1st edition, and it is not aimed at
beginners (it's
> why you have to read the 'leaning Python' book first).
> I was therefore happy to see that 'The view from 10000 feet' was removed,
and chapter 2
>
> is now fun to read, because it presents the libraries, so it's not so
steep,....so,
> good work, Mark!
> The book is going to take me a few weeks to read, though, as it is 1200
pages long, but
>
> seems very promising.. and yes, it was completely rewritten...
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
>
>
> ________________________________________________________________________
> ________________________________________________________________________
>
> Message: 22
>    Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2001 22:02 +0000 (GMT Standard Time)
>    From: digitig at cix.co.uk (Tim Rowe)
> Subject: RE: What IDE are you'all using for Python 2.1 for Windows?
>
> In article <mailman.985119746.9901.python-list at python.org>,
> moshez at zadka.site.co.il (Moshe Zadka) wrote:
>
> > On Tue, 20 Mar 2001, digitig at cix.co.uk (Tim Rowe) wrote:
> >
> > > triple-quoted strings (one of the things I consider unpythonic that
> > > seems to have been in Python from the start, FWIW!)
> >
> > It hasn't been in Python from the start. It was added when people found
> > it very very painful to emit large strings to files.
> >
> > Compare:
> >
> > message = '''\
> > From: %(origin)s
> > To: %(dest)s
> > Subject: triple quotes in Python
> >
> > Why are there triple quoted strings
> > in Python?
> > ''' % vars()
> > os.popen("/usr/lib/sendmail -oi -t", 'w').write(message)
> >
> > To
> >
> > message = (
> > "From: %(origin)s\n"
> > "To: %(dest)s\n"
> > "Subject: triple quotes in Python\n"
> > "\n"
> > "Python doesn't need no\n"
> > "stinking triple quotes\n" ) % vars()
> > os.popen("/usr/lib/sendmail -oi -t", 'w').write(message)
> >
> > Which version would you feel safer letting a non-programmer modify?
>
> So Joe Non-Programmer comes along and changes the first one to:
>
> message = '''\
> From: %(origin)s
> To: %(dest)s
> Subject: triple quotes in Python
>
> Why does Python have this "'''"
> string thing?
> ''' % vars()
> os.popen("/usr/lib/sendmail -oi -t", 'w').write(message)
>
> Moral: don't let a non-programmer modify your program code! (Even more
> important, don't let a malicious programmer /masquerading/ as a
> non-programmer modify your program code :-)
>
> But heck, I use the things, so clearly I can live with 'em. But emacs
> can't parse 'em!
>
> --
> http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
>
>
> ________________________________________________________________________
> ________________________________________________________________________
>
> Message: 23
>    Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2001 22:02 +0000 (GMT Standard Time)
>    From: digitig at cix.co.uk (Tim Rowe)
> Subject: Re: The most important modules
>
> In article <Pine.GSO.4.21.0103191732210.22234-100000 at laplace>,
> mrq at for.mat.bham.ac.uk (Martyn Quick) wrote:
>
> > I've seen a few comments along the lines of "When you are a newbie it
> > will
> > take a while to realize which the important modules are."  As someone
> > who
> > is in the middle of wading through Chapter 3 of the Library Reference,
> > it
> > would be very helpful to know which ones are particularly worth
> > noting.  (Presumably  sys, (c)Pickle and shelve, from the ones I've so
> > far
> > in the chapter - but what other treats are out there for me?)
>
> <snip>
>
> For me it's been:
>
> sys
> xml.parsers.expat
> string
>
> But that probably just reflects the fact that I've been doing a fair bit
> with command line utilities (using sys.argv, sys.stdin, sys.stdout and
> sys.stderr) that use XML! As somebody else said, it depends on what
> /you're/ doing.
>
>
> --
> http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
>
>
> ________________________________________________________________________
> ________________________________________________________________________
>
> Message: 24
>    Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2001 22:02 +0000 (GMT Standard Time)
>    From: digitig at cix.co.uk (Tim Rowe)
> Subject: Re: python suitability for large critical run forever apps
>
> In article <3AB77CE4.78378862 at troikanetworks.com>,
> bedge at troikanetworks.com (Bruce Edge) wrote:
>
> > I started using Python for come user CLI stuff. It has worked out so
> > well that we're thinking about extending it's use in our project.
> > I am not experienced enough to be able to answer some of the issues that
> > came up. Does anyone have any thoughts on these:
>
> <snip>
>
> It depends on what you mean by "large critical run forever apps". I
> routinely deal with systems that can kill a few hundred people if they go
> wrong, and that's what /I/ mean by "critical". But then I baulk at the
> suggestion that such a system might be "large", never mind the suggestion
> that it might be multithreaded! If you need something like IEC61508 SIL4
> or the military equivalents then forget Python (and C/C++, and Perl, and
> Ruby...). That doesn't make /any/ of those a "toy" language, just not
> right for that application. I've said before -- here, I think -- that I
> don't believe in general purpose languages; to misquote Michael Jackson,
> if a language offers to helps you with /every/ problem, it won't help you
> /much/ with /any/ problem.
> --
> http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
>
>
> ________________________________________________________________________
> ________________________________________________________________________
>
> Message: 25
>    Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2001 22:02 +0000 (GMT Standard Time)
>    From: digitig at cix.co.uk (Tim Rowe)
> Subject: I'm sure there's a good reason!
>
> Can any of the assembled experts explain to me why:
> print r"\hello"
> is fine, but
> print r"hello\"
> isn't? In other words, why does the backslash escape quotes in a raw
> string? At one level I'm going to guess (without reading the spec) that
> it's because "that's what the spec says", but why? I thought the idea of
> raw strings was that they /didn't/ handle escapes!
>
> TIA,
>
> Tim
>
> --
> http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
>
>
> ________________________________________________________________________
> ________________________________________________________________________
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>





More information about the Python-list mailing list