2.3 list reverse() bug?
ajsiegel at optonline.com
Sun Dec 28 18:36:14 CET 2003
On Sat, 27 Dec 2003 15:26:05 -0600, Bjorn Pettersen
<bjorn.pettersen at comcast.net> wrote:
>[posted and mailed]
>Arthur <ajsiegel at optonline.com> wrote in
>news:t0houvc69mtnlrmamh3klgvui8mbf1eu5t at 4ax.com:
>> But this is also my approach, I guess. Not exactly writing Universe
>> Critical code, I tend to proceed with a light reading of the docs, and
>> learn by having my naive intuitions corrected - as necessary when
>> necessary, by finding something broken.
>My late boss approached languages and other problems the same way, and I
>never could understand how he dealt with what for me would be continous
There is of course the "take it out on other people" option for
dealing with the frustration.) Particularly popular option among the
population of bosses, in my experience. ;)
Or else, better - simply considering it the cost of doing busniess in
the manner in which one chooses to being do business. And consider
oneself net, net ahead of the game - for oneself - when comparing it
to the full cost of doing business in some fundamentally different
> Doing language theory in grad school, while not always the most immediately useful, is a wonderful
>way to develop passionate ideas about how things ought to be (you should
>have heard the lunch discussions when Java came out <grin>).
Well of course *my* passionate ideas about language design resolve to
how well that design faciliates *my* chosen way of doing business.
And of course expect everyone to agree.
>> But there is I feel a valid point implicit in my original question.
>> The "I have been using Python 42 years and never imported copy" is a
>> very ambiguous assertion,made time and again.
>You're most certainly correct, although I don't believe it was very
>ambigous when I stated it. If you look at my response to Alex, you'll see
>that I really do mean that copies are virtually never needed [in the
>aesthetic, not the Turing complete sense], and if you do use them you're
>likely to (a) do more work, sometimes potentially _much_ more work, (b)
>complexificate the algorithm making it harder to visually verify, (c) make
>it _much_ harder to _prove_ correct, and (d) you're adding another entity
>that you'll have to keep in memory when you're visualizing the system.
I am going to perform an opertaion on a list or dictionary and need
the alternative to rollback to the pre-operation state. Restore
"initial". Why would that be a particularly uncommon or unwholesome
state of affairs, and why isn't leaving a copy behind a practical
>mission critical subsystem as the 'data-structure' managing this
>information we wouldn't use anything but a Python code generator,
>generating over 380KLoc of C++ code, SQL schemas and stored procs, etc.)].
The world is safe from me attempting anything mission critical - for
the time being.
>I can also categorically say that it's a really bad idea to walk to the
>middle of a bridge, precariously climb up on the railing, before doing a
>swan dive towards the dry riverbed several hundred feet below... but it's
>really fun if you have a bungie-cord attached.
Preferably well attached.
>I haven't encountered any rules that didn't come with their own list of
A mutable list, of course.
>Sure it is weird to want to think of such trivialities when the code is
>working, but clean code makes me happy <smile>, and hey, after 20+ years of
>programming, I'm still excited when I go to work and I still program after
>I come home...
I compulsively refactor. Til I have something that seems to me to be
nice. But nice based on the alternatives as I understand them. I
also know that there are alternatives I don't (yet) underestand.
Which when I do understand, will generate a new round of refactoring.
This is how I got so smart, by the way ;)
> I sincerely do not grasp mentally however, how some people can "break path" in a new domain guided
>mainly by their intuition? My intuition definitely doesn't work at that
>level :-) If you have any meta-analysis it would be very interesting to
Well isn't this something that high level languages, in general - have
made into a not totally unreasonable approach.
Its an expereince to approach things this way - in both the worst and
>> Don't we need to pick one meaning for that assertion? Or make the
>> meaning clear, when asserted.
>Of course not, this is USENET <wink>.
Ain't it though.
More information about the Python-list