Python 3K or Python 2.9?

[TheFlyingDutchman]

Re: Python 3K or Python 2.9?

On Sep 17, 4:02 am, Steve Holden <st...@holdenwe b.comwrote:

TheFlyingDutchm an wrote:

The other half of the confusion is cleared up by considering that
Python methods are ordinary functions that don't magically "know" in
which "class" context they are executing: they must be told via the
first parameter.

>

They can be told all they want by the compiler/runtime - implicitly -
under-the-covers, out-of-sight.

>
I wish you would keep these deep insightful comments to yourself. Your
knowledge of the interpreter internals appears to be based on
examination by crystal ball.

I am not talking about the way it does it, but rather, the way it
could do it or... could have done it. That requires no knowledge of
how the interpreter currently does it unless I am proposing something
that no interpreter in the world could ever do.

>
You conveniently ignore the fact that the situation described by David
Trudgett (and, by the way, your quoting with no attributions is also
becoming tiresome very quickly) is a *design choice*, not a mistake.
It's done precisely to make an explicit reference to the instance
available to methods.
>

For your own information, supercilious references to the interpreter
internals become tiresome quickly.

I made a complaint about a small design choice. I also made it in the
past tense at least once ("should have done it") and explicitly
expressed that I knew it wasn't going to happen. Python was created
based on a language that was designed to make it easy to use by
beginners. Doing so made it a clean and clear language. My preference
is for everything to be as clean and clear as possible. If I didn't
I'd never have bothered with Python since Perl is much more popular
among programmers I have come across.

Jury-rigging new features is going to make the elite happy but very
likely will be viewed differently by us average programmers.

change other aspects of the language, such as the ability to graft
functions into instances and classes as methods.

Those are elite-type features that make code harder to understand by
average programmers and probably the elite as well. To paraphrase
someone "He thought he'd solve the problem by grafting functions into
classes and grafting classes into methods. Then he had two problems".

[Aahz]

Re: Python 3K or Python 2.9?

In article <46ee2d9d$0$262 13$426a74cc@new s.free.fr>,
Bruno Desthuilliers <bruno.42.desth uilliers@wtf.we bsiteburo.oops. comwrote:

>
>But what, given that I'm an AOL user still thinking it's kewl to hide
>behind a pseudo, what else would you expect ?

What exactly is a "pseudo", pray tell?
--
Aahz (aahz@pythoncra ft.com) <* http://www.pythoncraft.com/

The best way to get information on Usenet is not to ask a question, but
to post the wrong information.

[Bruno Desthuilliers]

Re: Python 3K or Python 2.9?

Aahz a écrit :

In article <46ee2d9d$0$262 13$426a74cc@new s.free.fr>,
Bruno Desthuilliers <bruno.42.desth uilliers@wtf.we bsiteburo.oops. comwrote:

>But what, given that I'm an AOL user still thinking it's kewl to hide
>behind a pseudo, what else would you expect ?

>
What exactly is a "pseudo", pray tell?

Sorry : a pseudonym (a nickname).

[Bruno Desthuilliers]

Re: Using pseudonyms (was Re: Python 3K or Python 2.9?)

Aahz a écrit :

In article <46ef893c$0$218 82$426a34cc@new s.free.fr>,
Bruno Desthuilliers <bruno.42.desth uilliers@wtf.we bsiteburo.oops. comwrote:

>Aahz a écrit :

>>In article <46ee2d9d$0$262 13$426a74cc@new s.free.fr>,
>>Bruno Desthuilliers <bruno.42.desth uilliers@wtf.we bsiteburo.oops. comwrote:
>>>But what, given that I'm an AOL user still thinking it's kewl to hide
>>>behind a pseudo, what else would you expect ?
>>What exactly is a "pseudo", pray tell?

>Sorry : a pseudonym (a nickname).

>
You apparently missed the thrust of my sarcasm.

Obviously, yes.

[Ben Finney]

Re: Using pseudonyms

Bruno Desthuilliers <bruno.42.desth uilliers@wtf.we bsiteburo.oops. comwrites:

For the record, I usually don't give a damn about what
name/nickname/whatever peoples use.

With the caveat "... so long as they consistently use one name in a
given context", I concur.

--
\ "I saw a sign: 'Rest Area 25 Miles'. That's pretty big. Some |
`\ people must be really tired." -- Steven Wright |
_o__) |
Ben Finney

[Alex Martelli]

Re: Using pseudonyms

Aahz <aahz@pythoncra ft.comwrote:

For that matter, there are plenty of people who are better known by some
nickname that is not their legal name.

Yep. For example, some people whose legal name is "Alessandro " (which
no American is ever going to be able to spell right -- ONE L, TWO S's,
NOT an X or a J instead, "DRO" ending rather than "DER", etc), might
choose to avoid the hassle and go by "Alex" (just to make up a case...).


Alex

[Paddy]

Re: Using pseudonyms

On Sep 19, 5:07 am, al...@mac.com (Alex Martelli) wrote:

Aahz <a...@pythoncra ft.comwrote:

For that matter, there are plenty of people who are better known by some
nickname that is not their legal name.

>
Yep. For example, some people whose legal name is "Alessandro " (which
no American is ever going to be able to spell right -- ONE L, TWO S's,
NOT an X or a J instead, "DRO" ending rather than "DER", etc), might
choose to avoid the hassle and go by "Alex" (just to make up a case...).
>
Alex

.... and someone whose nickname is Paddy which is very common, and who
finds it hard to remember birthdates decides to add the days in the
month that his first two children were born on to his used name and
now only gets worried near his partners birthday :-)

- Paddy.

[Ron Adam]

Re: Python 3K or Python 2.9?



TheFlyingDutchm an wrote:

I am not talking about the way it does it, but rather, the way it
could do it or... could have done it. That requires no knowledge of
how the interpreter currently does it unless I am proposing something
that no interpreter in the world could ever do.

Yes, there are a couple of things that could have been changed. But from
what I can tell there are a number of reasons why things where chosen to be
the way they are.

Two of those reasons is to make the core C code smaller and easier to
maintain and also to make it easier to understand how things work.
Exposing the inner workings as visible python code vs hidden C code helps
both of those.

Another benefit of exposing more of the class machinery of Pythons objects
as python code, is it makes it possible to modify more of how things work
directly with python code. A good way to see how this works is studying
how descriptors and properties work.

http://users.rcn.com/python/download/Descriptor.htm

You will find there is much more of python written in python than it may
first seem. In some cases the built in classes and modules are written in
C, yet they still work as if they are written in Python.

So if you can find a way to do things like removing self in python in such
a way that it doesn't require adding more to the Core interpreter, then it
might be considered.

What I've found is as my skills improve, I take more advantage of being
able to modify and/or introspect how things work. This allows more choices
on how I might solve a particular problem.

I also think there a lots of improvements that could be made to other parts
of python such as the libraries that would be of much more practical benefit.

Regards,
Ron

[Ron Adam]

Re: Python 3K or Python 2.9?



TheFlyingDutchm an wrote:

I am not talking about the way it does it, but rather, the way it
could do it or... could have done it. That requires no knowledge of
how the interpreter currently does it unless I am proposing something
that no interpreter in the world could ever do.

Yes, there are a couple of things that could have been changed. But from
what I can tell there are a number of reasons why things where chosen to be
the way they are.

Two of those reasons is to make the core C code smaller and easier to
maintain and also to make it easier to understand how things work.
Exposing the inner workings as visible python code vs hidden C code helps
both of those.

Another benefit of exposing more of the class machinery of Pythons objects
as python code, is it makes it possible to modify more of how things work
directly with python code. A good way to see how this works is studying
how descriptors and properties work.

http://users.rcn.com/python/download/Descriptor.htm

You will find there is much more of python written in python than it may
first seem. In some cases the built in classes and modules are written in
C, yet they still work as if they are written in Python.

So if you can find a way to do things like removing self in python in such
a way that it doesn't require adding more to the Core interpreter, then it
might be considered.

What I've found is as my skills improve, I take more advantage of being
able to modify and/or introspect how things work. This allows more choices
on how I might solve a particular problem.

I also think there a lots of improvements that could be made to other parts
of python such as the libraries that would be of much more practical benefit.

Regards,
Ron

[Bruno Desthuilliers]

Re: Python 3K or Python 2.9?

Ron Adam a écrit :

>
>
TheFlyingDutchm an wrote:
>

>I am not talking about the way it does it, but rather, the way it
>could do it or... could have done it. That requires no knowledge of
>how the interpreter currently does it unless I am proposing something
>that no interpreter in the world could ever do.

>

(snip)

So if you can find a way to do things like removing self in python in
such a way that it doesn't require adding more to the Core interpreter,
then it might be considered.

By who ? As far as I'm concerned, I don't want 'self' to be removed, and
I'm probably not the only one here.

>
What I've found is as my skills improve, I take more advantage of being
able to modify and/or introspect how things work. This allows more
choices on how I might solve a particular problem.

The changes required by removing self would make most of this either
painfull or near impossible AFAICT.

I also think there a lots of improvements that could be made to other
parts of python such as the libraries that would be of much more
practical benefit.

indeed.

[Ron Adam]

Re: Python 3K or Python 2.9?



Bruno Desthuilliers wrote:

Ron Adam a écrit :

>>
>TheFlyingDutch man wrote:
>>

>>I am not talking about the way it does it, but rather, the way it
>>could do it or... could have done it. That requires no knowledge of
>>how the interpreter currently does it unless I am proposing something
>>that no interpreter in the world could ever do.

(snip)

>So if you can find a way to do things like removing self in python in
>such a way that it doesn't require adding more to the Core interpreter,
>then it might be considered.

>
By who ? As far as I'm concerned, I don't want 'self' to be removed, and
I'm probably not the only one here.

The term "might be considered" in this case is a very very small
possibility. It would need to be a very good solution which has some very
nice benifits over the current way. As you say below, it's probably not
possible.

This was more of a challenge to get anyone who thinks it's worth doing to
learn more about how python works rather than just propose arbitrary ideas.

>What I've found is as my skills improve, I take more advantage of being
>able to modify and/or introspect how things work. This allows more
>choices on how I might solve a particular problem.

>
The changes required by removing self would make most of this either
painfull or near impossible AFAICT.

Right, It would have a cascade effect in many places.

>I also think there a lots of improvements that could be made to other
>parts of python such as the libraries that would be of much more
>practical benefit.

>
indeed.

Cheers,
Ron