Prev: Sorting two dimentional array by column?
Next: ANN: XML builder for Python
From: Mensanator on 3 Jul 2008 09:54
On Jul 3, 2:13�am, Bruno Desthuilliers <bruno.
42.desthuilli...(a)websiteburo.invalid> wrote:
> Terry Reedy a �crit :
>
>
>
> > Mensanator wrote:
> (snip)
> >> Lookup "Cartesian Product".
> (snip)
> >> for a in [True,False]:
> >> � for b in [True,False]:
> >> � � for c in [1,2,3,4]:
> >> � � � print 'combined settings:',a,'\t',b,'\t',c
>
> > This has been added to itertools at least for 2.6/3.0
>
> Great !

Well, it will be great at some point in the future
when Python 2.6/3.0 have actually been released and
third party extensions such as gmpy have caught up.

Until then, such solutions are worthless, i.e., of
no value.
From: Terry Reedy on 3 Jul 2008 15:52


Mensanator wrote:
> On Jul 3, 2:13�am, Bruno Desthuilliers <bruno.
> 42.desthuilli...(a)websiteburo.invalid> wrote:
>> Terry Reedy a �crit :

>>> This has been added to itertools at least for 2.6/3.0
>> Great !
>
> Well, it will be great at some point in the future
> when Python 2.6/3.0 have actually been released and

The betas 'have actually been released' and I am happily using 3.0. The
core features that I care about have mostly been untouched and where
they have, they work.

> third party extensions such as gmpy have caught up.

Not my personal concern. And certainly not a direct concern for nearly
all uses of itertools.product.

> Until then, such solutions are worthless, i.e., of no value.

Why are you so anxious to generalize your personal negative views to
everyone else. Worthless to you, worthwhile to me. And for someone who
does not need cross-products today or in the next few months,
potentially valuable information for when the final releases do arrive,
maybe in September.

tjr

From: Mensanator on 3 Jul 2008 17:49
On Jul 3, 2:52 pm, Terry Reedy <tjre...(a)udel.edu> wrote:
> Mensanator wrote:
> > On Jul 3, 2:13�am, Bruno Desthuilliers <bruno.
> > 42.desthuilli...(a)websiteburo.invalid> wrote:
> >> Terry Reedy a �crit :
> >>> This has been added to itertools at least for 2.6/3.0
> >> Great !
>
> > Well, it will be great at some point in the future
> > when Python 2.6/3.0 have actually been released and
>
> The betas 'have actually been released' and I am happily using 3.0.  

But you're not using it for production work. Unless you're ignoring
the recommendations.

> The
> core features that I care about have mostly been untouched and where
> they have, they work.

That's not the issue.

>
> > third party extensions such as gmpy have caught up.
>
> Not my personal concern.  

Right. Which is why your 3.0 specific advice is worthless.
Those ARE personal concerns of just about everyone else.

> And certainly not a direct concern for nearly
> all uses of itertools.product.
>
> > Until then, such solutions are worthless, i.e., of no value.
>
> Why are you so anxious to generalize your personal negative views to
> everyone else.  

Not to everyone else, to the new and inexperienced Pyhton users.
Maybe you don't remember what it was like being a new user where
you need to have such things pointed out to you. And I'm not being
negative, just realistic. If I ask a question today, I want an
answer I can use tomorrow, not one I can use six months from now.

> Worthless to you, worthwhile to me.  

The OP's opinion is the only one that matters. What do you suppose
is the percentage of posts on this newsgroup by those using 3.0?

> And for someone who
> does not need cross-products today or in the next few months,
> potentially valuable information for when the final releases do arrive,
> maybe in September.

That's fine for them. It's been said here that they will be a minority
for a long time.

>
> tjr

From: George Sakkis on 3 Jul 2008 19:24
On Jul 3, 5:49 pm, Mensanator <mensana...(a)aol.com> wrote:

> On Jul 3, 2:52 pm, Terry Reedy <tjre...(a)udel.edu> wrote:
>
> > Worthless to you, worthwhile to me.  
>
> The OP's opinion is the only one that matters.

I bet the OP doesn't know (or care) what gmpy is.

> What do you suppose
> is the percentage of posts on this newsgroup by those using 3.0?

Taking into account 2.6 too (we're not talking about only 3.0 here),
probably not much less than those who even know what is gmpy, let
alone dismiss a beta Python release because their obscure pet module
is not available yet.
You will probably sound less negative if you refrain from projecting
your own very specialized needs to those of the average pythonista.

George
From: Mensanator on 3 Jul 2008 19:51
On Jul 3, 6:24 pm, George Sakkis <george.sak...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jul 3, 5:49 pm, Mensanator <mensana...(a)aol.com> wrote:
>
> > On Jul 3, 2:52 pm, Terry Reedy <tjre...(a)udel.edu> wrote:
>
> > > Worthless to you, worthwhile to me.  
>
> > The OP's opinion is the only one that matters.
>
> I bet the OP doesn't know (or care) what gmpy is.

But he'll care if he tries to use something specific to
2.6 and it fails and he doesn't know why.

>
> > What do you suppose
> > is the percentage of posts on this newsgroup by those using 3.0?
>
> Taking into account 2.6 too (we're not talking about only 3.0 here),
> probably not much less than those who even know what is gmpy, let
> alone dismiss a beta Python release because their obscure pet module
> is not available yet.

That was just an example. When you consider ALL the pet
modules like PIL, Numpy, Win32, etc., that's a lot, isn't it.

> You will probably sound less negative if you refrain from projecting
> your own very specialized needs to those of the average pythonista.

Funny how you don't complain when Mr. Reedy projects HIS
specialized needs to the average pythonista.

I was just trying to be helpful (I admit I often sound
negative when I'm not trying to be).

>
> George

First  |  Prev  |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2 3
Prev: Sorting two dimentional array by column?
Next: ANN: XML builder for Python