Prev: remote multiprocessing, shared object
Next: ftp and python
From: James Stroud on 7 Apr 2010 22:02
Patrick Maupin wrote:
> BTW, although I find it annoying when people say "don't do that" when
> "that" is a perfectly good thing to do, and although I also find it
> annoying when people tell you what not to do without telling you what
> *to* do, and although I find the regex solution to this problem to be
> quite clean, the equivalent non-regex solution is not terrible

I propose a new way to answer questions on c.l.python that will (1) give respondents the pleasure of vague admonishment and (2) actually answer the question. The way I propose utilizes the double negative. For example:

"You are doing it wrong! Don't not do <code>re.split('\s{2,}', s[2])</code>."

Please answer this way in the future.

Thank you,
James


From: Patrick Maupin on 7 Apr 2010 22:10
On Apr 7, 9:02 pm, James Stroud <nospamjstroudmap...(a)mbi.ucla.edu>
wrote:
> Patrick Maupin wrote:
> > BTW, although I find it annoying when people say "don't do that" when
> > "that" is a perfectly good thing to do, and although I also find it
> > annoying when people tell you what not to do without telling you what
> > *to* do, and although I find the regex solution to this problem to be
> > quite clean, the equivalent non-regex solution is not terrible
>
> I propose a new way to answer questions on c.l.python that will (1) give respondents the pleasure of vague admonishment and (2) actually answer the question. The way I propose utilizes the double negative. For example:
>
> "You are doing it wrong! Don't not do <code>re.split('\s{2,}', s[2])</code>."
>
> Please answer this way in the future.

I most certainly will not consider when that isn't warranted!

OTOH, in general I am more interested in admonishing the authors of
the pseudo-answers than I am the authors of the questions, despite the
fact that I find this hilarious:

http://despair.com/cluelessness.html

Regards,
Pat
From: Grant Edwards on 7 Apr 2010 22:36
On 2010-04-08, Patrick Maupin <pmaupin(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> On Apr 7, 4:47?pm, Grant Edwards <inva...(a)invalid.invalid> wrote:
>> On 2010-04-07, J <dreadpiratej...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > Can someone make me un-crazy?
>>
>> Definitely. ?Regex is driving you crazy, so don't use a regex.
>>
>> ? inputString = "# 1 ?Short offline ? ? ? Completed without error ? ? 00% ? ? ? 679 ? ? ? ? -"
>>
>> ? print ' '.join(inputString.split()[4:-3])
[...]

> OK, fine. Post a better solution to this problem than:
>
>>>> import re
>>>> re.split(' {2,}', '# 1 Short offline Completed without error 00%')
> ['# 1', 'Short offline', 'Completed without error', '00%']

OK, I'll bite: what's wrong with the solution I already posted?

--
Grant

From: Grant Edwards on 7 Apr 2010 22:38
On 2010-04-08, James Stroud <nospamjstroudmapson(a)mbi.ucla.edu> wrote:
> Patrick Maupin wrote:
>> BTW, although I find it annoying when people say "don't do that" when
>> "that" is a perfectly good thing to do, and although I also find it
>> annoying when people tell you what not to do without telling you what
>> *to* do, and although I find the regex solution to this problem to be
>> quite clean, the equivalent non-regex solution is not terrible
>
> I propose a new way to answer questions on c.l.python that will (1) give respondents the pleasure of vague admonishment and (2) actually answer the question. The way I propose utilizes the double negative. For example:
>
> "You are doing it wrong! Don't not do <code>re.split('\s{2,}', s[2])</code>."
>
> Please answer this way in the future.

I will certain try to avoid not answering in a manner not unlike that.

--
Grant
From: Patrick Maupin on 7 Apr 2010 22:45
On Apr 7, 9:36 pm, Grant Edwards <inva...(a)invalid.invalid> wrote:
> On 2010-04-08, Patrick Maupin <pmau...(a)gmail.com> wrote:> On Apr 7, 4:47?pm, Grant Edwards <inva...(a)invalid.invalid> wrote:
> >> On 2010-04-07, J <dreadpiratej...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> > Can someone make me un-crazy?
>
> >> Definitely. ?Regex is driving you crazy, so don't use a regex.
>
> >> ? inputString = "# 1 ?Short offline ? ? ? Completed without error ? ? 00% ? ? ? 679 ? ? ? ? -"
>
> >> ? print ' '.join(inputString.split()[4:-3])
>
> [...]
>
> > OK, fine.  Post a better solution to this problem than:
>
> >>>> import re
> >>>> re.split(' {2,}', '# 1  Short offline       Completed without error       00%')
> > ['# 1', 'Short offline', 'Completed without error', '00%']
>
> OK, I'll bite: what's wrong with the solution I already posted?
>
> --
> Grant

Sorry, my eyes completely missed your one-liner, so my criticism about
not posting a solution was unwarranted. I don't think you and I read
the problem the same way (which is probably why I didn't notice your
solution -- because it wasn't solving the problem I thought I saw).

When I saw "And I am interested in the string that appears in the
third column, which changes as the test runs and then completes" I
assumed that, not only could that string change, but so could the one
before it.

I guess my base assumption that anything with words in it could
change. I was looking at the OP's attempt at a solution, and he
obviously felt he needed to see two or more spaces as an item
delimiter.

(And I got testy because of seeing other IMO unwarranted denigration
of re on the list lately.)

Regards,
Pat
First  |  Prev  |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2 3 4
Prev: remote multiprocessing, shared object
Next: ftp and python