On Thu, 1 Sep 2011, 01:17:45 CEST, questions anon
wrote:
> Firstly just make them zeros and ones, for example if the values in the
> array are less than 100 make them 0 and if greater than 100 make them 1.
> And then finally sum them together.
> I have attempted a few methods, see code below.
questions anon wrote:
> I have been going round in circles trying to solve something that sounds
> simple. I have a huge array and I would like to reclassify the values.
> Firstly just make them zeros and ones, for example if the values in the
> array are less than 100 make them 0 and if greater t
This was meant to go to the list. I did notrealise that it had not until I
looked at the list just now and couln't see my reply. Sorry, "delegbede",
and sorry list.
On Wednesday 31 August 2011 Lisi wrote:
> ?? If either n or x or both were 0, and % were the same thing as *, the
> statement wo
The glossary defines "hashable" as:
hashable
An object is hashable if it has a hash value which never changes
during its lifetime (it needs a __hash__() method), and can be
compared to other objects (it needs an __eq__() method). Hashable
objects which compare equal must have the same hash value.
On Thu, Sep 1, 2011 at 10:32 AM, Richard D. Moores wrote:
> The glossary defines "hashable" as:
>
> hashable
> An object is hashable if it has a hash value which never changes
> during its lifetime (it needs a __hash__() method), and can be
> compared to other objects (it needs an __eq__() method)
Thanks, James, from your ideas I've come up with this function as a
general test for hashibility of any object:
def is_hashable(object):
try:
if hash(object):
return True
except TypeError:
return False
But is it? It returns True for ints, floats, sets, tuples,
On Thu, Sep 1, 2011 at 5:28 PM, Richard D. Moores wrote:
> Thanks, James, from your ideas I've come up with this function as a
> general test for hashibility of any object:
>
> def is_hashable(object):
> try:
> if hash(object):
> return True
> except TypeError:
> ret
On Thu, Sep 1, 2011 at 11:37 AM, Hugo Arts wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 1, 2011 at 5:28 PM, Richard D. Moores
> wrote:
> > Thanks, James, from your ideas I've come up with this function as a
> > general test for hashibility of any object:
> >
> > def is_hashable(object):
> >try:
> >if hash(o
On Thursday 01 September 2011, Richard D. Moores wrote:
> Thanks, James, from your ideas I've come up with this function as a
> general test for hashibility of any object:
>
> def is_hashable(object):
> try:
> if hash(object):
> return True
> except TypeError:
>
On 9/1/2011 11:30 AM Chris Fuller said...
On Thursday 01 September 2011, Richard D. Moores wrote:
Thanks, James, from your ideas I've come up with this function as a
general test for hashibility of any object:
def is_hashable(object):
try:
if hash(object):
return True
I would use a tuple of dictionaries.
import random
quotes = (
{'author':"Kahlil Gibran", 'quote':"A candle loses nothing of its light
when
lighting another."), #My favorite
{'author':"Henrik Ibsen", 'quote':"The strongest man in the world is he
who stands
most alone."})
quote = random.choic
def is_hashable(object):
try:
hash(object)
return True
except TypeError:
return False
it is then. Thanks to all!
Dick
___
Tutor maillist - Tutor@python.org
To unsubscribe or change subscription options:
http://mail.pyth
>
>
> >>> list = [3,]
> >>> a = list
> >>> list[0] = 6
> >>> a[0]
> 3
> -
>
Slight error in my code. It should be.
>>> list = [3,]
>>> a = list
>>> list[0] = 6
>>> a[0]
6
-
On Thursday 01 September 2011, Chris Fuller wrote:
> On Thursday 01 September 2011, Richard D. Moores wrote:
> > Thanks, James, from your ideas I've come up with this function as a
> > general test for hashibility of any object:
> >
> > def is_hashable(object):
> > try:
> > if hash(obj
On Thu, Sep 1, 2011 at 12:29, Chris Fuller
wrote:
> *Ahem*
>
> def is_hashable(object):
> try:
> hash(object)
> except TypeError:
> return False
>
> return True
Why is that preferred to
def is_hashable(object):
try:
hash(object)
return True
except
On Thursday 01 September 2011, Richard D. Moores wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 1, 2011 at 12:29, Chris Fuller
>
> wrote:
> > *Ahem*
> >
> > def is_hashable(object):
> > try:
> >hash(object)
> >except TypeError:
> >return False
> >
> >return True
>
> Why is that preferred to
>
Will someone share with me a link where I can download subject in order for my
script to run? Any assistance will help!
Thanks,
___
Tutor maillist - Tutor@python.org
To unsubscribe or change subscription options:
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinf
Will someone share if there is a link where I can download to read a script
with subject file?
Thanks,
___
Tutor maillist - Tutor@python.org
To unsubscribe or change subscription options:
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/tutor
Ah. I'll follow you with that.
Thanks,
Dick
On Thu, Sep 1, 2011 at 15:42, Chris Fuller
wrote:
> On Thursday 01 September 2011, Richard D. Moores wrote:
>> On Thu, Sep 1, 2011 at 12:29, Chris Fuller
>>
>> wrote:
>> > *Ahem*
>> >
>> > def is_hashable(object):
>> > try:
>> > hash(object)
Richard D. Moores wrote:
I'm trying to write a general test for hashability. How can I test if
an object has both a __hash__() method and an __eq__() method?
Just because an object has a __hash__ method doesn't mean it is
guaranteed to be hashable. The method might (deliberately, or
acciden
Richard D. Moores wrote:
Thanks, James, from your ideas I've come up with this function as a
general test for hashibility of any object:
def is_hashable(object):
try:
if hash(object):
return True
except TypeError:
return False
No need for the "if hash" test,
On Fri, Sep 02, 2011 at 12:17:48PM +1000, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
> Richard D. Moores wrote:
> >Thanks, James, from your ideas I've come up with this function as a
> >general test for hashibility of any object:
> >
> >def is_hashable(object):
> >try:
> >if hash(object):
> >re
On Thu, Sep 01, 2011 at 05:55:04PM -0700, Helen Brown wrote:
> Will someone share with me a link where I can download subject in order for
> my script to run? Any assistance will help!
Did you try googling for it?
http://duckduckgo.com/?q=openpyxl
http://www.bing.com/search?q=openpyxl
http://au
I'm just needing to verify some behavior.
Functionality within the logging module is exercised by calling functions
defined within the module itself. I am using SQLAlchemy for database
access, but it can be configured to dump out intermediate access information
& queries to the logging module --
On Thu, Sep 1, 2011 at 18:08, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
> Richard D. Moores wrote:
>>
>> I'm trying to write a general test for hashability. How can I test if
>> an object has both a __hash__() method and an __eq__() method?
>
>
> Just because an object has a __hash__ method doesn't mean it is guara
James Hartley wrote:
> I'm just needing to verify some behavior.
>
> Functionality within the logging module is exercised by calling functions
> defined within the module itself. I am using SQLAlchemy for database
> access, but it can be configured to dump out intermediate access
> information
>
Thanks, Peter for taking the time to respond. I need to study the reference
further, & your comments pointed out some of my misconceptions. Thank you
for clearing up some of my half-researched understanding.
Jim
On Thu, Sep 1, 2011 at 10:53 PM, Peter Otten <__pete...@web.de> wrote:
> James Hart
27 matches
Mail list logo
