Re: Quick poll: gmean or geometric_mean
Steven D'Aprano wrote: > As requested in issue 27181 on the bug tracker, I'm adding functions to > calculate the harmonic and geometric means to the statistics module. > > I'd like to get a quick show of hands regarding the names. Which do you > prefer? > > hmean and gmean > > harmonic_mean and geometric_mean The long names. Life's too short for abbreviations. > Remember that the arithmetic mean is just called "mean". I think it's a safe bet that a user asking for the unqualified mean wants just that. > http://bugs.python.org/issue27181 -- https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Quick poll: gmean or geometric_mean
Ethan Furman schrieb am 09.07.2016 um 08:27: > On 07/08/2016 10:49 PM, Random832 wrote: >> On Sat, Jul 9, 2016, at 01:26, Steven D'Aprano wrote: > >>> hmean and gmean >>> >>> harmonic_mean and geometric_mean >> >> The latter, definitely. > > My preference is also for the latter. However, if the rest of the module > is filled with abbreviated names you may as well be consistent with them. +1 for consistency, but I'm just fine with the short names. It's in the statistics module after all, so the context is very narrow and clear and people who don't know which to use or what the one does that they find in a given piece of code will have to read the docs and maybe fresh up their rusty math memory anyway. Longer names don't help much with that. If further clarity is needed in a given code context that uses a direct name import, renaming the function at the same time is easy enough. I often do that with "os.path.join", for example, which turns into "join_path" on import. Same problem, easy solution. Stefan -- https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Quick poll: gmean or geometric_mean
On 07/09/2016 03:23 AM, Stefan Behnel wrote: Ethan Furman schrieb am 09.07.2016 um 08:27: On 07/08/2016 10:49 PM, Random832 wrote: On Sat, Jul 9, 2016, at 01:26, Steven D'Aprano wrote: hmean and gmean harmonic_mean and geometric_mean The latter, definitely. My preference is also for the latter. However, if the rest of the module is filled with abbreviated names you may as well be consistent with them. +1 for consistency, but I'm just fine with the short names. It's in the statistics module after all, so the context is very narrow and clear and people who don't know which to use or what the one does that they find in a given piece of code will have to read the docs and maybe fresh up their rusty math memory anyway. Longer names don't help much with that. If further clarity is needed in a given code context that uses a direct name import, renaming the function at the same time is easy enough. I often do that with "os.path.join", for example, which turns into "join_path" on import. Same problem, easy solution. +1 I would definitely need to read the docs, whatever the name. ;) -- ~Ethan~ -- https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Quick poll: gmean or geometric_mean
> > +1 for consistency, but I'm just fine with the short names. It's in the > statistics module after all, so the context is very narrow and clear and > people who don't know which to use or what the one does that they find in a > given piece of code will have to read the docs and maybe fresh up their > rusty math memory anyway. Longer names don't help much with that. > > If further clarity is needed in a given code context that uses a direct > name import, renaming the function at the same time is easy enough. I often > do that with "os.path.join", for example, which turns into "join_path" on > import. Same problem, easy solution. +1 -- https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Quick poll: gmean or geometric_mean
On Sat, Jul 9, 2016 at 10:17 AM Jason Friedman wrote: > > +1 for consistency > What do other languages use? Even though I generally prefer complete words instead of abbreviations, if an abbreviation is a strong standard across many statistics modules (like "stdev" instead of "standard_deviation"), then it's better to stay consistent with that standard. -- https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
__qualname__ exposed as a local variable: standard?
Hi all, I noticed __qualname__ is exposed by locals() while defining a class. This is handy but I'm not sure about its status: is it standard or just an artifact of the current implementation? (btw, the pycodestyle linter -former pep8- rejects its usage). I was unable to find any reference to this behavior in PEP 3155 nor in the language reference. Thank you in advance -- Carlos -- https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Namespaces are one honking great idea
Hi all, although it doesn't fit the bill 100%, I sometimes use this extremely simple function as a decorator: def new(call): return call() For example: @new class MySingleton: x = 2 y = 2 def sum(self, x, y): return x + y @new def my_obj(): x = 2 y = 2 def sum(x, y): return x + y return Bundle(locals()) where Bundle is a simple subclass of dict implementing __xxxattr__ dunder methods. Cheers -- Carlos -- https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Quick poll: gmean or geometric_mean
On 2016-07-09 17:13, Michael Selik wrote: On Sat, Jul 9, 2016 at 10:17 AM Jason Friedman wrote: +1 for consistency What do other languages use? R, the most likely candidate, doesn't have them built-in. scipy.stats uses gmean() and hmean() -- Robert Kern "I have come to believe that the whole world is an enigma, a harmless enigma that is made terrible by our own mad attempt to interpret it as though it had an underlying truth." -- Umberto Eco -- https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Quick poll: gmean or geometric_mean
On Sat, Jul 9, 2016, 12:57 PM Robert Kern wrote: > On 2016-07-09 17:13, Michael Selik wrote: > > On Sat, Jul 9, 2016 at 10:17 AM Jason Friedman > wrote: > > > >>> +1 for consistency > > > > What do other languages use? > > R, the most likely candidate, doesn't have them built-in. > > scipy.stats uses gmean() and hmean() > SciPy also uses other obscure abbreviations. My least favorite is "eye". My first thought at reading "hmean" might be horizontal mean, especially if there were a vmean. > -- https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: __qualname__ exposed as a local variable: standard?
On Sat, Jul 9, 2016 at 4:08 AM, wrote: > > I noticed __qualname__ is exposed by locals() while defining a class. This is an undocumented implementation detail used to pass this information to the metaclass. You'll also see __module__ and, if the class has a docstring, __doc__. For CPython, this is implemented in the functions compiler_class (for __module__ and __qualname__) and compiler_body (for __doc__), which you'll find in Python/compile.c. -- https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: the best online course
I want one of those "knuckle down and learn" classes. But even more than that, I want a class with a real teacher who is available to answer questions and explain things. I've done a lot of books and online video, but there's usually no help. If I search around long enough, I can often find an answer, but this is just way too fragmented for me. Where can I find classes like that - online - paid or free? Thanks. -- https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Quick poll: gmean or geometric_mean
On Sat, Jul 9, 2016 at 3:26 PM, Steven D'Aprano wrote: > I'd like to get a quick show of hands regarding the names. Which do you > prefer? > > hmean and gmean > > harmonic_mean and geometric_mean I'd prefer the shorter names. ChrisA -- https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: the best online course
On Sun, Jul 10, 2016 at 7:37 AM, Malik Rumi wrote: > I want one of those "knuckle down and learn" classes. But even more than > that, I want a class with a real teacher who is available to answer questions > and explain things. I've done a lot of books and online video, but there's > usually no help. If I search around long enough, I can often find an answer, > but this is just way too fragmented for me. Where can I find classes like > that - online - paid or free? Thanks. > Yes, they definitely exist. I work with a company called Thinkful (www.thinkful.com) which does what you're talking about - you get a personal mentor with whom you meet regularly, plus access to a number of experts. It's a paid course. There are other such courses around, too, but I don't personally know their effectiveness. ChrisA -- https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: the best online course
On 07/09/2016 02:57 PM, Chris Angelico wrote: On Sun, Jul 10, 2016 at 7:37 AM, Malik Rumi wrote: I want one of those "knuckle down and learn" classes. But even more >> than that, I want a class with a real teacher who is available to >> answer questions and explain things. I've done a lot of books and >> online video, but there's usually no help. If I search around long >> enough, I can often find an answer, but this is just way too fragmented >> for me. Where can I find classes like that - online - paid or free? Thanks. Yes, they definitely exist. I work with a company called Thinkful (www.thinkful.com) which does what you're talking about - you get a personal mentor with whom you meet regularly, plus access to a number of experts. It's a paid course. There are other such courses around, too, but I don't personally know their effectiveness. Udacity.com is another. They have several free classes, or you can pay and get access to instructors. -- ~Ethan~ -- https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: the best online course
On Sun, Jul 10, 2016 at 9:09 AM, Ethan Furman wrote: > On 07/09/2016 02:57 PM, Chris Angelico wrote: >> >> On Sun, Jul 10, 2016 at 7:37 AM, Malik Rumi wrote: > > >>> I want one of those "knuckle down and learn" classes. But even more > >>> than that, I want a class with a real teacher who is available to >>> answer questions and explain things. I've done a lot of books and >>> online video, but there's usually no help. If I search around long >>> enough, I can often find an answer, but this is just way too fragmented >>> for me. Where can I find classes like that - online - paid or free? >>> Thanks. >> >> >> Yes, they definitely exist. I work with a company called Thinkful >> (www.thinkful.com) which does what you're talking about - you get a >> personal mentor with whom you meet regularly, plus access to a number >> of experts. It's a paid course. There are other such courses around, >> too, but I don't personally know their effectiveness. > > > Udacity.com is another. They have several free classes, or you can pay and > get access to instructors. Yes, I hear a lot about Udacity. Has anyone taken any of the pay-for classes? Are the instructors helpful, skilled, etc? Did it seem like good value for money? ChrisA -- https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Curious Omission In New-Style Formats
In printf-style formats, you can specify the number of digits for an integer
separately from the field width. E.g.
>>> "%#0.5x" % 0x123
'0x00123'
but not in new-style formats:
>>> "{:#0.5x}".format(0x123)
Traceback (most recent call last):
File "", line 1, in
ValueError: Precision not allowed in integer format specifier
The field width itself doesn’t give the right number of digits in this case:
>>> "{:#05x}".format(0x123)
'0x123'
because you lose 2 characters for the “0x” prefix.
--
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
