>> Funny, you got to the last line of "import this" but apparently
>> skipped the second line:
>>
>> Explicit is better than implicit.
>>
>> And you didn't even post your message on April 1 so no, I can't laugh
>> even though I'd like to.
>
> Can you be less condescending?
Of course! :)
Anyway, t
On Thu, May 24, 2012 at 9:04 AM, Daniel Fetchinson
wrote:
> Funny, you got to the last line of "import this" but apparently
> skipped the second line:
>
> Explicit is better than implicit.
>
> And you didn't even post your message on April 1 so no, I can't laugh
> even though I'd like to.
Can you
On Fri, May 25, 2012 at 1:02 PM, Temia Eszteri wrote:
> But then we've got "Simple is better than complex", and "Complex is
> better than complicated". Of course if we decided to start iterating
> through the zen of Python's verses and continually modifying the
> example code to fit, it would get
[Default] On 25 May 2012 02:47:11 GMT, Steven D'Aprano
wrote:
>Do you object to the ability to write standard Python modules?
>
># module.py
>def spam(obj, n):
>return len(obj) + n
>
>def ham(obj):
>return spam(obj, 23)
>
>
>By your apparent misunderstanding of the Zen, you think that thi
Pardon me for breaking threading, but Daniel's response is not available
on my ISP's news server, and I only discovered it by accident.
On Thu May 24 15:04:34 CEST 2012, Daniel Fetchinson wrote:
> > On Thu, 24 May 2012 08:50:59 +, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
> > From the Zen of Python ("import t
> >From the Zen of Python ("import this"):
>
> Namespaces are one honking great idea -- let's do more of those!
>
>
> Inspired by this, I have a decorator that abuses function closures to
> create a namespace type with the following properties:
>
> - all methods are static methods that do not take
