On 09/09/15 20:42, Laura Creighton wrote:
In a message of Wed, 09 Sep 2015 20:25:06 +0100, Alan Gauld writes:
On 09/09/15 19:20, Laura Creighton wrote:
If you are working on a small platform - think mobile device - and it has
a single channel bus to the storage area then one of the worst things
In a message of Wed, 09 Sep 2015 20:25:06 +0100, Alan Gauld writes:
>On 09/09/15 19:20, Laura Creighton wrote:
>If you are working on a small platform - think mobile device - and it has
>a single channel bus to the storage area then one of the worst things
>you can do is write lots of small chunks
On 09/09/15 19:20, Laura Creighton wrote:
In a message of Wed, 09 Sep 2015 17:42:05 +0100, Alan Gauld writes:
You can force the writes (I see Laura has shown how) but
mostly you should just let the OS do it's thing. Otherwise
you risk cluttering up the IO bus and preventing other
programs from w
On 09/09/2015 14:32, richard kappler wrote:
Yes, many questions today. I'm working on a data feed script that feeds
'events' into our test environment. In production, we monitor a camera that
captures an image as product passes by, gathers information such as
barcodes and package ID from the imag
Timo wrote:
> Op 09-09-15 om 15:41 schreef Steven D'Aprano:
>> On Wed, Sep 09, 2015 at 09:05:23AM -0400, richard kappler wrote:
>>> Would either or both of these work, if both, which is the better or more
>>> Pythonic way to do it, and why?
>> The first works, but isn't really the best way to do i
On Wed, Sep 09, 2015 at 08:20:44PM +0200, Laura Creighton wrote:
> In a message of Wed, 09 Sep 2015 17:42:05 +0100, Alan Gauld writes:
> >You can force the writes (I see Laura has shown how) but
> >mostly you should just let the OS do it's thing. Otherwise
> >you risk cluttering up the IO bus and p
On Wed, Sep 09, 2015 at 10:24:57AM -0400, richard kappler wrote:
> Under a different subject line (More Pythonic?) Steven D'Aprano commented:
>
> > And this will repeatedly open the file, append one line, then close it
> > again. Almost certainly not what you want -- it's wasteful and
> > potentia
Op 09-09-15 om 15:41 schreef Steven D'Aprano:
On Wed, Sep 09, 2015 at 09:05:23AM -0400, richard kappler wrote:
Would either or both of these work, if both, which is the better or more
Pythonic way to do it, and why?
The first works, but isn't really the best way to do it:
##
In a message of Wed, 09 Sep 2015 17:42:05 +0100, Alan Gauld writes:
>You can force the writes (I see Laura has shown how) but
>mostly you should just let the OS do it's thing. Otherwise
>you risk cluttering up the IO bus and preventing other
>programs from writing their files.
Is this something we
On 09/09/2015 18:59, Oscar Benjamin wrote:
On 9 September 2015 at 12:05, Francesco Loffredo via Tutor
wrote:
A quick solution is to add one "dummy" letter to the pool of the OP's
golfers.
I used "!" as the dummy one. This way, you end up with 101 triples, 11 of
which contain the dummy player.
B
On 9 September 2015 at 12:05, Francesco Loffredo via Tutor
wrote:
> Oscar Benjamin wrote:
>
> The problem is that there are 26 people and they are divided into
> groups of 3 each day. We would like to know if it is possible to
> arrange it so that each player plays each other player ex
On 09/09/15 15:24, richard kappler wrote:
f1 = open("output/test.log", 'a')
f1.write("this is a test")
f1.write("this is a test")
f1.write('why isn\'t this writing')
f1.close()
monitoring test.log as I went. Nothing was written to the file until I
closed it, or at least that's the way it a
On 09/09/15 15:29, richard kappler wrote:
Still not sure how to efficiently get the script to keep moving to the next
file in the directory though, in other words, for each iteration in the
loop, I want it to fetch, rename and send/save the next image in line. Hope
that brings better understandi
Thanks, tried them both, both work great on Linux. Now I understand better.
regards, Richard
On Wed, Sep 9, 2015 at 11:28 AM, Laura Creighton wrote:
> >I did a little experiment:
> >
> f1 = open("output/test.log", 'a')
> f1.write("this is a test")
> f1.write("this is a test")
> >
>I did a little experiment:
>
f1 = open("output/test.log", 'a')
f1.write("this is a test")
f1.write("this is a test")
f1.write('why isn\'t this writing')
f1.close()
If you want the thing written out, use f1.flush() whenever you want to
make sure this happens.
If you w
Peter Otten
>Those who regularly need different configurations probably use virtualenv,
>or virtual machines when the differences are not limited to Python.
Use tox for this.
https://testrun.org/tox/latest/
However for development purposes it often helps to have a
--force the_one_that_I_want opt
Albert-Jan, thanks for the response. shutil.copyfile does seem to be one of
the tools I need to make the copying, renaming the copy and saving it
elsewhere in one line instead of three or more.
Still not sure how to efficiently get the script to keep moving to the next
file in the directory though
Under a different subject line (More Pythonic?) Steven D'Aprano commented:
> And this will repeatedly open the file, append one line, then close it
> again. Almost certainly not what you want -- it's wasteful and
> potentially expensive.
And I get that. It does bring up another question though. W
Albert-Jan Roskam wrote:
>> To: tutor@python.org
>> From: __pete...@web.de
>> Date: Tue, 8 Sep 2015 21:37:07 +0200
>> Subject: Re: [Tutor] Fwd: find second occurance of string in line
>>
>> Albert-Jan Roskam wrote:
>>
>> >> import lxml.etree
>> >>
>> >> tree = lxml.etree.parse("example.xml")
>>
> Date: Wed, 9 Sep 2015 09:32:34 -0400
> From: richkapp...@gmail.com
> To: tutor@python.org
> Subject: [Tutor] iterating through a directory
>
> Yes, many questions today. I'm working on a data feed script that feeds
> 'events' into our test environment. In production, we monitor a camera that
> c
> It's not clear why you need the try...except: pass. Please provide some
more background information.
I don't need the try, this was more of a "are there different ways to do
this, which is better and why?" experiment. I am learning, so tend to write
script that is more brute force than elegant a
On Wed, Sep 09, 2015 at 09:05:23AM -0400, richard kappler wrote:
> Would either or both of these work, if both, which is the better or more
> Pythonic way to do it, and why?
The first works, but isn't really the best way to do it:
> ###
>
> import whatIsNeeded
>
> writefile
> It looks likes I was not clear enough: XML doesn't have the concept of lines.
When you process XML "by line" you have buggy code.
No Peter, I'm pretty sure it was I who was less than clear. The xml data is
generated by events, one line in a log for each event, so while xml doesn't
have the conce
richard kappler wrote:
> Would either or both of these work, if both, which is the better or more
> Pythonic way to do it, and why?
>
> ###
>
> import whatIsNeeded
>
> writefile = open("writefile", 'a')
>
> with open(readfile, 'r') as f:
> for line in f:
> if ke
Yes, many questions today. I'm working on a data feed script that feeds
'events' into our test environment. In production, we monitor a camera that
captures an image as product passes by, gathers information such as
barcodes and package ID from the image, and then sends out the data as a
line of xm
Would either or both of these work, if both, which is the better or more
Pythonic way to do it, and why?
###
import whatIsNeeded
writefile = open("writefile", 'a')
with open(readfile, 'r') as f:
for line in f:
if keyword in line:
do stuff
Oscar Benjamin wrote:
The problem is that there are 26 people and they are divided into
groups of 3 each day. We would like to know if it is possible to
arrange it so that each player plays each other player exactly once
over some period of days.
It is not exactly possible to
richard kappler wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 8, 2015 at 1:40 PM, Peter Otten <__pete...@web.de> wrote:
>> I'm inferring from the above that you do not really want the "second"
>> timestamp in the line -- there is no line left intace anyway;) -- but
>> rather
>> the one in the ... part.
>>
>> Here's a way
28 matches
Mail list logo
