bhaaluu wrote:
> On 10/2/07, Kent Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> traceback.print_stack() prints the stack trace to the current point of
>> execution. No forced error or drama needed :-)
>>
>> Kent
>
> Exactly how is this used, please?
>
> Traceback (most recent call last):
> File "print_
bhaaluu wrote:
> On 10/2/07, Kent Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> traceback.print_stack() prints the stack trace to the current point of
>> execution. No forced error or drama needed :-)
>>
>> Kent
>
> Exactly how is this used, please?
>
> Traceback (most recent call last):
> File "print_
On 10/2/07, Kent Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> traceback.print_stack() prints the stack trace to the current point of
> execution. No forced error or drama needed :-)
>
> Kent
Exactly how is this used, please?
Traceback (most recent call last):
File "print_stack.py", line 160, in ?
Suzanne Peel wrote:
>
> Thankyou for your help,
>
> However both suggestions will only give me that name of the 1st file
> executed eg when I use *execfile('EA_Owner.py')* the name returned
> when the __file__ or sys.argv[0] is executed always EA_Owner.py .
>
> The Traceback feature is an ex
Alan Gauld wrote:
> "Suzanne Peel" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote
>
>
>> However both suggestions will only give me that name of the 1st file
>> executed eg when I use execfile('EA_Owner.py') the name returned
>> when
>> the __file__ or sys.argv[0] is executed always EA_Owner.py .
>>
>
> You
"Suzanne Peel" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote
> However both suggestions will only give me that name of the 1st file
> executed eg when I use execfile('EA_Owner.py') the name returned
> when
> the __file__ or sys.argv[0] is executed always EA_Owner.py .
You didn't mention you were doing wacky stuf
Thankyou for your help,
However both suggestions will only give me that name of the 1st file
executed eg when I use execfile('EA_Owner.py') the name returned when
the __file__ or sys.argv[0] is executed always EA_Owner.py .
The Traceback feature is an excellent resource however the errors I
Suzanne Peel wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> I have a very simple question that I cannot find the answer to ... if I
> knew the correct question to ask it would be simple.
>
> I am trying to find the name of the file I am currently running (please
> don't laugh at me I know it's simple but I cannot figure
On 02/10/2007, Suzanne Peel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I am trying to find the name of the file I am currently running (please
> don't laugh at me I know it's simple but I cannot figure it out).
Have a look at sys.argv[0] :-)
--
John.
___
Tutor mai
Hi,
I have a very simple question that I cannot find the answer to ... if I
knew the correct question to ask it would be simple.
I am trying to find the name of the file I am currently running (please
don't laugh at me I know it's simple but I cannot figure it out).
I want to know where my er
On Mar 31, 2005, at 23:07, Alan Gauld wrote:
And if Sun ever get round to finishing their JVM on a chip
we'll have a chip that is both OO and procedural!
At that point it would be a JRM, then, wouldn't it? :D
-- Max
maxnoel_fr at yahoo dot fr -- ICQ #85274019
"Look at you hacker... A pathetic c
Just to be picky...
> code to be executed by the processor. Machine language is not
> object-oriented.
In some cases it is. The Rekursiv computer by Linn systems had
a CPU that had an OO machine language which supported parallelism
by exposing 'threads' as active objects at the machine code l
> I was wondering, can you make a program the uses alot of classes do
> the exact same thing with out useing classes?
Yes you can always write a program without classes but it may be a
lot more work and its likely to be a lot harder to maintain.
Especially if its a big program.
However if you
On Wed, 30 Mar 2005, Kevin wrote:
> I was wondering, can you make a program the uses alot of classes do the
> exact same thing with out useing classes?
Hi Kevin,
Yes. We can even do a lot of object oriented programming without classes,
although it might be slightly painful.
You asked an ea
On Mar 30, 2005, at 23:00, Kevin wrote:
I was wondering, can you make a program the uses alot of classes do
the exact same thing with out useing classes?
Yes. At some point, a program always has to be translated to machine
code to be executed by the processor. Machine language is not
object-orie
Yes you can, but if an app uses a lot of classes, chances are that
it's the simplest way to do it. OOP is really just a convenient way to
work with code.
On Wed, 30 Mar 2005 16:00:03 -0500, Kevin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I was wondering, can you make a program the uses alot of classes do
> th
Sure.
Thanks,
Ryan
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Kevin
Sent: Wednesday, March 30, 2005 4:00 PM
To: tutor@python.org
Subject: [Tutor] A simple question about creating a program
I was wondering, can you make a program the uses alot of
I was wondering, can you make a program the uses alot of classes do
the exact same thing with out useing classes?
___
Tutor maillist - Tutor@python.org
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/tutor
18 matches
Mail list logo
