Login | Register For Free | Help
Search for: (Advanced)

Mailing List Archive: Python: Python

save dictionary to a file without brackets.

 

 

First page Previous page 1 2 3 Next page Last page  View All Python python RSS feed   Index | Next | Previous | View Threaded


oscar.j.benjamin at gmail

Aug 9, 2012, 4:09 PM

Post #26 of 57 (2768 views)
Permalink
Re: save dictionary to a file without brackets. [In reply to]

> What do you think? is there a way to speed up the process?
> Thanks
> Giuseppe

Which part is slow? How slow is it?

A simple test to find the slow part of your code is to print messages
between the commands so that you can see how long it takes between each
message.

Oscar.


rosuav at gmail

Aug 9, 2012, 4:14 PM

Post #27 of 57 (2749 views)
Permalink
Re: save dictionary to a file without brackets. [In reply to]

On Fri, Aug 10, 2012 at 9:05 AM, Roy Smith <roy [at] panix> wrote:
> Python assumes you are a consenting adult. If you wish to engage in
> activities which are hazardous to your health, so be it.

... you mean, Python lets you make a hash of it?

*ducks for cover*

ChrisA
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list


roy at panix

Aug 9, 2012, 4:24 PM

Post #28 of 57 (2762 views)
Permalink
Re: save dictionary to a file without brackets. [In reply to]

In article <mailman.3135.1344554073.4697.python-list [at] python>,
Chris Angelico <rosuav [at] gmail> wrote:

> On Fri, Aug 10, 2012 at 9:05 AM, Roy Smith <roy [at] panix> wrote:
> > Python assumes you are a consenting adult. If you wish to engage in
> > activities which are hazardous to your health, so be it.
>
> ... you mean, Python lets you make a hash of it?
>

Only if you order it with spam, spam, spam, spam, spam, spam, and spam.
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list


breamoreboy at yahoo

Aug 9, 2012, 4:33 PM

Post #29 of 57 (2752 views)
Permalink
Re: save dictionary to a file without brackets. [In reply to]

On 10/08/2012 00:24, Roy Smith wrote:
> In article <mailman.3135.1344554073.4697.python-list [at] python>,
> Chris Angelico <rosuav [at] gmail> wrote:
>
>> On Fri, Aug 10, 2012 at 9:05 AM, Roy Smith <roy [at] panix> wrote:
>>> Python assumes you are a consenting adult. If you wish to engage in
>>> activities which are hazardous to your health, so be it.
>>
>> ... you mean, Python lets you make a hash of it?
>>
>
> Only if you order it with spam, spam, spam, spam, spam, spam, and spam.
>

Now now gentlemen we're getting slightly off topic here and wouldn't
want to upset the people who insist on staying on topic. Or would we? :)

--
Cheers.

Mark Lawrence.

--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list


d at davea

Aug 9, 2012, 4:38 PM

Post #30 of 57 (2745 views)
Permalink
Re: save dictionary to a file without brackets. [In reply to]

On 08/09/2012 06:54 PM, Andrew Cooper wrote:
> On 09/08/2012 23:26, Dave Angel wrote:
>> On 08/09/2012 06:03 PM, Andrew Cooper wrote:
>>> On 09/08/2012 22:34, Roman Vashkevich wrote:
>>>> Actually, they are different.
>>>> Put a dict.{iter}items() in an O(k^N) algorithm and make it a hundred thousand entries, and you will feel the difference.
>>>> Dict uses hashing to get a value from the dict and this is why it's O(1).
>>>>
>>> Sligtly off topic, but looking up a value in a dictionary is actually
>>> O(n) for all other entries in the dict which suffer a hash collision
>>> with the searched entry.
>>>
>>> True, a sensible choice of hash function will reduce n to 1 in common
>>> cases, but it becomes an important consideration for larger datasets.
>>>
>>> ~Andrew
>> I'm glad you're wrong for CPython's dictionaries. The only time the
>> lookup would degenerate to O[n] would be if the hash table had only one
>> slot. CPython sensibly increases the hash table size when it becomes
>> too small for efficiency.
>>
>>
>> Where have you seen dictionaries so poorly implemented?
>>
> Different n, which I should have made more clear. I was using it for
> consistency with O() notation. My statement was O(n) where n is the
> number of hash collisions.
That's a little like doing a survey, and reporting the results as
showing that 100% of the women hit their husbands, among the population
of women who hit their husbands.

In your original message, you already stated the assumption that a
proper hash algorithm would be chosen, then went on to apparently claim
that large datasets would still have an order n problem. That last is
what I was challenging.

The rest of your message here refers to client code, not the system.
> The choice of hash algorithm (or several depending on the
> implementation) should specifically be chosen to reduce collisions to
> aid in efficient space utilisation and lookup times, but any
> implementation must allow for collisions. There are certainly runtime
> methods of improving efficiency using amortized operations.
>
> As for poor implementations,
>
> class Foo(object):
>
> ...
>
> def __hash__(self):
> return 0
>
> I seriously found that in some older code I had the misfortune of
> reading. It didn't remain in that state for long.
>
> ~Andrew


--

DaveA

--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list


d at davea

Aug 9, 2012, 4:42 PM

Post #31 of 57 (2751 views)
Permalink
Re: save dictionary to a file without brackets. [In reply to]

On 08/09/2012 06:53 PM, Chris Angelico wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 10, 2012 at 8:26 AM, Dave Angel <d [at] davea> wrote:
>> On 08/09/2012 06:03 PM, Andrew Cooper wrote:
>>> O(n) for all other entries in the dict which suffer a hash collision
>>> with the searched entry.
>>>
>>> True, a sensible choice of hash function will reduce n to 1 in common
>>> cases, but it becomes an important consideration for larger datasets.
>> I'm glad you're wrong for CPython's dictionaries. The only time the
>> lookup would degenerate to O[n] would be if the hash table had only one
>> slot. CPython sensibly increases the hash table size when it becomes
>> too small for efficiency.
>>
>> Where have you seen dictionaries so poorly implemented?
> In vanilla CPython up to version (I think) 3.3, where it's possible to
> DoS the hash generator. Hash collisions are always possible, just
> ridiculously unlikely unless deliberately exploited.
>
> (And yes, I know an option was added to older versions to randomize
> the hashes there too. It's not active by default, so "vanilla CPython"
> is still vulnerable.)
>
> ChrisA

Thank you to you and others, who have corrected my over-general
response. I was not intending to claim anything about either a
deliberate DOS, nor a foolishly chosen hash function. But the message I
was replying to seemed to me to claim that for large datasets, even a
good hash algorithm would end up giving O(n) performance.



--

DaveA

--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list


oscar.j.benjamin at gmail

Aug 9, 2012, 5:03 PM

Post #32 of 57 (2749 views)
Permalink
Re: save dictionary to a file without brackets. [In reply to]

On Aug 10, 2012 12:34 AM, "Giuseppe Amatulli" <giuseppe.amatulli [at] gmail>
wrote:
>
> Ciao,
> is 12 minutes for 5000x5000 pixel image. half of the time is for
> reading the arrays.
> and the other half for making the loop.
> I will try again to incorporate the mask action in the loop
> and
> read the image line by line.
> Thanks
> ciao

That does seem slow. I'm sure it can be a lot faster than that.

Did you also write the code for reading the arrays? The loop can certainly
be made faster but if you can't make the array reading faster there's not
much point spending a long time trying to speed up the rest.

Oscar.


python.list at tim

Aug 9, 2012, 5:16 PM

Post #33 of 57 (2752 views)
Permalink
Re: save dictionary to a file without brackets. [In reply to]

On 08/09/12 18:33, Mark Lawrence wrote:
> On 10/08/2012 00:24, Roy Smith wrote:
>>> ... you mean, Python lets you make a hash of it?
>>
>> Only if you order it with spam, spam, spam, spam, spam, spam, and spam.
>
> Now now gentlemen we're getting slightly off topic here and wouldn't
> want to upset the people who insist on staying on topic. Or would we? :)

We apologise for the off-topicness in the thread. Those responsible
have been sacked...

-tkc



--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list


d at davea

Aug 9, 2012, 5:27 PM

Post #34 of 57 (2752 views)
Permalink
Re: save dictionary to a file without brackets. [In reply to]

On 08/09/2012 08:16 PM, Tim Chase wrote:
> On 08/09/12 18:33, Mark Lawrence wrote:
>> On 10/08/2012 00:24, Roy Smith wrote:
>>>> ... you mean, Python lets you make a hash of it?
>>> Only if you order it with spam, spam, spam, spam, spam, spam, and spam.
>> Now now gentlemen we're getting slightly off topic here and wouldn't
>> want to upset the people who insist on staying on topic. Or would we? :)
> We apologise for the off-topicness in the thread. Those responsible
> have been sacked...
>
> -tkc
>
>
>
Paper or plastic?


--

DaveA

--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list


rosuav at gmail

Aug 9, 2012, 5:31 PM

Post #35 of 57 (2754 views)
Permalink
Re: save dictionary to a file without brackets. [In reply to]

On Fri, Aug 10, 2012 at 10:16 AM, Tim Chase
<python.list [at] tim> wrote:
> We apologise for the off-topicness in the thread. Those responsible
> have been sacked...

So if you take every mapping variable in your program and name them
"dFoo", "dBar", "dQuux", etc, for "dict"... would that be a dirty
Hungarian dictionary?

Excuse me, I'll go and sack myself now.

ChrisA
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list


dihedral88888 at googlemail

Aug 9, 2012, 10:35 PM

Post #36 of 57 (2758 views)
Permalink
Re: save dictionary to a file without brackets. [In reply to]

Andrew Cooper於 2012年8月10日星期五UTC+8上午6時03分26秒寫道:
> On 09/08/2012 22:34, Roman Vashkevich wrote:
>
> > Actually, they are different.
>
> > Put a dict.{iter}items() in an O(k^N) algorithm and make it a hundred thousand entries, and you will feel the difference.
>
> > Dict uses hashing to get a value from the dict and this is why it's O(1).
>
> >
>
>
>
> Sligtly off topic, but looking up a value in a dictionary is actually
>
> O(n) for all other entries in the dict which suffer a hash collision
>
> with the searched entry.
>
>
>
> True, a sensible choice of hash function will reduce n to 1 in common
>
> cases, but it becomes an important consideration for larger datasets.
>
>
>
> ~Andrew

This is the classical problem of storing the hash collision items one by one.
Those items should be stored by some order.

--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list


steve+comp.lang.python at pearwood

Aug 10, 2012, 1:54 AM

Post #37 of 57 (2753 views)
Permalink
Re: save dictionary to a file without brackets. [In reply to]

On Thu, 09 Aug 2012 19:16:58 -0500, Tim Chase wrote:

> On 08/09/12 18:33, Mark Lawrence wrote:
>> On 10/08/2012 00:24, Roy Smith wrote:
>>>> ... you mean, Python lets you make a hash of it?
>>>
>>> Only if you order it with spam, spam, spam, spam, spam, spam, and
>>> spam.
>>
>> Now now gentlemen we're getting slightly off topic here and wouldn't
>> want to upset the people who insist on staying on topic. Or would we?
>> :)
>
> We apologise for the off-topicness in the thread. Those responsible
> have been sacked...


Sacked? They were beaten to death with a large halibut!


--
Steven
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list


breamoreboy at yahoo

Aug 10, 2012, 2:37 AM

Post #38 of 57 (2751 views)
Permalink
Re: save dictionary to a file without brackets. [In reply to]

On 10/08/2012 09:54, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
> On Thu, 09 Aug 2012 19:16:58 -0500, Tim Chase wrote:
>
>> On 08/09/12 18:33, Mark Lawrence wrote:
>>> On 10/08/2012 00:24, Roy Smith wrote:
>>>>> ... you mean, Python lets you make a hash of it?
>>>>
>>>> Only if you order it with spam, spam, spam, spam, spam, spam, and
>>>> spam.
>>>
>>> Now now gentlemen we're getting slightly off topic here and wouldn't
>>> want to upset the people who insist on staying on topic. Or would we?
>>> :)
>>
>> We apologise for the off-topicness in the thread. Those responsible
>> have been sacked...
>
>
> Sacked? They were beaten to death with a large halibut!
>
>

Well whatever you do *DON'T* mention Cython. I mentioned it just now but
I think I've got away with it.

--
Cheers.

Mark Lawrence.

--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list


roy at panix

Aug 10, 2012, 5:29 AM

Post #39 of 57 (2756 views)
Permalink
Re: save dictionary to a file without brackets. [In reply to]

In article <mailman.3147.1344591354.4697.python-list [at] python>,
Mark Lawrence <breamoreboy [at] yahoo> wrote:

> On 10/08/2012 09:54, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
> > On Thu, 09 Aug 2012 19:16:58 -0500, Tim Chase wrote:
> >
> >> On 08/09/12 18:33, Mark Lawrence wrote:
> >>> On 10/08/2012 00:24, Roy Smith wrote:
> >>>>> ... you mean, Python lets you make a hash of it?
> >>>>
> >>>> Only if you order it with spam, spam, spam, spam, spam, spam, and
> >>>> spam.
> >>>
> >>> Now now gentlemen we're getting slightly off topic here and wouldn't
> >>> want to upset the people who insist on staying on topic. Or would we?
> >>> :)
> >>
> >> We apologise for the off-topicness in the thread. Those responsible
> >> have been sacked...
> >
> >
> > Sacked? They were beaten to death with a large halibut!
> >
> >
>
> Well whatever you do *DON'T* mention Cython. I mentioned it just now but
> I think I've got away with it.

What if I spell it Kython?
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list


breamoreboy at yahoo

Aug 10, 2012, 7:47 AM

Post #40 of 57 (2758 views)
Permalink
Re: save dictionary to a file without brackets. [In reply to]

On 10/08/2012 13:29, Roy Smith wrote:
> In article <mailman.3147.1344591354.4697.python-list [at] python>,
> Mark Lawrence <breamoreboy [at] yahoo> wrote:
>
>> On 10/08/2012 09:54, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
>>> On Thu, 09 Aug 2012 19:16:58 -0500, Tim Chase wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 08/09/12 18:33, Mark Lawrence wrote:
>>>>> On 10/08/2012 00:24, Roy Smith wrote:
>>>>>>> ... you mean, Python lets you make a hash of it?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Only if you order it with spam, spam, spam, spam, spam, spam, and
>>>>>> spam.
>>>>>
>>>>> Now now gentlemen we're getting slightly off topic here and wouldn't
>>>>> want to upset the people who insist on staying on topic. Or would we?
>>>>> :)
>>>>
>>>> We apologise for the off-topicness in the thread. Those responsible
>>>> have been sacked...
>>>
>>>
>>> Sacked? They were beaten to death with a large halibut!
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Well whatever you do *DON'T* mention Cython. I mentioned it just now but
>> I think I've got away with it.
>
> What if I spell it Kython?
>

What a silly bunt!!!

--
Cheers.

Mark Lawrence.

--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list


dihedral88888 at googlemail

Aug 10, 2012, 10:46 AM

Post #41 of 57 (2753 views)
Permalink
Re: save dictionary to a file without brackets. [In reply to]

Dave Angel於 2012年8月10日星期五UTC+8上午5時47分45秒寫道:
> On 08/09/2012 05:34 PM, Roman Vashkevich wrote:
>
> > Actually, they are different.
>
> > Put a dict.{iter}items() in an O(k^N) algorithm and make it a hundred thousand entries, and you will feel the difference.
>
> > Dict uses hashing to get a value from the dict and this is why it's O(1).
>
>
>
> Sure, that's why
>
>
>
> for key in dict:
>
> print key[0], key[1], dict[key]
>
>
>
> is probably slower than
>
>
>
> for (edge1, edge2), cost in d.iteritems(): # or .items()
>
> print edge1, edge2, cost
>
>
>
>
>
> So, the latter is both faster and easier to read. Why are you arguing against it?
>
>
>
> Also, please stop top-posting. It's impolite here, and makes it much harder to figure out who is saying what, in what order.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --
>
>
>
> DaveA

OK, lets estimate the hash colision rate first.

For those items hashed to the same key, I'll store a sorted list with a
known lenth m to be accessed in O(LOG(M)).

Of couse another hash can be attatched.
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list


dihedral88888 at googlemail

Aug 10, 2012, 10:46 AM

Post #42 of 57 (2753 views)
Permalink
Re: save dictionary to a file without brackets. [In reply to]

Dave Angel於 2012年8月10日星期五UTC+8上午5時47分45秒寫道:
> On 08/09/2012 05:34 PM, Roman Vashkevich wrote:
>
> > Actually, they are different.
>
> > Put a dict.{iter}items() in an O(k^N) algorithm and make it a hundred thousand entries, and you will feel the difference.
>
> > Dict uses hashing to get a value from the dict and this is why it's O(1).
>
>
>
> Sure, that's why
>
>
>
> for key in dict:
>
> print key[0], key[1], dict[key]
>
>
>
> is probably slower than
>
>
>
> for (edge1, edge2), cost in d.iteritems(): # or .items()
>
> print edge1, edge2, cost
>
>
>
>
>
> So, the latter is both faster and easier to read. Why are you arguing against it?
>
>
>
> Also, please stop top-posting. It's impolite here, and makes it much harder to figure out who is saying what, in what order.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --
>
>
>
> DaveA

OK, lets estimate the hash colision rate first.

For those items hashed to the same key, I'll store a sorted list with a
known lenth m to be accessed in O(LOG(M)).

Of couse another hash can be attatched.
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list


steve+comp.lang.python at pearwood

Aug 11, 2012, 4:26 AM

Post #43 of 57 (2751 views)
Permalink
Re: save dictionary to a file without brackets. [In reply to]

On Fri, 10 Aug 2012 08:53:43 +1000, Chris Angelico wrote:

> On Fri, Aug 10, 2012 at 8:26 AM, Dave Angel <d [at] davea> wrote:
>> On 08/09/2012 06:03 PM, Andrew Cooper wrote:
>>> O(n) for all other entries in the dict which suffer a hash collision
>>> with the searched entry.
>>>
>>> True, a sensible choice of hash function will reduce n to 1 in common
>>> cases, but it becomes an important consideration for larger datasets.
>>
>> I'm glad you're wrong for CPython's dictionaries. The only time the
>> lookup would degenerate to O[n] would be if the hash table had only one
>> slot. CPython sensibly increases the hash table size when it becomes
>> too small for efficiency.
>>
>> Where have you seen dictionaries so poorly implemented?
>
> In vanilla CPython up to version (I think) 3.3, where it's possible to
> DoS the hash generator. Hash collisions are always possible, just
> ridiculously unlikely unless deliberately exploited.

Not so unlikely actually.

py> hash(3)
3
py> hash(2**64 + 2)
3

py> hash(-1)
-2
py> hash(-2)
-2


By its very nature, a hash function cannot fail to have collisions. The
problem is that in general you have an essentially unlimited number of
objects being mapped to a large but still finite number of hash values.



--
Steven
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list


dihedral88888 at googlemail

Aug 12, 2012, 4:59 AM

Post #44 of 57 (2742 views)
Permalink
Re: save dictionary to a file without brackets. [In reply to]

Steven D'Aprano於 2012年8月11日星期六UTC+8下午7時26分37秒寫道:
> On Fri, 10 Aug 2012 08:53:43 +1000, Chris Angelico wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Fri, Aug 10, 2012 at 8:26 AM, Dave Angel <d [at] davea> wrote:
>
> >> On 08/09/2012 06:03 PM, Andrew Cooper wrote:
>
> >>> O(n) for all other entries in the dict which suffer a hash collision
>
> >>> with the searched entry.
>
> >>>
>
> >>> True, a sensible choice of hash function will reduce n to 1 in common
>
> >>> cases, but it becomes an important consideration for larger datasets.
>
> >>
>
> >> I'm glad you're wrong for CPython's dictionaries. The only time the
>
> >> lookup would degenerate to O[n] would be if the hash table had only one
>
> >> slot. CPython sensibly increases the hash table size when it becomes
>
> >> too small for efficiency.
>
> >>
>
> >> Where have you seen dictionaries so poorly implemented?
>
> >
>
> > In vanilla CPython up to version (I think) 3.3, where it's possible to
>
> > DoS the hash generator. Hash collisions are always possible, just
>
> > ridiculously unlikely unless deliberately exploited.
>
>
>
> Not so unlikely actually.
>
>
>
> py> hash(3)
>
> 3
>
> py> hash(2**64 + 2)
>
> 3
>
>
>
> py> hash(-1)
>
> -2
>
> py> hash(-2)
>
> -2
>
>
>
>
>
> By its very nature, a hash function cannot fail to have collisions. The
>
> problem is that in general you have an essentially unlimited number of
>
> objects being mapped to a large but still finite number of hash values.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --
>
> Steven



Steven D'Aprano於 2012年8月11日星期六UTC+8下午7時26分37秒寫道:
> On Fri, 10 Aug 2012 08:53:43 +1000, Chris Angelico wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Fri, Aug 10, 2012 at 8:26 AM, Dave Angel <d [at] davea> wrote:
>
> >> On 08/09/2012 06:03 PM, Andrew Cooper wrote:
>
> >>> O(n) for all other entries in the dict which suffer a hash collision
>
> >>> with the searched entry.
>
> >>>
>
> >>> True, a sensible choice of hash function will reduce n to 1 in common
>
> >>> cases, but it becomes an important consideration for larger datasets.
>
> >>
>
> >> I'm glad you're wrong for CPython's dictionaries. The only time the
>
> >> lookup would degenerate to O[n] would be if the hash table had only one
>
> >> slot. CPython sensibly increases the hash table size when it becomes
>
> >> too small for efficiency.
>
> >>
>
> >> Where have you seen dictionaries so poorly implemented?
>
> >
>
> > In vanilla CPython up to version (I think) 3.3, where it's possible to
>
> > DoS the hash generator. Hash collisions are always possible, just
>
> > ridiculously unlikely unless deliberately exploited.
>
>
>
> Not so unlikely actually.
>
>
>
> py> hash(3)
>
> 3
>
> py> hash(2**64 + 2)
>
> 3
>
>
>
> py> hash(-1)
>
> -2
>
> py> hash(-2)
>
> -2
>
>
>
>
>
> By its very nature, a hash function cannot fail to have collisions. The
>
> problem is that in general you have an essentially unlimited number of
>
> objects being mapped to a large but still finite number of hash values.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --
>
> Steven

Lets check the basic operations of a hash table or so-called a dictionary first.

If the dictionary is implemented toward faster in searching items,
then it is slightly different in the insertion and the deletion operations of
(key, value) pairs.


--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list


wuwei23 at gmail

Aug 12, 2012, 5:15 PM

Post #45 of 57 (2735 views)
Permalink
Re: save dictionary to a file without brackets. [In reply to]

On Aug 10, 7:37pm, Mark Lawrence <breamore...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> Well whatever you do *DON'T* mention Cython. I mentioned it just now but
> I think I've got away with it.

While I'm not against threads straying off topic, you're beginning to
come across as a bit of an asshole now.

Just let it go.
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list


steve+comp.lang.python at pearwood

Aug 13, 2012, 1:05 AM

Post #46 of 57 (2738 views)
Permalink
Re: save dictionary to a file without brackets. [In reply to]

On Sun, 12 Aug 2012 17:15:12 -0700, alex23 wrote:

> On Aug 10, 7:37 pm, Mark Lawrence <breamore...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>> Well whatever you do *DON'T* mention Cython. I mentioned it just now
>> but I think I've got away with it.
>
> While I'm not against threads straying off topic, you're beginning to
> come across as a bit of an asshole now.
>
> Just let it go.

Chill out Alex, it's all good. Mark was channelling a famous scene from
"Fawlty Towers", staring Monty Python's own John Cleese, hence it is on-
topic, for the sillier definitions of on-topic.

After making a German tourist cry with his repeated insensitive comments
about World War Two, Basil Fawlty (Cleese) -- who is an obnoxious git at
the best of times but is currently suffering from a concussion -- remarks
to his staff, "Don't mention the war, I mentioned it once but I think I
got away with it."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7xnNhzgcWTk



--
Steven
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list


breamoreboy at yahoo

Aug 13, 2012, 5:37 AM

Post #47 of 57 (2740 views)
Permalink
Re: save dictionary to a file without brackets. [In reply to]

On 13/08/2012 01:15, alex23 wrote:
> On Aug 10, 7:37 pm, Mark Lawrence <breamore...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>> Well whatever you do *DON'T* mention Cython. I mentioned it just now but
>> I think I've got away with it.
>
> While I'm not against threads straying off topic, you're beginning to
> come across as a bit of an asshole now.
>
> Just let it go.
>

Why on your say so?

--
Cheers.

Mark Lawrence.

--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list


rustompmody at gmail

Aug 13, 2012, 8:55 AM

Post #48 of 57 (2716 views)
Permalink
Re: save dictionary to a file without brackets. [In reply to]

On Aug 13, 1:05pm, Steven D'Aprano <steve
+comp.lang.pyt...@pearwood.info> wrote:
>
> Chill out Alex, it's all good. Mark was channelling a famous scene from
> "Fawlty Towers", staring Monty Python's own John Cleese, hence it is on-
> topic, for the sillier definitions of on-topic.

Ha! Thanks for that connection.
Watched and enjoyed Fawlty towers as a kid but have never seen a Monty
Python.
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list


wuwei23 at gmail

Aug 13, 2012, 9:14 AM

Post #49 of 57 (2713 views)
Permalink
Re: save dictionary to a file without brackets. [In reply to]

On Aug 13, 10:37pm, Mark Lawrence <breamore...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> Why on your say so?

My mistake, I didn't realise you wanted to sound so tedious. Knock
yourself out.


--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list


wuwei23 at gmail

Aug 13, 2012, 9:16 AM

Post #50 of 57 (2713 views)
Permalink
Re: save dictionary to a file without brackets. [In reply to]

On Aug 13, 6:05pm, Steven D'Aprano <steve
+comp.lang.pyt...@pearwood.info> wrote:
> Chill out Alex, it's all good. Mark was channelling a famous scene from
> "Fawlty Towers", staring Monty Python's own John Cleese, hence it is on-
> topic, for the sillier definitions of on-topic.

Thank you, yes, I get that. However, Mark has repeatedly been
directing this dickishness at Stefan Behnel ever since he was asked to
not stray off topic. While Mark doesn't have to listen to anyone else
about his behaviour, he can't expect not to be called a dick when
acting like one.
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list

First page Previous page 1 2 3 Next page Last page  View All Python python RSS feed   Index | Next | Previous | View Threaded
 
 


Interested in having your list archived? Contact Gossamer Threads
 
  Web Applications & Managed Hosting Powered by Gossamer Threads Inc.