1

Topic: The textbook on python for those who "after with ++" is searched

Whether there is what-thread textbook on python without water, at high level of severity of presentation (in an ideal, academic) that have been given only in essence distinct from with ++ convergence? Undertook to read here recommended  "the python is studied" and was terrified - 1200 (!!!) pages, and presentation of the same cycle begins only on 400 (!!!). And it is necessary to read everything for you are afraid to pass any basic things. upd. Found similar that wanted: http://www.python-course.eu

2

Re: The textbook on python for those who "after with ++" is searched

Hello, _hum _, you wrote: whether __> there is what-thread textbook on python without water, at high level of severity of presentation (in an ideal, academic) that have been given only in essence distinct from with ++ convergence? __> undertook to read here recommended  "the python is studied" and was terrified - 1200 (!!!) pages, and presentation of the same cycle begins only on 400 (!!!). And it is necessary to read everything for you are afraid to pass any basic things. And than native dock with  it is bad? There it is extreme compact and on business.

3

Re: The textbook on python for those who "after with ++" is searched

4

Re: The textbook on python for those who "after with ++" is searched

5

Re: The textbook on python for those who "after with ++" is searched

Hello, _hum _, you wrote: whether __> there is what-thread textbook on python without water, at high level of severity of presentation (in an ideal, academic) that have been given only in essence distinct from with ++ convergence? __> undertook to read here recommended  "the python is studied" and was terrified - 1200 (!!!) pages, and presentation of the same cycle begins only on 400 (!!!). And it is necessary to read everything for you are afraid to pass any basic things. Not strictly under your requirements, but it is rather practical at passage from other programming language. Dive Into Python is a free Python book for experienced programmers. It was originally hosted at DiveIntoPython.org, but the author has pulled down all copies. It is being mirrored here. You can read the book online, or download it in a variety of formats. It is also available in multiple languages. http://www.diveintopython.net/

6

Re: The textbook on python for those who "after with ++" is searched

Hello, netch80 is shorter, found something more or less that I wanted: http://www.python-course.eu the only thing, there all the same accurately is not selected that there are simple values, and there are composite. The composite consist of links to component values. That is, L = [1, [2,3]] as a result gives on semantics L-> ref-> [ref_1-> 1, ref_2-> [ref_3-> 2, ref_4-> 3]] then it is clear, why K = L [:] K [1 [1] = ' x ' print (L) gives [1, [2, ' x ']] and at the same time K = L [:] K [1] = ' x ' print (L) gives [1, [2,3]] (because L [:] Forms object [copy_of_ref_1, copy_of_ref_2], instead of [1, [2,3]]) and it is not necessary any philosophical courses. Simply enough on the classic: type - set of values + a dial-up of admissible operations over these values the selected type the link - with two operations: operation of binding with value / operation of the link to value simple types - the types, not demanding for the determination of engaging of values of other types composite types - all remaining. Values of composite types in a python consist of links all.

7

Re: The textbook on python for those who "after with ++" is searched

Hello, _hum _, you wrote: __> is shorter, found something more or less that I wanted: http://www.python-course.eu __> the only thing, there all the same accurately is not selected that there are simple values, and there are composite. The composite consist of links to component values. Well, this some simplification. If list, at it not only a role as container of links. But for first approximation it is possible so to say. __> (because L [:] Forms object [copy_of_ref_1, copy_of_ref_2], instead of [1, [2,3]]) Yes, so. It is called shallow copy, and for deep copy there are separate means (copy.deepcopy(). __> also it is not necessary any philosophical courses. Simply enough on the classic: __> type - set of values + a dial-up of admissible operations over these values to define "value", just and philosophical courses Therefore are required and different style of teaching depending on that is known/is already mastered turns out. __> the selected type the link - with two operations: operation of binding with value / operation of the link to value Here already a discrepancy - that "value" above means. When you write "x=1", x communicates not with value, and with object of type "whole" and value 1. Yes, x - the link. But operation of binding with __. The object "whole 1" is predetermined, but from it the essence does not change. List L - was the list of links, but L [0] - the link on whole, L [1] - the link to other list. Copy L [:] - the list from the same links. And access under the link - yes, goes to object. __> simple types - the types, not demanding for the determination of engaging of values of other types __> composite types - all remaining. Values of composite types in a python consist of links For entrance in a subject - suits. It is already necessary to consider further, how these links are included into them.

8

Re: The textbook on python for those who "after with ++" is searched

Hello, netch80, you wrote: N> Hello, _hum _, you wrote: __>> also it is not necessary any philosophical courses. Simply enough on the classic: __>> type - set of values + a dial-up of admissible operations over these values N> to define "value", just and philosophical courses Therefore are required and different style of teaching depending on that is known/is already mastered turns out. Value it is possible to define that the selected type the link - with two operations can turn out as a result of calculating process __>>: operation of binding with value / operation of the link to value N> Here already a discrepancy - that "value" above means. Simple types - the types, not demanding for the determination of engaging of values of other types __>> composite types - all remaining see above __>>. Values of composite types in a python consist of links N> For entrance in a subject - suits. It is already necessary to consider further, how these links are included into them. A question: Why about it in docks to a python words? Such incompetent developers of language?

9

Re: The textbook on python for those who "after with ++" is searched

Hello, _hum _, you wrote: __> L->> ref-> [ref_1-> 1, ref_2-> [ref_3-> 2, ref_4-> 3]] __> ref_1, ref_2, ref_3 = 1, 2, 3 L = [ref_1, [ref_2, ref_3]] ref_1 = 100500 print (L) [1, [2, 3]] All did fairly. Or here the such. def Print (header, sequence): print ("%s%s" % (header, [str (e) for e in sequence])) class Int: def __ init __ (self, value): self. Value = value def __ str __ (self): return str (self. Value) size = 5 intFirst = [int (0) for i in range (size)] IntFirst = [Int (0) for i in range (size)] intSecond = [int (0)] * size IntSecond = [Int (0)] * size Print ("intFirst:", intFirst) Print ("IntFirst:", IntFirst) Print ("intSecond:", intSecond) Print ("IntSecond:", IntSecond) print () intFirst [2] = 100500 IntFirst [2].Value = 100500 intSecond [2] = 100500 IntSecond [2].Value = 100500 Print ("intFirst IntFirst) Print ("intSecond:", intSecond) Print ("IntSecond:", IntSecond) intFirst: [' 0 ', ' 0 ', ' 0 ', ' 0 ', ' 0 '] IntFirst: [' 0 ', ' 0 ', ' 0 ', ' 0 ', ' 0 '] intSecond: [' 0 ', ' 0 ', ' 0 ', ' 0 ', ' 0 '] IntSecond: [' 0 ', ' 0 ', ' 0 ', ' 0 ', ' 0 '] intFirst: [' 0 ', ' 0 ', ' 100500 ', ' 0 ', ' 0 '] IntFirst: [' 0 ', ' 0 ', ' 100500 ', ' 0 ', ' 0 '] intSecond: [' 0 ', ' 0 ', ' 100500 ', ' 0 ', ' 0 '] IntSecond: [' 100500 ', ' 100500 ', ' 100500 ', ' 100500 ', ' 100500 '] That with IntSecond the such happened?

10

Re: The textbook on python for those who "after with ++" is searched

Hello, StatujaLeha, you wrote: SL> Hello, _hum _, you wrote: __>> L->>> ref-> [ref_1-> 1, ref_2-> [ref_3-> 2, ref_4-> 3]] __>> SL> SL> ref_1, ref_2, ref_3 = 1, 2, 3 SL> L = [ref_1, [ref_2, ref_3]] SL> ref_1 = 100500 SL> print (L) SL> SL> SL> [1, [2, 3]] SL> All did fairly. Not absolutely understood, to what you it generally. If to that contradicts told by me above you are mistaken. All and should be: L = [ref_1, [ref_2, ref_3]] gives L-> ref-> [ref_a1-> 1, ref_a2-> [ref_a3-> 2, ref_a4-> 3]] # (there is a new composite object with new links, to which objects are anchored, to which links transferred in the list) refer that is why ref_1 = 100500 does not change L and here if so: ref_1, ref_2, ref_3 = [0,1], 2, 3 L = [ref_1, [ref_2, ref_3]] ref_1 [1] = 100500 print (L) that would change [[0, 100500], [2, 3]] because ref_a1 and ref_1 refer to the same object, and thus there is its editing through ref_1 (instead of binding change ref_1 as in the first case) SL> Or here the such. SL> SL> def Print (header, sequence): SL> print ("%s%s" % (header, [str (e) for e in sequence])) SL> class Int: SL> def __ init __ (self, value): SL> self. Value = value SL> def __ str __ (self): SL> return str (self. Value) SL> size = 5 SL> intFirst = [int (0) for i in range (size)] SL> IntFirst = [Int (0) for i in range (size)] SL> intSecond = [int (0)] * size SL> IntSecond = [Int (0)] * size SL> Print ("intFirst:", intFirst) SL> Print ("IntFirst:", IntFirst) SL> Print ("intSecond:", intSecond) SL> Print ("IntSecond:" IntSecond) SL> print () SL> intFirst [2] = 100500 SL> IntFirst [2].Value = 100500 SL> intSecond [2] = 100500 SL> IntSecond [2].Value = 100500 SL> Print ("intFirst:", intFirst) SL> Print ("IntFirst:", IntFirst) SL> Print ("intSecond:", intSecond) SL> Print ("IntSecond:" IntSecond) SL> SL> SL> intFirst: [' 0 ', ' 0 ', ' 0 ', ' 0 ', ' 0 '] SL> IntFirst: [' 0 ', ' 0 ', ' 0 ', ' 0 ', ' 0 '] SL> intSecond: [' 0 ', ' 0 ', ' 0 ', ' 0 ', ' 0 '] SL> IntSecond: [' 0 ', ' 0 ', ' 0 ', ' 0 ', ' 0 '] SL> intFirst: [' 0 ', ' 0 ', ' 100500 ', ' 0 ', ' 0 '] SL> IntFirst: [' 0 ', ' 0 ', ' 100500 ', ' 0 ', ' 0 '] SL> intSecond: [' 0 ', ' 0 ', ' 100500 ', ' 0 ', ' 0 '] SL> IntSecond: [' 100500 ', ' 100500 ', ' 100500 ', ' 100500 ', ' 100500 '] SL> That with IntSecond the such happened? Here the same. Here the example is easier: IntFirst = [0] * 5 # dk-fakto, [ref_v] + [copy_1_of_ref_v] +... + [copy_4_of_ref_v], where ref_v-> 0 IntSecond = [[0]] * 5 # dk-fakto . + [copy_4_of_ref_l], where ref_l-> [ref_u-> 0] IntFirst [1] = 5 # a rebinding copy_1_of_ref_v to value 5 IntSecond [1 [0] = 5 # a rebinding ref_u to value 5 print (IntFirst) print (IntSecond) output: [0, 5, 0, 0, 0] [[5], [5], [5], [5], [5]] to tell the truth, I do not understand, what for language entered such difficult things for intuitive understanding which to that are difficult for notifying (exchanged at you the simple object on difficult and  - qualitatively new behavior). Yes, as saving of time and a place in storage, but, forgive, to me promised that language incurs all cares of it, and to me  only to register algorithm of operation. And here it turns out, I also should, as in with ++ to be well informed about any links. So in with ++ they explicit and a heap of means for the warning of approach to a rake (const qualifiers, types of links), and here - both you want, and spin. Something me it somehow .

11

Re: The textbook on python for those who "after with ++" is searched

Hello, _hum _, you wrote: __>>> also it is not necessary any philosophical courses. Simply enough on the classic: __>>> type - set of values + a dial-up of admissible operations over these values N>> to define "value", just and philosophical courses Therefore are required and different style of teaching depending on that is known/is already mastered turns out. __> value it is possible to define what can turn out as a result of calculating process And, can, result of my process is the district map presented in a type  of a grid of objects and a layer of inscriptions? __>>> simple types - the types, not demanding for the determination of engaging of values of other types __>>> composite types - all remaining. Values of composite types in a python consist of links N>> For entrance in a subject - suits. It is already necessary to consider further, how these links are included into them. __> a question: why about it in docks to a python words? Such incompetent developers of language? They not gods also cannot provide all aberrations of consciousness of any reading. Competence at them has enough.

12

Re: The textbook on python for those who "after with ++" is searched

Hello, _hum _, you wrote: __> to tell the truth, I do not understand, what for language entered such difficult things for intuitive understanding which to that are difficult for notifying (exchanged at you the simple object on difficult and  - qualitatively new behavior). It generally a problem of any language. And that are constructed on links to all more or less difficult (Java, C#), see a choice subject between a == b and a.equals (b). And Cs ++, but in it to you give the chance to define copy constructor, etc. with the behavior, and here if not  to copy - or itself consider, or dance around shared_ptr. __> yes as saving of time and a place in storage, but, forgive, to me promised that language incurs all cares of it, and to me  only to register algorithm of operation. Here only it here it is not necessary? I do not remember, that authors Python promised that the programmer should not think. __> and here it turns out, I also should, as in with ++ to be well informed about any links. So in with ++ they explicit and a heap of means for the warning of approach to a rake (const qualifiers, types of links), and here - both you want, and spin. __> something me it somehow . Check to my 12-year-old experience of the Python - a rake from it really meets rarely, and they easily are realized and manage simple enough methods (and there are still any static analyzers). I had somehow a history when at first wrote class Call:... old_accounting = [] then resembling corrected on correct class Call:... old_accounting = None... def __ init __ (self...):... old_accounting = [] also forgot, and it appeared that between these editings had time to unhitch  a branch and to generate release. After the first attended transfer setting blew up. It is history just about the characteristic problem, but also and about that its corrections go on the automatic machine

13

Re: The textbook on python for those who "after with ++" is searched

Hello, netch80, you wrote: N> Hello, _hum _, you wrote: __>>>> also it is not necessary any philosophical courses. Simply enough on the classic: __>>>> type - set of values + a dial-up of admissible operations over these values N>>> to define "value", just and philosophical courses Therefore are required and different style of teaching depending on that is known/is already mastered turns out. __>> value it is possible to define what can turn out as a result of calculating process N> And, can, result of my process is the district map presented in a type  of a grid of objects and a layer of inscriptions? It you interpret so result. And actually you  a grid will be that value - what-thread list of lists  real numbers and lines __>>>> simple types - the types, not demanding for the determination of engaging of values of other types __>>>> composite types - all remaining. Values of composite types in a python consist of links N>>> For entrance in a subject - suits. It is already necessary to consider further, how these links are included into them. __>> a question: why about it in docks to a python words? Such incompetent developers of language? N> they not gods also cannot provide all aberrations of consciousness of any reading. Competence at them has enough. The left excuse. The programming language is not a natural language. And its description is done by the engineer, instead of the philologist. Therefore all should be as much as possible strict and serial (at least in the documentation). __>> to tell the truth, I do not understand, what for language entered such difficult things for intuitive understanding which to that are difficult for notifying (exchanged at you the simple object on difficult and  - qualitatively new behavior). N> It generally a problem of any language. And that are constructed on links to all more or less difficult (Java, C#), see a choice subject between a == b and a.equals (b). And Cs ++, but in it to you give the chance to define copy constructor, etc. with the behavior, and here if not  to copy - or itself consider, or dance around shared_ptr. So I also asked, what for so it is difficult, what for this referential semantics implicitly? Why not to select in an explicit form type the link, or to arrive as in Oz in which  cannot shoot at a foot? __>> yes as saving of time and a place in storage, but, forgive, to me promised that language incurs all cares of it, and to me  only to register algorithm of operation. N> here only it here it is not necessary? I do not remember, that authors Python promised that the programmer should not think. To think to it there is enough in with ++. And here language more the high level, removing from the programmer a duty of tracking technical details and reducing an amount  on code unit was expected. N> check to my 12-year-old experience of the Python - a rake from it really meets rarely, and they easily are realized and manage simple enough methods (and there are still any static analyzers). I simply speak about the impression - here I read and I see that here can shoot, and here. See though example StatujaLeha - depending on that, the type is simple int or composite Int, the behavior of the code qualitatively changes!!! Same horror. And, for example, possibility to define function from a global variable which yet was earlier under the text is defined and by that to do its depending on a call context is what not a deliberate rake? And introduction of implicit type "iterator" with surprises like A = [' a1 ', ' a2 '] B = [' b1 ', ' b2 '] l = zip (A, B) print (list (l)) print (list (l)) output: [(' a1 ', ' b1 '), (' a2 ', ' b2 ')] [] moreover and in the absence of reverse compatibility. All looks so that language does not care at all of protection of the programmer against errors, and is guided only by speed of development of the code. The item with. Paraphrasing, "the more I learn a python, the I love with ++" more

14

Re: The textbook on python for those who "after with ++" is searched

Hello, _hum _, you wrote: __> not absolutely understood, to what you it generally. If to that contradicts told by me above you are mistaken. All and should be: __> __> L = [ref_1, [ref_2, ref_3]] __> __> gives __> __> L-> ref-> [ref_a1-> 1, ref_a2-> [ref_a3-> 2, ref_a4-> 3]] __># (there is a new composite object with new links to which objects to which links transferred in the list) __> __> refer are anchored that is why __> __> ref_1 = 100500 __> __> does not change L Apprx. __> to tell the truth, I do not understand, what for language entered such difficult things for intuitive understanding which to that are difficult for notifying (exchanged at you the simple object on difficult and  - qualitatively new behavior). Yes, as saving of time and a place in storage, but, forgive, to me promised that language incurs all cares of it, and to me  only to register algorithm of operation. You should not think more of pointers/references, designers of copying, storage selection/clearing. It is not free, it is necessary to understand with: 1. https://docs.python.org/3/faq/programmi … nge-list-x 2. https://docs.python.org/3/reference/dat … -and-types __> and here it turns out, I also should, as in with ++ to be well informed about any links. So in with ++ they explicit and a heap of means for the warning of approach to a rake (const qualifiers, types of links), and here - both you want, and spin. __> something me it somehow . Python: links to objects, mutable/immutable types. A C ++: pointers/references + qualifiers to them, the designer of copying, storage selection/clearing.

15

Re: The textbook on python for those who "after with ++" is searched

Hello, StatujaLeha, you wrote: SL> Hello, _hum _, you wrote: __>> to tell the truth, I do not understand, what for language entered such difficult things for intuitive understanding which to that are difficult for notifying (exchanged at you the simple object on difficult and  - qualitatively new behavior). Yes, as saving of time and a place in storage, but, forgive, to me promised that language incurs all cares of it, and to me  only to register algorithm of operation. SL> you should not think more of pointers/references, designers of copying, storage selection/clearing. SL> it is not free, it is necessary to understand with: SL> 1. https://docs.python.org/3/faq/programmi … nge-list-x SL> 2. https://docs.python.org/3/reference/dat … -and-types I focus attention: really it is impossible to do without links at top level (well implement inside all on links that the garbage collector could work, but make so that the programmer them did not see. And that copying always went so, as if it deep) if it is impossible - well make then explicitly type the link and link dereferencing that the programmer was not confused  they also implicit types added "iterator" and "generator", that did not relax __>> and here it turns out, I also should, as in with ++ to be well informed about any links. So in with ++ they explicit and a heap of means for the warning of approach to a rake (const qualifiers, types of links), and here - both you want, and spin. __>> something me it somehow . SL> Python: links to objects, mutable/immutable types. The implicit!!! Not giving to any possibility to notify an error!!! (And it against a principle of a python "explicit is better implicit") SL> a C ++: pointers/references + qualifiers to them, the designer of copying, storage selection/clearing. No designers of copying to links are present and it is not necessary. And links can be anchored only to one object that is why probability of erratic actions there is less. Plus the link has type, has qualifier possibility const - all it gives protection against a shot in a foot

16

Re: The textbook on python for those who "after with ++" is searched

Hello, _hum _, you wrote: __> I focus attention: really it is impossible to do without links at top level (well implement inside all on links that the garbage collector could work, but make so that the programmer them did not see. And that copying always went so, as if it deep) __> if it is impossible - well make then explicitly type the link and link dereferencing that the programmer was not confused Here already talk goes towards creation of languages. In such I am not strong we Tell so, in Python at us the link + mutable/immutable, in Java/C# links + reference/value types. Nobody supports the explicit link and its dereferencing __>  they also implicit types added "iterator" and "generator", that did not relax In sense added? Iterable and generators for a long time already is. Or I do not understand something... SL>> Python: links to objects, mutable/immutable types. __> the implicit!!! Not giving to any possibility to notify an error!!! (And it against a principle of a python "explicit is better implicit") SL>> a C ++: pointers/references + qualifiers to them, the designer of copying, storage selection/clearing. __> no designers of copying to links are present and it is not necessary. And links can be anchored only to one object that is why probability of erratic actions there is less. Plus the link has type, has qualifier possibility const - all it gives protection against a shot in a foot So it so. Only I do not see sense to reproach it. The code for the decision of the same task on With ++ and on Python in sizes can strongly differ in favor of Python. But yes, it is not free: static typification is not present. With ++ gives a heap of counters not to shoot to itself at a foot. Apprx. But it is possible to look at it in two ways: 1. On the one hand, it is necessary to know all these counters, to be able to use them and all time to remember, where you can to yourself  a foot. 2. On the other hand, shooting all the same periodically happen. For an example. Here the code. FunctionCall (param) if it With ++ I cannot be to unwinding assured that happens: it is necessary to look determination FunctionCall. Can FunctionCall a beret const reference and then all apprx. And can someone forgot to deliver a link tag in function declaration and then the designer of copying In Python to me about such there will be caused it is not necessary to think, but yes, I never can be assured that FunctionCall does with mine param.