Python users with time machines



  • I guess a time machine is one of the new features of python 3K becuse I didn't see it the manuals.

    Python in 2020

    (From the archive of the python list:http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-list/)



  • Hey, it really IS the language of the future!



  •  Is there nothing python can't do!

     

    And no, I don't like coffee! 



  • So the WTF is that the mailing list is indexed by the (possibly incorrect) date headers on the messages themselves rather than by when the messages were received by the listserver?



  • @jstone said:

    So the WTF is that the mailing list is indexed by the (possibly incorrect) date headers on the messages themselves rather than by when the messages were received by the listserver?
    It would seem so.

    Thanks for pointing the mechanics out, though, since the reason got me stumped - I assumed that any e-mail related server had it's clock set right by NTP or similar, which is obviously wrong when formed into words.



  •  Those three users should be permanently banned from the mailing list.



  • @morbiuswilters said:

    Those three users should be permanently banned from the mailing list.
    Effective Dec 2020, Aug 2020, Dec 2014, and Apr 2009, respectively.   Banning them before that won't have much of an effect.



  • Well Python 3000 is coming out!  Its technology outdates us by nearly one thousand years!



  •  from future import timemachine



  •  Three users? So time-travelling to March 2009 is okay with you then?



  • @Veinor said:

    Three users? So time-travelling to March 2009 is okay with you then?

    There are only 3 distinct users who had their clocks set forward. 



  • The real question is whether:

    from timemachine import timeline_fork, time_excursion
    from threading import Thread
    
    def haltsp(thunk):
        with timeline_fork():
            proc = Thread(target=thunk)
            proc.start()
            with time_excursion(∞):
                return not proc.isAlive()
    


  • @S11 said:

    The real question is whether:
    Did I miss something?  If I did, I admit I'm drunk, but generally a statement that contains the word 'whether' also contains the word 'or' and some form of the verb 'to be'



  • @belgariontheking said:

    @S11 said:

    The real question is whether:
    Did I miss something?  If I did, I admit I'm drunk, but generally a statement that contains the word 'whether' also contains the word 'or' and some form of the verb 'to be'

    I dunno, I think it's supposed to be some kind of Halting Problem joke, but I don't know enough Python to be sure.  Also, from the looks of it, it's not actually an example of that at all. 



  • @belgariontheking said:

    Did I miss something?  If I did, I admit I'm drunk, but generally a statement that contains the word 'whether' also contains the word 'or' and some form of the verb 'to be'
    The 'or' is optional if the options are obvious. "I want to find out whether Morb is a real person," is an example of a valid sentence containing whether but not or. It's either read with an implicit "or not" ("I want to find out whether or not Morb is a real person"), or the whether is read as an if ("I want to find out if Morb is a real person"). From my point of view, sentences with that structure sound better with just whether than the alternatives.



  •  @morbiuswilters said:

     Those three users should be permanently banned from the mailing list.

    Or at least <font color="#ff0000">"</font><font color="#ff0000">mocked mercilessly and encouraged to commit suicide"</font>



  • @wybl said:

    Thanks for pointing the mechanics out, though, since the reason got me stumped - I assumed that any e-mail related server had it's clock set right by NTP or similar, which is obviously wrong when formed into words.

     

    The time stamp on the email message is not based on the server; it is whatever the user's computer clock is set to, as far as I know.  A while back, I used some software on a 90-day trial basis; when the time ran out I was still evaluating it, so I just set my clock back a few days and it worked.  But when I sent email, the email would be time-stamped a few days earlier, and would show up in my friends email program as a new message that was more than a week old!    Often he'd miss it completely because it sorted out along with other old messages, and thus was off the screen. 



  • @dogbrags said:

    The time stamp on the email message is not based on the server; it is whatever the user's computer clock is set to, as far as I know.  A while back, I used some software on a 90-day trial basis; when the time ran out I was still evaluating it, so I just set my clock back a few days and it worked.  But when I sent email, the email would be time-stamped a few days earlier, and would show up in my friends email program as a new message that was more than a week old!    Often he'd miss it completely because it sorted out along with other old messages, and thus was off the screen.

    Yes, this was explained above by jstone. 



  • @morbiuswilters said:

    @dogbrags said:

    The time stamp on the email message is not based on the server; it is whatever the user's computer clock is set to, as far as I know.  A while back, I used some software on a 90-day trial basis; when the time ran out I was still evaluating it, so I just set my clock back a few days and it worked.  But when I sent email, the email would be time-stamped a few days earlier, and would show up in my friends email program as a new message that was more than a week old!    Often he'd miss it completely because it sorted out along with other old messages, and thus was off the screen.

    Yes, this was explained above by jstone. 

    Well, not exactly. <FONT face="courier new,courier">dogbrags</FONT> was pointing out it was on the sending computer, not its SMTP server.



  • @ambrosen said:

    Well, not exactly. <font face="courier new,courier">dogbrags</font> was pointing out it was on the sending computer, not its SMTP server.

    I didn't think that point was ever in question.  jstone made no claim that the bad headers were set by the sending SMTP server. 



  • @morbiuswilters said:

    @ambrosen said:

    Well, not exactly. <FONT face="courier new,courier">dogbrags</FONT> was pointing out it was on the sending computer, not its SMTP server.

    I didn't think that point was ever in question.  jstone made no claim that the bad headers were set by the sending SMTP server. 

    My bad, that was implied in <FONT face="courier new,courier">wybl</FONT>'s post.


Log in to reply
 

Looks like your connection to What the Daily WTF? was lost, please wait while we try to reconnect.