Python

You can't put a single backslash at the end of a r"" string:

>>> print("\abc")
bc (causes terminal to beep)
>>> print(r"\abc")
\abc
>>> print(r"abc\\")
abc\\
>>> print(r"abc\")
  File "<stdin>", line 1
    print(r"abc\")
                  ^
SyntaxError: EOL while scanning string literal

Fuck!

[b]\abc[/b] produces \abc
[b]abc\\[/b] produces [b]abc\[/b]
[b]abc\[/b] produces [b]abc[/b]

Python is as stupid as Shitchan!

Are you retarded, bro?

The backslash escapes the quotation mark.

I HELPED HIM!

>>3
r"" is a raw string, you're not supposed to do escaping.

>>1
The forced interpretation of end-string backslashes. Thread over.

>>4
r"" is a raw string, you're not supposed to do escaping.
Then what if you want a quotation mark in it?

>>5
Then you are fucked, print r'\'' prints "\'", with a backslash.

Also, the proper way to do literal strings is to 1) allow literal EOLs, because it's a fucking literal string, 2) use pascal-style escaping of quotes by doubling. Seeshurp does it right, for example.

Python's way is retarded, it was a quick hack for writing regexes bolted on without any due consideration. I think at this point everyone in the community acknowledges it. Stop your pointless excuses and grow the fuck up, having a feature that sucks doesn't mean that entire language sucks, there's no need to get all butthurt about it and try to prove that it doesn't suck, against all reason.

3) http://www.scsh.net/docu/html/man-Z-H-2.html#node_sec_1.6.4

>>6
having a feature that sucks doesn't mean that entire language sucks
Generally, yes.

>>6
>there's no need to get all butthurt
ANUS

>>6
Seeshurp does it right, for example.
What's the syntax? This might be the first actually useful feature of that language.

Btw,

r'''This string
contains literal
newlines.'''

>>11

def one_word(self):
    the_forced.__indentation__(lambda of: """code""")

if __name__ == """__main__""":
    thread.__thread_over()

>>6
This is why python sucks: http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2006-July/066862.html

Note how the designer of your precious language:

* Doesn't even know Scheme.
* Doesn't understand what lexical scoping is (and requests an explanation rather than looking it up on Wikipedia).

Anyways, it was around that time I first checked out python... needless to say, I wasn't very impressed. I think at point in time python required you to import lexical scope from __future__ (could be that this was in ruby).

(The fundamental problem I have with languages like python (and perhaps, to some extent, ruby and perl) is that since they are written by people outside academia they are full of ugly corner cases and features that had to be bolted on. I like languages such as Haskell and Racket: predictable, uniform and concise.)

>>13
You forgot:
* Doesn't know how to use reduce()

>>13
* Doesn't even know Scheme.
Nobody gives a shit about Lisp, kiddo.

* Doesn't understand what lexical scoping is (...)
Okay, that's pretty bad.

>>10
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/aa691090(v=vs.71).aspx

>>13
You're crazy, stupid or trolling. He isn't asking what lexical scoping is, he is asking how the scoping in Scheme differs from that in Python. Python changed to its current scoping with nested scopes in 2.2, released in 2001 (you could also import it in 2.1). You can't possibly think Guido doesn't know basic scoping terminology after that.
Looking at the post, this is part of the discussion that lead to the introduction of the nonlocal keyword. Before that you had to do some trickery to assign to variables in outer scopes.

>>17

As if the fact that it spent 10 years without nested scopes wasn't proof enough. If you want more, just take a look at his blabbering about TCO, as if he was trying to hide that he just disliked them, after demonstrating that he didn't know about them.

[code]>>> print "abc\\"
abc\[/code]

>>19
lol

Okay.