Raymond Hettinger wrote:
Are you sure about that? Contriving examples is easy, but download a
few modules, scan them for use cases, and you may find, as I did, that
partial() rarely applies. The argument order tends to be problematic.
So would you like to see the decision to accept PEP 309
On Sun, 27 Feb 2005 09:31:26 +0100, Martin v. Löwis
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Raymond Hettinger wrote:
Are you sure about that? Contriving examples is easy, but download a
few modules, scan them for use cases, and you may find, as I did, that
partial() rarely applies. The argument order
I've taken a look at the following patches and made comments on the
associated tracker items:
patch [977553] Speed up EnumKey call
Looks like a good idea, but needs some cleanup and at least one
test case. I think I know enough about the Windows registry functions
to finish this one up
Raymond Hettinger wrote:
I would like for the principal advocates to reach a consensus that the
proposed implementation is a winner.
That I cannot understand. Do you want the advocates to verify that the
implementation conforms to the specification? or that the implementation
of the PEP is faster
On 2005-02-24 05:04 PST, Greg Ward writes:
Greg Post a patch to SF and assign it to me. Make sure the
Greg unit tests still pass, and add a new one that doesn't
Greg pass without your fix.
Done. Patch id 1149508.
--
Karl 2005-02-27 10:29
I find that I frequently need to open a bug report
whose bug number is in a python-dev email I read
with Mozilla Thunderbird.
I now tried to automate things a bit more, and found
the excellent DictionarySearch plugin:
http://dictionarysearch.mozdev.org/index.html
To install, follow these steps:
1.
On Sun, 27 Feb 2005 19:05:18 +0100, Martin v. Löwis
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Again, this I cannot understand. I do believe that there is no better
way to implement the PEP. The PEP very explicitly defines what precisely
functional.partial is, and the implementation follows that specification
Along the way, they should assess whether
it is as applicable as expected, whether the existing limitations
are
problematic, and whether performance is an issue.
Ah, so you question the specification, not the implementation of it.
My only issue with the PEP is that it seemed much more
Nick Coghlan wrote:
The initial suggestion was to provide a __get__ method on partial
objects, which forces the insertion of the reference to self at the
beginning of the argument list instead of at the end:
def __get__(self, obj, type=None):
if obj is None:
return self
Paul Moore wrote:
While I'm not saying that it's too late to attempt to persuade Guido
to reverse himself, it does seem to me to be a lot of fuss over a
fairly small function - and no-one said anything like this at the
time.
I would probably fuss much less if it would not simultaneously introduce
Raymond Hettinger wrote:
My reading of the PEP did not include making the structure members
public. This complicates and slows the implementation. The notion of
introducing mutable state to the PFA is at odds with the driving forces
behind functional programming (i.e. statelessness).
Notice that
Alan McIntyre wrote:
Thanks, somehow I managed to be oblivious to patches bugs being
essentially the same thing on SF. :-)
The SF URLs are different (or atleast, they used to be (*), as they
also include the tracker ID and the project ID, and SF complains
if you guess either wrong.
Therefore, I
Johannes Gijsbers wrote:
On Sun, Feb 27, 2005 at 03:45:37PM -0500, Alan McIntyre wrote:
Martin,
Thanks; that works very well (in Firefox, too). I got it to work
for patches, but the URL is a bit uglier (like this:
[Martin]
It seems to me that the patch will be committed shortly, assuming
somebody corrects the remaining flaws in the implementation. I could
do that, but I would prefer if somebody contributed an updated patch.
Done.
Raymond
___
Python-Dev
14 matches
Mail list logo
