Fred L. Drake, Jr. wrote:
On Monday 10 October 2005 18:42, Tim Peters wrote:
never before this year -- maybe sys.path _used_ to contain the current
directory on Linux?).
It's been a long time since this was the case on Unix of any variety; I
*think* this changed to the current state
Ron Adam wrote:
My concern is if it's used outside of functions, then on the left hand
side of assignments, it will be used to pack, but if used on the right
hand side it will be to unpack.
I don't see why that should be any more confusing than the
fact that commas denote tuple packing on
Guido van Rossum wrote:
BTW, what should
[a, b, *rest] = (1, 2, 3, 4, 5)
do? Should it set rest to (3, 4, 5) or to [3, 4, 5]?
Whatever type is chosen, it should be the same type, always.
The rhs could be any iterable, not just a tuple or a list.
Making a special case of preserving one
Brett Cannon wrote:
On 10/10/05, Barry Warsaw [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, 2005-10-10 at 01:47, Calvin Spealman wrote:
Never created for a reason? lumping things together for having the
similar usage semantics, but unrelated purposes, might be something to
avoid and maybe that's why it
The multi-processing discussion reminded me that I have a few problems I run
into every time I try to use Queue objects.
My first problem is finding it:
Py from threading import Queue # Nope
Traceback (most recent call last):
File stdin, line 1, in ?
ImportError: cannot import name Queue
Py
Donovan Baarda wrote:
On Fri, 2005-10-07 at 23:54, Nick Coghlan wrote:
[...]
The few times I have encountered anyone saying anything resembling threading
is easy, it was because the full sentence went something like threading is
easy if you use message passing and copy-on-send or
Neal Norwitz wrote:
There's a problem with genexp's that I think really needs to get
fixed. See http://python.org/sf/1167751 the details are below. This
code:
I agree with the bug report that the code should either raise a
SyntaxError or do the right thing.
I agree it should be a
jamesr wrote:
Congragulations heartily given. I missed the ternary op in c... Way to
go! clean and easy and now i can do:
if ((sys.argv[1] =='debug') if len(sys.argv) 1 else False):
pass
and check variables IF AND ONLY if they exist, in a single line!
but y'all knew that..
Guido van Rossum wrote:
My idea was to make the compiler smarter so that it would recognize
exec() even if it was just a function.
Another idea might be to change the exec() spec so that you are
required to pass in a namespace (and you can't use locals() either!).
Then the whole point
Bruce Eckel wrote:
Yes, there's a troublesome meme in the world: threads are hard.
They aren't, really. You just have to know what you're doing.
I would say that the troublesome meme is that threads are easy. I
posted an earlier, rather longish message about this. The gist of
which was:
Bruce Eckel wrote:
[Bill Janssen]
Yes, there's a troublesome meme in the world: threads are hard.
They aren't, really. You just have to know what you're doing.
But that begs the question, because there is a significant amount of
evidence that when it comes to threads knowing what you are doing
On 10/11/05, Nick Coghlan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Neal Norwitz wrote:
There's a problem with genexp's that I think really needs to get
fixed. See http://python.org/sf/1167751 the details are below. This
code:
I agree with the bug report that the code should either raise a
SyntaxError
Nick Coghlan wrote:
Neal Norwitz wrote:
There's a problem with genexp's that I think really needs to get
fixed. See http://python.org/sf/1167751 the details are below. This
code:
I agree with the bug report that the code should either raise a
SyntaxError or do the right thing.
I agree it
[Tim Peters]
never before this year -- maybe sys.path _used_ to contain the current
directory on Linux?).
[Fred L. Drake, Jr.]
It's been a long time since this was the case on Unix of any variety; I
*think* this changed to the current state back before 2.0.
[Martin v. Löwis]
Please check
Greg Ewing wrote:
Guido van Rossum wrote:
BTW, what should
[a, b, *rest] = (1, 2, 3, 4, 5)
do? Should it set rest to (3, 4, 5) or to [3, 4, 5]?
Whatever type is chosen, it should be the same type, always.
The rhs could be any iterable, not just a tuple or a list.
Making a special
Nick Coghlan wrote:
For me, it stops when the rules for positional name binding are more
consistent across operations that bind names (although complete consistency
isn't possible, given that function calls don't unpack sequences
automatically).
Oops - forgot to delete this bit once I
Robert Brewer wrote:
Somewhat alleviated and somewhat worsened. I've had half a dozen
conversations in the last year about sharing data between threads; in
every case, I've had to work quite hard to convince the other person
that threading.local is *not* magic pixie thread dust. Each time,
On 10/11/05, Nick Coghlan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The multi-processing discussion reminded me that I have a few problems I run
into every time I try to use Queue objects.
My first problem is finding it:
Py from threading import Queue # Nope
Traceback (most recent call last):
File
On 10/11/05, Tim Peters [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Well, that's in interactive mode, and I see sys.path[0] == on both
Windows and Linux then. I don't see in sys.path on either box in
batch mode, although I do see the absolutized path to the current
directory in sys.path in batch mode on
[Tim]
Well, that's in interactive mode, and I see sys.path[0] == on both
Windows and Linux then. I don't see in sys.path on either box in
batch mode, although I do see the absolutized path to the current
directory in sys.path in batch mode on Windows but not on Linux -- but
Mark Hammond
On 10/11/05, Tim Peters [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[Tim]
Well, that's in interactive mode, and I see sys.path[0] == on both
Windows and Linux then. I don't see in sys.path on either box in
batch mode, although I do see the absolutized path to the current
directory in sys.path in batch
Nick Coghlan wrote:
Greg Ewing wrote:
Guido van Rossum wrote:
BTW, what should
[a, b, *rest] = (1, 2, 3, 4, 5)
do? Should it set rest to (3, 4, 5) or to [3, 4, 5]?
Whatever type is chosen, it should be the same type, always.
The rhs could be any iterable, not just a tuple or a list.
(my own 2 eurocents)
I do feel that for Python 3 it might be better to make a clean
separation between keywords and positionals: in other words, of the
function definition specifies a keyword argument then a keyword must be
used to present it.
Do you mean it would also be forbidden to
Java's condition variables don't (didn't? has this been fixed?) quite
work. The emphasis on portability and the resulting notions of
red/green threading packages at the beginning didn't help either.
Read Allen Holub's book. And Doug Lea's book. I understand much of
this has been addressed
Guido van Rossum [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Optionally, the existing put and get methods could be deprecated, with
the
goal of eventually changing their signature to match the put_wait and
get_wait
methods above.
Apart from trying to guess the API without reading the docs (:-), what
Nick Coghlan wrote:
So my vote would actually go for deprecating the use of square brackets to
surround an assignment target list - it makes it look like an actual list
object should be involved somewhere, but there isn't one.
I've found myself using square brackets a few times for more
Date: Tue, 11 Oct 2005 09:51:06 -0400 From: Tim Peters <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: [Python-Dev] PythonCore\CurrentVersion To: Martin v. L?wis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: python-dev@python.org Message-ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 [Tim Peters] never
Robert Brewer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Somewhat alleviated and somewhat worsened. I've had half a dozen
conversations in the last year about sharing data between threads; in
every case, I've had to work quite hard to convince the other person
that threading.local is *not* magic pixie thread
[Guido]
Apart from trying to guess the API without reading the docs (:-), what
are the use cases for using put/get with a timeout? I have a feeling
it's not that common.
[Josiah Carlson]
With timeout=0, a shared connection/resource pool (perhaps DB, etc., I
use one in the tuple space
On 10/11/05, Tim Peters [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Guido understands use cases for blocking and non-blocking put/get, and
Queue always supported those possibilities. The timeout argument got
added later, and it's not really clear _why_ it was added. timeout=0
isn't a sane use case (because the
Greg Ewing wrote:
Guido van Rossum wrote:
BTW, what should
[a, b, *rest] = (1, 2, 3, 4, 5)
do? Should it set rest to (3, 4, 5) or to [3, 4, 5]?
Whatever type is chosen, it should be the same type, always.
The rhs could be any iterable, not just a tuple or a list.
Making a
[Guido]
I tried your experiment but added 'print sys.argv[0]' and didn't see
that. sys.argv[0] is the path to the script.
My mistake! You're right, sys.argv[0] is the path to the script for me too.
[Tim]
The directory of the script being run was
nevertheless in sys.path[0] on both Windows
On 10/7/05, Fredrik Lundh [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
the whole concept might be perfectly fine on the this construct corre-
sponds to this code level, but if you immediately end up with things that
are not what they seem, and names that don't mean what the say, either
the design or the
Reinhold Birkenfeld wrote:
Greg Ewing wrote:
Guido van Rossum wrote:
BTW, what should
[a, b, *rest] = (1, 2, 3, 4, 5)
do? Should it set rest to (3, 4, 5) or to [3, 4, 5]?
Whatever type is chosen, it should be the same type, always.
The rhs could be any iterable, not just a tuple or a
[Guido]
Apart from trying to guess the API without reading the docs (:-), what
are the use cases for using put/get with a timeout? I have a feeling
it's not that common.
[Josiah Carlson]
With timeout=0, a shared connection/resource pool (perhaps DB, etc., I
use one in the tuple space
Guido van Rossum wrote:
I see no need. Code that *doesn't* need Queue but does use threading
shouldn't have to pay for loading Queue.py.
However, it does seem awkward to have a whole module
providing just one small class that logically is so
closely related to other threading facilities.
What
Nick Coghlan wrote:
As a location for this, I would actually suggest a module called something
like metatools,
-1, too vague and meaningless a name. If decorator is the
official term for this kind of function, then calling the
module decorators is precise and helpful. Other kinds of
37 matches
Mail list logo
