Donovan Baarda [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
G'day again,
[...]
You missed the minor releases bit in my post.
major releases, ie 2.x - 3.0, are for things that can break existing code.
They change the API so that things that run on 2.x may not work with 3.x.
minor releases, ie 2.2.x -2.3.0,
Delaney, Timothy C (Timothy) [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Set: Items are iterated over in the order that they are added. Adding an
item that compares equal to one that is already in the set does not
replace the item already in the set, and does not change the iteration
order. Removing an item,
Nick Coghlan wrote:
Guido van Rossum wrote:
No, the reason is that if we did this with exceptions, it would be
liable to mask errors; an exception does not necessarily originate
immediately with the code you invoked, it could have been raised by
something else that was invoked by that code. The
Raymond Hettinger wrote:
Any objections to extending itemgetter() and attrgetter() to be able to
extract multiple fields at a time?
# SELECT name, rank, serialnum FROM soldierdata
map(attrgetter('name', 'rank', 'serialnum'), soldierdata)
# SELECT * FROM soldierdata ORDER BY unit, rank,
Delaney, Timothy C (Timothy) wrote:
OTOH, ordered set and ordered dict implies different things to
different people - usually sorted rather than the order things were
put in. Perhaps temporally-ordered ;)
OTGH*, I would expect an OrderedDict / OrderedSet to have 'add to the end'
semantics, but
On Wed, 2005-03-09 at 19:39, Tommy Burnette wrote:
I'd say I'm +0. fwiw- I've been using a locally-rolled OrderedDict
implementation for the last 5-6 years in which insertion order is the
only order respected. I use it all over the place (in a code base of
~60k lines of python code).
so
I would LOVE for **kwargs to be an ordered dict. It would allow me to
write code like this:
.class MyTuple:
.def __init__(self, **kwargs):
.self.__dict__ = ordereddict(kwargs)
.
.def __iter__(self):
.for k, v in self.__dict__.items():
.yield v
.
.t = MyTuple(r
On Thursday 10 March 2005 17:29, Raymond Hettinger wrote:
Or the implementation can have a switch to choose between keep-first
logic or replace logic.
The latter seems a bit odd to me. The key position would be determined
by the first encountered while the value would be determined by the
The following message is a courtesy copy of an article
that has been posted to comp.lang.python as well.
[CC to python-dev]
Fuzzyman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Python 2.4 is built with Microsoft Visiual C++ 7. This means that it
uses msvcr7.dll, which *isn't* a standard part of the windows
[BJörn Lindqvist]
I would LOVE for **kwargs to be an ordered dict. It would allow me to
write code like this:
.class MyTuple:
.def __init__(self, **kwargs):
.self.__dict__ = ordereddict(kwargs)
This doesn't work. The kwargs are already turned into a regular
dictionary before
At 01:38 AM 3/10/05 -0500, Nicholas Bastin wrote:
I realize that this is exceedingly late in the game, but is anybody
interested in doing a Write-Python-Bindings-for-SWT sprint? It's been
brought up before in various places, and PyCon seems the likely place to
get enough concentrated knowledge
I don't know how far I'll get with this. Using the current
Zope-2_7-branch of the Zope module at cvs.zope.org:/cvs-repository,
building Zope via
python setup.py build_ext -i
worked fine when I got up today, using the released Python 2.4. One
of its tests fails, because of a Python bug that
It works on Linux, with Zope 2.7.4. Just as a note to others (I've mentioned
this to Tim already) if you set an environment variable DISTUTILS_DEBUG
before running a setup.py, you get very verbose information about what's going
on, and, more importantly, full tracebacks rather than terse error
[Anthony Baxter]
It works on Linux, with Zope 2.7.4.
Thanks!
Just as a note to others (I've mentioned this to Tim already) if you set an
environment variable DISTUTILS_DEBUG before running a setup.py, you get
very verbose information about what's going on, and, more importantly, full
This is going to need someone who understands distutils internals.
The strings we end up passing to putenv() grow absurdly large, and
sooner or later Windows gets very unhappy with them.
os.py has a
elif name in ('os2', 'nt'): # Where Env Var Names Must Be UPPERCASE
class controlling
On Thu, Mar 10, 2005 at 12:46:23PM -0500, Tim Peters wrote:
This is going to need someone who understands distutils internals.
The strings we end up passing to putenv() grow absurdly large, and
sooner or later Windows gets very unhappy with them.
In distutils.msvccompiler:
def __init__
[ A.M. Kuchling]
In distutils.msvccompiler:
def __init__ (self, verbose=0, dry_run=0, force=0):
...
self.initialized = False
def compile(self, sources,
output_dir=None, macros=None, include_dirs=None, debug=0,
extra_preargs=None,
On Mar 10, 2005, at 11:00 AM, Phillip J. Eby wrote:
At 01:38 AM 3/10/05 -0500, Nicholas Bastin wrote:
I realize that this is exceedingly late in the game, but is anybody
interested in doing a Write-Python-Bindings-for-SWT sprint? It's
been brought up before in various places, and PyCon seems
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Tim Peters wrote:
| [Tres Seaver]
|
|Unit tests for Zope 2.7.4's 'zdaemon' package, which passed under Python
|2.4, now fail under 2.4.1c1:
|
|
| Are you sure they passed under 2.4?
Yep. I showed output from that in the original post (and below).
|
At 04:06 PM 3/10/05 -0500, Nicholas Bastin wrote:
On Mar 10, 2005, at 11:00 AM, Phillip J. Eby wrote:
At 01:38 AM 3/10/05 -0500, Nicholas Bastin wrote:
I realize that this is exceedingly late in the game, but is anybody
interested in doing a Write-Python-Bindings-for-SWT sprint? It's been
Guido may not be able to go. Anyone else already going?
- Forwarded message from [EMAIL PROTECTED] -
Subject: Request - SD MAgazine.com - Jolt Awards Winners
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 10 Mar 2005 16:02:35 -0800
HI Python.org,
You may or may not
See my blog: http://www.artima.com/forums/flat.jsp?forum=106thread=98196
Do we even need a PEP or is there a volunteer who'll add any() and all() for me?
--
--Guido van Rossum (home page: http://www.python.org/~guido/)
___
Python-Dev mailing list
Anthony Baxter wrote:
On behalf of the Python development team and the Python community, I'm
happy to announce the release of Python 2.4.1 (release candidate 1).
Python 2.4.1 is a bug-fix release. See the release notes at the website
(also available as Misc/NEWS in the source distribution) for
See my blog:
http://www.artima.com/forums/flat.jsp?forum=106thread=98196
Do we even need a PEP or is there a volunteer who'll add any() and
all()
for me?
I'll volunteer for this one.
Will leave it open for discussion for a bit so that folks can voice any
thoughts on the design.
Raymond
At 06:38 PM 3/10/05 -0800, Bill Janssen wrote:
Guido,
I think there should be a PEP. For instance, I think I'd want them to be:
def any(S):
for x in S:
if x:
return x
return S[-1]
def all(S):
for x in S:
if not x:
return x
return S[-1]
Or perhaps these should be called
[Bill Janssen]
I think I'd want them to be:
def any(S):
for x in S:
if x:
return x
return S[-1]
def all(S):
for x in S:
if not x:
return x
return S[-1]
Or perhaps these should be called first and last.
-1
Over time, I've gotten feedback about these
On Friday 11 March 2005 08:09, Tres Seaver wrote:
|By staring at the code of the failing test, it looks like the MRO of the
|testcase class has changed: it declares a 'run' method, which is
|supposed to run the external process, which clashes with the 'run'
|method of unittest.TestCase. I
Ok, the branch is unfrozen. At the current point in time, I think
we're going to need an rc2.
Anthony
--
Anthony Baxter [EMAIL PROTECTED]
It's never too late to have a happy childhood.
___
Python-Dev mailing list
Python-Dev@python.org
Over time, I've gotten feedback about these and other itertools recipes.
No one has objected to the True/False return values in those recipes or
in Guido's version.
Guido's version matches the normal expectation of any/all being a
predicate. Also, it avoids the kind of errors/confusion
On Thu, Mar 10, 2005 at 10:22:45PM -0500, Raymond Hettinger wrote:
[Bill Janssen]
I think I'd want them to be:
def any(S):
for x in S:
if x:
return x
return S[-1]
def all(S):
for x in S:
if not x:
return x
return S[-1]
Or perhaps these
It seems to me that either urllib's docs are wrong or its code is
wrong w.r.t. how the User-agent header is handled.
Guido I propose fixing the docs...
Done (also backported to 2.4 branch).
Skip
___
Python-Dev mailing list
Anthony Initially, I was inclined to be much less anal about the
Anthony no-new-features thing. But since doing it, I've had a quite
Anthony large number of people tell me how much they appreciate this
Anthony approach - vendors, large companies with huge installed bases
Anthony Goal 4: Try and prevent something like
Anthony try:
Anthony True, False
Anthony except NameError:
Anthony True, False = 1, 0
Anthony from ever ever happening again.
I will point out that in
[Martin v. Löwis]
I'd like to encourage feedback on whether the Windows installer works
for people. It replaces the VBScript part in the MSI package with native
code, which ought to drop the dependency on VBScript, but might
introduce new incompatibilities.
Worked fine here. Did an
On Mar 9, 2005, at 8:03 AM, Skip Montanaro wrote:
Anthony Goal 4: Try and prevent something like
Anthony try:
Anthony True, False
Anthony except NameError:
Anthony True, False = 1, 0
Anthony from ever
On Thu, Mar 10, 2005, Bill Janssen wrote:
Raymond Hettinger:
Over time, I've gotten feedback about these and other itertools recipes.
No one has objected to the True/False return values in those recipes or
in Guido's version.
Guido's version matches the normal expectation of any/all being
[Martin v. Löwis]
I'd like to encourage feedback on whether the Windows
installer works for people. It replaces the VBScript part in the
MSI package with native code, which ought to drop the dependency on
VBScript, but might introduce new incompatibilities.
[Tim Peters]
Worked fine here.
37 matches
Mail list logo
