On Wed, 9 Feb 2005 14:45:18 -0800, Guido van Rossum
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The intended user community must accept the code as best-of-breed.
It seems that the Num* community has some work to do in this respect.
I've not followed the num* discussion in quite a while, but my
impression back
On Wed, 09 Feb 2005 22:02:11 -0700, Travis Oliphant [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
GvR:
And why would a Matrix need to inherit from a C-array? Wouldn't it
make more sense from an OO POV for the Matrix to *have* a C-array
without *being* one?
Travis:
The only reason I'm thinking of here is to have it
On Thu, 10 Feb 2005 15:32:14 -0500, Fred L. Drake, Jr. [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
On Thursday 10 February 2005 14:44, Tim Peters wrote:
Well, then since that isn't ISO 8601 format, it would be nice to have
a comment explaining why it's claiming to be anyway 0.5 wink.
I've posted a note on
On Fri, 18 Feb 2005 13:28:34 -0800, Guido van Rossum
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Would it be possible to change
_PyEval_SliceIndex in ceval.c
so that rather than throwing an error if the indexing object is not an
integer, the code first checks to see if the object has a
On Tue, 22 Feb 2005 08:16:52 -0800, Guido van Rossum
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Really? I do this kind of thing all the time:
import os
import errno
try:
os.makedirs(dn)
except OSError, e:
if e.errno errno.EEXIST:
raise
You have a lot more faith in the errno
You guys have way too much time on your hands and neurons devoted to
this stuff. I'm glad that means that I can spend the afternoon playing
w/ my kids and searching python-dev when I need to add numbers =).
___
Python-Dev mailing list
On 4/27/05, Guido van Rossum [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
As long as I am BDFL Python is unlikely to get continuations -- my
head explodes each time someone tries to explain them to me.
You just need a safety valve installed. It's outpatient surgery, don't worry.
--david
On 4/28/05, Guido van Rossum [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
How about, instead of trying to emphasize how different a
block-statement is from a for-loop, we emphasize their similarity?
A regular old loop over a sequence or iterable is written as:
for VAR in EXPR:
BLOCK
A
On 4/29/05, Guido van Rossum [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[Phillip J. Eby]
Although I'd personally prefer a no-keyword approach:
synchronized(self):
with_file(foo) as f:
# etc.
I'd like that too, but it was shot down at least once. Maybe we can
resurrect it?
I agree, but does this then work:
x = opening(foo)
...stuff...
x as f:
# etc
? And if not, why not? And if yes, what happens if stuff raises an
exception?
Forget it -- the above is probably addressed by the PEP and doesn't
really depend on whether there's a kw or not.
Martin v. Löwis
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Currently, we have two running tracker demos online: Roundup:
http://efod.se/python-tracker/ Jira: http://jira.python.atlassian.com/secure/Dashboard.jspa
Is anyone looking at the Google Code Hosting tracker, just
11 matches
Mail list logo
