M.-A. Lemburg wrote:
Nick Coghlan wrote:
Guido van Rossum wrote:
What do people think? (My main motivation for this, as stated before,
is that it adds complexity without much benefit.)
I'm in favour, since it removes the an unbound method is almost like
a bare function, only not quite as useful
Guido van Rossum wrote:
[Guido]
Apart from the tests that were testing the behavior of im_class, I
found only a single piece of code in the standard library that used
im_class of an unbound method object (the clever test in the pyclbr
test). Uses of im_self and im_func were more widespread. Given
Hi Clark,
On Fri, Jan 14, 2005 at 12:41:32PM -0500, Clark C. Evans wrote:
Imagine enhancing the stack-trace with additional information about
what adaptations were made;
Traceback (most recent call last):
File xxx, line 1, in foo
Adapting x to File
File yyy,
__str__ and __unicode__ seem to behave differently. A __str__
overwrite in a str subclass is used when calling str(), a __unicode__
overwrite in a unicode subclass is *not* used when calling unicode():
---
class str2(str):
def __str__(self):
return foo
x =
Martin v. Löwis [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Guido van Rossum wrote:
a) Is Exception to be new-style?
Probably not in 2.5; Martin and others have suggested that this could
introduce instability for users' existing exception classes.
Really? I thought that was eventually decided to be a very small
[Timothy Delaney]
If im_func were set to the class where the function was defined, I could
definitely avoid the second part of the trawling (not sure about the
first yet, since I need to get at the function object).
Instead of waiting for unbound methods to change their functionality,
just
[me]
I'm not sure I understand how basemethod is supposed to work; I can't
find docs for it using Google (only three hits for the query mxTools
basemethod). How does it depend on im_class?
[Marc-Andre]
It uses im_class to find the class defining the (unbound) method:
def
Irmen de Jong wrote:
Hello
I've looked at one bug and a bunch of patches and
added a comment to them:
[...]
[ 579435 ] Shadow Password Support Module
Would be nice to have, I recently just couldn't do the user
authentication that I wanted: based on the users' unix passwords
I'm almost done with
Irmen de Jong wrote:
3- Should the order of the chapters in the documentation
be preserved? I'd rather add spwd below pwd, but
this pushes the other unix modules 1 down...
On Tuesday 18 January 2005 17:17, Martin v. Löwis wrote:
You could make it a subsection (e.g. spwd -- shadow
[Martin asks whether Irmen wants to be a tracker admin on SF]
[Irmen de Jong]
That sounds very convenient, thanks.
Does the status of 'python project member' come with
certain expectations that must be complied with ? ;-)
If you're using Python, you're already required to comply with all of
Patch review [ 684500 ] (extending readline functionality)
This patch is a duplicate of patch [ 675551 ] (extending readline
functionality), which was first submitted against stable python version 2.2.2.
After the resubmitted patch [ 684500 ] against Python 2.3a1 was accepted
G'day,
I've Cc'ed this to zope-coders as it might affect other Zope developers
and it had me stumped for ages. I couldn't find anything on it anywhere,
so I figured it would be good to get something into google :-).
We are developing a Zope2.7 application on Debian GNU/Linux that is
using fop to
12 matches
Mail list logo
