"Brett Cannon" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 1/1/07, Josiah Carlson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > "Brett Cannon" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > * telnetlib
> > > + Telnet is not used very much anymore.
> > > - Telnet is unsafe.
> > > - Most people use SSH instead.
> >
> > I
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Jan 1, 2007, at 10:46 PM, Anthony Baxter wrote:
> I could not agree more. The list of modules Brett gave covers enough
> that pretty much every single piece of code I have will need to be
> edited. Worse yet, I _can't_ edit it and change it to the
"Mike Orr" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On 1/1/07, Josiah Carlson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > "Mike Orr" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > Huh? 'True == 1' is a "feature"? '16 + (0 == 0)' being illegal is a
> > > "Javaism"? Would somebody care to explain this? It's acceptable that
> >
On 1/1/07, Josiah Carlson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> "Mike Orr" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Huh? 'True == 1' is a "feature"? '16 + (0 == 0)' being illegal is a
> > "Javaism"? Would somebody care to explain this? It's acceptable that
> > 2 is true but not True? Why do we need 1 for True
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Jan 1, 2007, at 10:03 PM, Mike Klaas wrote:
> On 1/1/07, Brett Cannon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> * new
>> + Just a rebinding of names from the 'types' module.
>> + Can also call ``type`` built-in to get most types easily.
>
> Perhaps 'ty
On 1/1/07, Brett Cannon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> * thread
> + People should use 'threading' instead.
'threading' has no equivalent to 'thread.get_ident()'. If this
function is ported, I'd support renaming 'thread'. You need it to
print "Thread #123 doing bla bla bla" messages, to disting
Brett Cannon wrote:
> * telnetlib
> + Telnet is not used very much anymore.
> - Telnet is unsafe.
> - Most people use SSH instead.
SSH may be common in the PC/server world, but it's still much easier
(and less demanding on the host's resources) to embed a telnet server
rather
On 1/1/07, Anthony Baxter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Tuesday 02 January 2007 11:52, Giovanni Bajo wrote:
> Brett Cannon wrote:
> > Modules will be renamed in Python 2.6 . The original names of
> > the modules will still work but will raise ImportWarning upon
> > import. The refactoring tool
On Tuesday 02 January 2007 11:52, Giovanni Bajo wrote:
> Brett Cannon wrote:
> > Modules will be renamed in Python 2.6 . The original names of
> > the modules will still work but will raise ImportWarning upon
> > import. The refactoring tool for transitioning to Python 3.0
> > will refactor impor
On 1/1/07, Mike Klaas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 1/1/07, Brett Cannon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> * new
> + Just a rebinding of names from the 'types' module.
> + Can also call ``type`` built-in to get most types easily.
Perhaps 'types' should be deprecated instead?
obj.x = new.ins
On 1/1/07, Josiah Carlson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
"Brett Cannon" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> * fileinput
> + Basic functionality handled by ``itertools.chain``.
> + Using ``enumerate`` (for the line number in the file),
> ``itertools.repeat`` (for returning the filename with e
On 1/1/07, Giovanni Bajo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Brett Cannon wrote:
> * fileinput
> + Basic functionality handled by ``itertools.chain``.
> + Using ``enumerate`` (for the line number in the file),
> ``itertools.repeat`` (for returning the filename with each
> line), and
On 1/1/07, Brett Cannon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> * new
> + Just a rebinding of names from the 'types' module.
> + Can also call ``type`` built-in to get most types easily.
Perhaps 'types' should be deprecated instead?
obj.x = new.instancemethod(...
has a very pleasing ring to it (per
"Brett Cannon" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> * fileinput
> + Basic functionality handled by ``itertools.chain``.
> + Using ``enumerate`` (for the line number in the file),
> ``itertools.repeat`` (for returning the filename with each
> line), and ``zip`` (for connecting the ``enu
Brett Cannon wrote:
> * fileinput
> + Basic functionality handled by ``itertools.chain``.
> + Using ``enumerate`` (for the line number in the file),
> ``itertools.repeat`` (for returning the filename with each
> line), and ``zip`` (for connecting the ``enumerate`` object and
>
On 1/1/07, tomer filiba <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> a while back some people suggested having the traceback
> as an attribute of the exception object, which allows for
> nested exceptions.
PEP 344, to be precise.
> i would also like to note that having the traceback part of
> the exception objec
tomer filiba wrote:
> this makes sys.excepthook unnecessary
Maybe I'm stating the obvious here, but I override sys.excepthook in
real-world code. If you want it go away for some reason, I guess you should
propose a replacement with similar semantic.
--
Giovanni Bajo
__
As part of my New Years resolution to get all of my current and planned PEPs
actually written, accepted, and implemented for 2007, here is the stdlib
reorg PEP. I have already checked it into svn but I have inlined it below
for comments.
The PEP is separated into two parts: removal and renaming.
a while back some people suggested having the traceback
as an attribute of the exception object, which allows for
nested exceptions.
i would also like to note that having the traceback part of
the exception object allows the exception to print itself,
i.e., its repr would format the traceback text
Mike Orr wrote:
> On 1/1/07, Guido van Rossum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> On 1/1/07, James Thiele <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> PEP 3100 states:
>>> None becomes a keyword [4] (What about True, False?)
>>>
>>> Has a decision been made?
>> No, but I think the argument for making True/False reserv
On Jan 1, 2007, at 1:20 PM, Guido van Rossum wrote:
> This is sufficiently controversial that I believe it ought to go to
> python-ideas first. If it comes to a PEP it should be a separate one
> from PEP 3107.
>
Ok. Some other discussion on PEP 3107 (attribute annotations)
clearly should follow
This is sufficiently controversial that I believe it ought to go to
python-ideas first. If it comes to a PEP it should be a separate one
from PEP 3107.
On 1/1/07, Talin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Tony Lownds wrote:
>
> >> From: Tony Lownds <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > What do people here think?
>
> I
Josiah Carlson wrote:
> >>> 1 is not True
> True
> >>> 1 == True
> True
> >>> isinstance(True, int)
> True
>
This makes perfect sense to me. 'True' is implicitly convertible to, but
not identical to, 1.
(I was about to type a long-winded explanation of why this makes sen
Tony Lownds wrote:
>> From: Tony Lownds <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> What do people here think?
I've been wanting something like this, however the name I wanted to use
was "__becomes__" and "__rbecomes__". My reasoning is as follows:
1) Normally, we don't name operators based on their shape - we don't
From: Tony Lownds <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
On Jan 1, 2007, at 9:48 AM, Kay Schluehr wrote:
Good. There is still one issue. I understand that you don't want to
fix
the semantics of function annotations but to be usefull some
annotations are needed to express function types. Using those
consistently
"Mike Orr" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Huh? 'True == 1' is a "feature"? '16 + (0 == 0)' being illegal is a
> "Javaism"? Would somebody care to explain this? It's acceptable that
> 2 is true but not True? Why do we need 1 for True at all if we have
> True?
>>> 1 is not True
True
"Mike Orr" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
| Huh? 'True == 1' is a "feature"? '16 + (0 == 0)' being illegal is a
| "Javaism"? Would somebody care to explain this? It's acceptable that
| 2 is true but not True? Why do we need 1 for True at all if we have
| True?
S
On 1/1/07, Guido van Rossum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 1/1/07, James Thiele <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > PEP 3100 states:
> > None becomes a keyword [4] (What about True, False?)
> >
> > Has a decision been made?
>
> No, but I think the argument for making True/False reserved words is
> pret
On 1/1/07, James Thiele <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> PEP 3100 states:
> None becomes a keyword [4] (What about True, False?)
>
> Has a decision been made?
No, but I think the argument for making True/False reserved words is
pretty weak.
> Also a bool acts like an int in various contexts. For exam
PEP 3100 states:
None becomes a keyword [4] (What about True, False?)
Has a decision been made?
--
Also a bool acts like an int in various contexts. For example:
>>> True == 1
True
>>> False == 0
True
>>> 16 + (0 == 0)
17
Will this behavior continue?
__
30 matches
Mail list logo
