On May 4, 2007, at 4:47 PM, Baptiste Carvello wrote:
> If this is to ever happen, it should be only accessible through a
> command-line
> option to python. That way we make sure people are aware that they
> are making
> their code incompatible with the larger world.
That's ridiculous. Without
Raymond Hettinger wrote:
> Can I please press the button for a few days until I can offer
> a useful starting point.
Before you go any further, the important thing to take
from the thread so far is that you mustn't keep the
whole contents of the object's __dict__ alive via
the callback.
--
Gre
On 5/4/07, Greg Ewing <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I don't think that returning the type given is a goal
> that should be attempted, because it can only ever work
> for a fixed set of known types. Given an arbitrary
> sequence type, there is no way of knowing how to
> create a new instance of it wi
Simon Percivall wrote:
> This was more in the way of returning the type that was given:
> if you start with a list you end up with a list in "b", if you
> start with an iterator you end up with an iterator.
I don't think that returning the type given is a goal
that should be attempted, because it
I don't know how the filters for checkin emails are set up, but this
seems wrong: mail related to the p3yk branch goes to
python-3000-checkins, but mail related to the py3k-unistr branch goes
to python-checkins. There are a bunch of branches of relevance to py3k
now; these should all go to the pyth
> If this is to ever happen, it should be only accessible through a command-line
> option to python. That way we make sure people are aware that they are making
> their code incompatible with the larger world.
In what way will the source code be incompatible with the larger world?
Martin
This PEP is much more reasonable.
Should ``\``-continuation be removed even inside strings? -1
Backslash continuation in strings is used a lot.. especially in strings
that must not start with a newline but are written in the following format
for clarity:
'''\
first line
second line\
'''
Shoul
Martin v. Löwis a écrit :
> PEP: 31xx
> Title: Supporting Non-ASCII Identifiers
> Version: $Revision$
> Last-Modified: $Date$
> Author: Martin v. Löwis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Status: Draft
> Type: Standards Track
> Content-Type: text/x-rst
> Created: 1-May-2007
> Python-Version: 3.0
> Post-History:
On 5/4/07, Baptiste Carvello <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> maybe we could have a "dedent" literal that would remove the first newline and
> all indentation so that you can just write:
>
> call_something( d'''
> first part
> second line
> third line
[cc -python-dev]
On 5/4/07, Jim Jewett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Open Issues
> ===
>
> + Should ``\``-continuation be removed even inside strings?
I'm a strong -1 on this PEP if ``\``-continuation is removed from
inside triple-quoted strings. I'd hate to have to go from writing::
Major rewrite.
The inside-a-string continuation is separated from the general continuation.
The alternatives section is expaned to als list Andrew Koenig's
improved inside-expressions variant, since that is a real contender.
If anyone feels I haven't acknowledged their concerns, please tell me.
Michael Foord wrote:
> Jim Jewett wrote:
>> PEP: 30xz
>> Title: Simplified Parsing
>> Version: $Revision$
>> Last-Modified: $Date$
>> Author: Jim J. Jewett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> Status: Draft
>> Type: Standards Track
>> Content-Type: text/plain
>> Created: 29-Apr-2007
>> Post-History: 29-Apr-2007
> If it really has to be done this way, I think the whole PEP is doomed.
This thread is getting way ahead of me and starting to self-destruct before
I've had a chance to put together a concrete proposal and scan existing code
for use cases.
Can I please press the button for a few days until I
On 5/4/07, Guido van Rossum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 5/4/07, Steven Bethard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On 5/4/07, Guido van Rossum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > Hm, a thought just occurred to me. Why not arrange for object.__new__
> > > to call [the moral equivalent of] weakref.cleanu
On 5/4/07, Steven Bethard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 5/4/07, Guido van Rossum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On 5/4/07, Raymond Hettinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > An encapsulating function should be added to the weakref module
> > > so that Guido's example could be written as:
> > >
>
On 5/4/07, Guido van Rossum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 5/4/07, Raymond Hettinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > An encapsulating function should be added to the weakref module
> > so that Guido's example could be written as:
> >
> > class BufferedWriter:
> >
> > def __init__(self, raw):
> >
On 5/4/07, Raymond Hettinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> An encapsulating function should be added to the weakref module
> so that Guido's example could be written as:
>
> class BufferedWriter:
>
> def __init__(self, raw):
> self.raw = raw
> self.buffer = ""
> weakref.cleanup(self, l
On May 4, 2007, at 10:33 AM, Giovanni Bajo wrote:
> On 5/4/2007 4:21 PM, Michael Bayer wrote:
>
>>>
>> why not encapsulate the "proper" weakref-based approach in an easy-
>> to-use method such as "__close__()" ? that way nobody has to
>> guess how to follow this pattern.
>
> Because the idea
On 5/3/07, Greg Ewing <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Steven Bethard wrote:
>
> > This brings up the question of why the patch produces lists, not
> > tuples. What's the reasoning behind that?
>
> When dealing with an iterator, you don't know the
> length in advance, so the only way to get a tuple
> w
[Michael Bayer]
> why not encapsulate the "proper" weakref-based approach in an easy-to-
> use method such as "__close__()" ? that way nobody has to guess how
> to follow this pattern.
An encapsulating function should be added to the weakref module
so that Guido's example could be written as:
On May 4, 2007, at 1:12 AM, Raymond Hettinger wrote:
> From: "Greg Ewing" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> It has nothing to do with cyclic GC. The point is that
>> if the refcount of a weak reference drops to zero before
>> that of the object being weakly referenced, the weak
>> reference object itself is
On 4 maj 2007, at 06.13, Greg Ewing wrote:
> Simon Percivall wrote:
>> if the proposal is constrained to only allowing the *name at
>> the end, wouldn't a more useful behavior be to not exhaust the
>> iterator, making it similar to:
>> > it = iter(range(10))
>> > a = next(it)
>> > b = it
>> or w
22 matches
Mail list logo
