Mike Klaas wrote:
> On 25-May-07, at 6:03 AM, Steve Howell wrote:
>
>> We're just disagreeing about whether the Dutch tax law
>> programmer has to uglify his environment with an alias
>> of Python to "python3.0 -liberal_unicode," or whether
>> the American programmer in an enterprisy environment
>
On Sat, 26 May 2007, Michael Urman wrote:
> On 5/26/07, Ka-Ping Yee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > But the enabling of UTF-8 by a BOM at the
> > beginning of the file is an invisible override. This invisible
> > override is the source of the danger. If we want to be able to
> > read the coding de
Here is a survey of some Python code to see how often
tokens typically get used in Python 2.
Here is the program I used to count the tokens, if you
want to try it out on your own in-house codebase:
import tokenize
import sys
fn = sys.argv[1]
g = tokenize.generate_tokens(open(fn).readline)
dct = {
--- Baptiste Carvello <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> However, this does not
> matter for teaching and for in-house code, which are
> the most compelling use
> cases of the new feature.
>
For the teaching use case, I'm wondering if the
English keywords would already present too high a
barrier for s
James Y Knight a écrit :
> there will be a "second class" of python modules that won't work on
> some systems without extra pain.
>
modules using unicode identifier *will be* second class anyway, because most
people won't be able to debug them in case of need. However, this does not
matter for
Guido van Rossum wrote:
> Quick, since I'm about to hop on a plane: Thinking about it again,
> storing the super instance in the bound method object is fine, as long
> as you only do it when the bound function needs it. Using an unbound
> super object in an unbound method is also fine.
OTOH, I've
On May 25, 2007, at 7:33 AM, Stephen J. Turnbull wrote:
>> Adding baroque command line options for users of other languages to
>> do some useless verification at import time is not an acceptable
>> answer. It'd be better to just reject the PEP entirely.
>
> Speaking of exaggeration
I am ser
On 5/26/07, Stephen J. Turnbull <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Jim Jewett writes:
> > So long as we allow tailoring, I think the maximal set should be
> > generous -- and I don't see any reason to pre-exclude anything
> > outside ASCII.
> Cf characters? Are we admitting "stupid bidi tricks", too
Guillaume Proux wrote:
> On 5/26/07, Stephen J. Turnbull <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> For the medium term, there are ways to pass command line arguments to
>> programs invoked by GUI. They're more or less ugly, but your daughter
>> will never see them, only the pretty icons.
>
> Is there right n
On 5/25/07, Blake Winton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Jim Jewett wrote:
> > Arbitrary Unicode identifier opens up the possibility of code that
> > *looks* like ASCII, but isn't -- so I don't even realize that I missed
> > something.
> You already have that problem.
> All screenshots taken on
On 5/25/07, Guido van Rossum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> We could make the class in question a fourth attribute of the (poorly
> named) "bound method" object, e.g. im_class_for_super (im_super would
> be confusing IMO).
In the past, you have referred to this as the static class.
I think it has
On 5/26/07, Ka-Ping Yee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> But the enabling of UTF-8 by a BOM at the
> beginning of the file is an invisible override. This invisible
> override is the source of the danger. If we want to be able to
> read the coding declaration with any confidence, we should get rid
> o
--- "Stephen J. Turnbull" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> By the way, this is an example that shows that the
> recent injection of
> the word "parochial" is truly pernicious, because
> it's attached to the
> wrong set of arguments.
>
Sorry. I'm one of the folks who has propagated that
term, and
Quick, since I'm about to hop on a plane: Thinking about it again,
storing the super instance in the bound method object is fine, as long
as you only do it when the bound function needs it. Using an unbound
super object in an unbound method is also fine.
--Guido
On 5/26/07, Tim Delaney <[EMAIL PR
Ka-Ping Yee wrote:
> On Fri, 25 May 2007, Blake Winton wrote:
>> Ka-Ping Yee wrote:
>>> Let's see what we can find. I made several attempts to search for
>>> non-ASCII identifiers using google.com/codesearch and here's what I got.
>> I think you've got a selection bias here, since google isn't lik
On Fri, 25 May 2007, Blake Winton wrote:
> Jim Jewett wrote:
> > Arbitrary Unicode identifier opens up the possibility of code that
> > *looks* like ASCII, but isn't -- so I don't even realize that I missed
> > something.
>
> You already have that problem. Right now. And you've had it for at
>
Ka-Ping Yee wrote:
> Alas, the coding directive is not good enough. Have a look at this:
>
> http://zesty.ca/python/tricky.png
>
> That's an image of a text editor containing some Python code. Can you
> tell whether running it (post-PEP-3131) will delete your .bashrc file?
Martin v. L?wis wr
On Fri, 25 May 2007, Blake Winton wrote:
> Ka-Ping Yee wrote:
> > Let's see what we can find. I made several attempts to search for
> > non-ASCII identifiers using google.com/codesearch and here's what I got.
>
> I think you've got a selection bias here, since google isn't likely to
> index code n
Guido van Rossum wrote:
>>> - Why not make super a keyword, instead of just prohibiting
>>> assignment to it? (I'm planning to do the same with None BTW in
>>> Py3k -- I find the "it's a name but you can't assign to it" a
>>> rather silly business and hardly "the simplest solution".)
>>
>> That's
Jim Jewett writes:
> > How about a regexp character class as starting point?
>
> I'm not sure I understand. Do you mean that part of localization
> should be defining what certain regular expressions should match?
No, I meant simply a list of character ranges, as characters. The
definition
20 matches
Mail list logo
