Collin Winter writes:
> Sincere question: if these characters aren't needed, why are they
> provided?
I already gave a long jargony answer, but maybe this analogy is
better:
Most of the time automatic line-wrapping gives excellent results, but
sometimes you need the newline character to achiev
Collin Winter writes:
> Sincere question: if these characters aren't needed, why are they
> provided? From what I can tell by googling, they're needed when, e.g.,
> Arabic is embedded in an otherwise left-to-right script. Do I have
> that right? That sounds pretty close to what you'd get when
On 5/27/07, Stephen J. Turnbull <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Jim Jewett writes:
>
> > > Cf characters? Are we admitting "stupid bidi tricks", too?
> >
> > If Tomer needs them.
>
> But that's what I mean by respecting the work of the Unicode technical
> committees. They say he *doesn't* need th
Jim Jewett writes:
> > Cf characters? Are we admitting "stupid bidi tricks", too?
>
> If Tomer needs them.
But that's what I mean by respecting the work of the Unicode technical
committees. They say he *doesn't* need them, no matter what he thinks.
They do make mistakes. But they are far
On 5/27/07, Nick Coghlan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Guido van Rossum wrote:
> > Ryan is repeating the classic flatten example: strings are iterables
> > but shouldn't be iterated over in this example. This is more the
> > domain of Generic Functions, PEP 3124. Anyway, the beauty of PEP 3119
> > i
On 5/27/07, Tim Delaney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Guido van Rossum wrote:
>
> > The bound method object isn't stored in the class -- it's created by
> > the "C.method" or "inst.method" getattr operation. I don't see how
> > this would introduce a cycle.
> >
> >> If we store the class, we can sto
James Y Knight writes:
> If the identifier syntax is changed to include unicode, all python
> modules are still usable everywhere. Once you start going down the
> road of configurable syntax (worse: globally configurable syntax),
The syntax is not "configured", it is "audited". Just like
Guido van Rossum wrote:
> The bound method object isn't stored in the class -- it's created by
> the "C.method" or "inst.method" getattr operation. I don't see how
> this would introduce a cycle.
>
>> If we store the class, we can store it as a weakref - the when the
>> super object is created, a
Guido van Rossum wrote:
> Ryan is repeating the classic flatten example: strings are iterables
> but shouldn't be iterated over in this example. This is more the
> domain of Generic Functions, PEP 3124. Anyway, the beauty of PEP 3119
> is that even if PEP 3124 were somehow rejected, you could add
>
On 5/26/07, Tim Delaney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 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
> >
On 5/27/07, Ka-Ping Yee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sun, 27 May 2007, Ryan Freckleton wrote:
> > I've been following the python-dev and python 3000 lists for over a
> > year, but this is my first posting.
>
> Hello!
Hello too!
> > I think I've found additional abstract base class to add to PE
On Sun, 27 May 2007, Ryan Freckleton wrote:
> I've been following the python-dev and python 3000 lists for over a
> year, but this is my first posting.
Hello!
> I think I've found additional abstract base class to add to PEP 3119.
> An ABC for composable data (e.g. list, tuple, set, and perhaps d
I've been following the python-dev and python 3000 lists for over a
year, but this is my first posting.
I think I've found additional abstract base class to add to PEP 3119.
An ABC for composable data (e.g. list, tuple, set, and perhaps dict)
to inherit from. An composable object can contain insta
13 matches
Mail list logo
