serious note, nobody thinks about it as a dangerous flaw because it
is a provably inescapable part of the computing experience. But as
vocal as our friend Alan was about the dangers of his auto-referential
one sided tapes, he was rather quiet about the issue of case we face
here. The two issues are
On Mon, 2006-04-10 at 15:19 -0700, Guido van Rossum wrote:
> I've been intermittently following and skipping the Python-3000 list;
> my personal bandwidth just wasn't up to following everything. I know a
> few PEPs have been checked in (thanks Georg!).
>
> I know Adam De
On Tue, 2006-04-11 at 12:11 +1200, Greg Ewing wrote:
> Kendall Clark wrote:
>
> > One thing I'd really like to see in Python 3000 is support for first-
> > class symbols, with literal syntax.
>
> Actually I think enumerations would be more useful than
> symbols. There's no essential difference b
On Sun, 2006-04-09 at 18:06 -0700, Neal Norwitz wrote:
> On 4/9/06, Giovanni Bajo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Neal Norwitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>> r.setrlimit(r.RLIMIT_CPU, (5, 5))
> >>> 1000**1000
> Cputime limit exceeded
>
> To defeat this, you can do
On Mon, 2006-04-03 at 14:01 -0400, Barry Warsaw wrote:
> On Mon, 2006-04-03 at 10:44 -0700, Crutcher Dunnavant wrote:
>
> > Well, what if we added '%{expression}s' as a formating type?
> > This would make your example:
> >
> > print _("%{user}s is not a member of the %{listname}s mailing list")
>
ict, extend it yourself. Case
insensitivity has no place in the core language.
Cheers - Adam DePrince
___
Python-3000 mailing list
Python-3000@python.org
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-3000
Unsubscribe:
http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-3000/archive%40mail-archive.com
On Sun, 2006-04-02 at 21:39 +, Talin wrote:
> Just a few things that have wanted while doing python
> programming. Maybe some of these are already doable
> or are already on someone's wish list...
>
> -- The __main__ module should contain a file path like imported
> modules. in other words, ev
On Sun, 2006-04-02 at 22:27 +0200, Georg Brandl wrote:
> Crutcher Dunnavant wrote:
> > Python currently supports 'S % X', where S is a strinng, and X is one of:
> > * a sequence
> > * a map
> > * treated as (X,)
> >
> > But I have some questions about this for python 3000.
> >
> > 1. Shouldn't t
On Fri, 2006-03-31 at 07:44 +1000, Nick Coghlan wrote:
> Adam DePrince wrote:
> > There seemed to be a concensus in the community on the size of the view
> > proposal, and I'm reimplementing the PEP to reflect that. But what I
> > can't resolve is the other an
On Thu, 2006-03-30 at 23:37 -0800, Neal Norwitz wrote:
> On 3/30/06, Terry Reedy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > "Aahz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > What do we want to tell people who have code like this:
> > >
> > > keys = d.keys()
> > > keys.sort()
> >
On Fri, 2006-03-31 at 14:34 +1200, Greg Ewing wrote:
> Adam DePrince wrote:
> > Views
> > are not generated, they are either directly implemented, or returned.
>
> If you're thinking that the object would keep a set of
> pre-allocated views, there's a problem wit
On Thu, 2006-03-30 at 21:56 -0800, Guido van Rossum wrote:
> > Adam DePrince wrote:
> > > No reason we can't make other string operations views as well ...
> > > concatenation is one example. If I recall, that's how snobol handles
> > > strings
On Thu, 2006-03-30 at 12:05 +1200, Greg Ewing wrote:
> Adam DePrince wrote:
>
> > SetView implements:
> >.__contains__
> >.add
> >.discard
> >.__len__
>
> But what would there be to inherit from the mixin?
> Each view class will ha
On Thu, 2006-03-30 at 12:05 +1200, Greg Ewing wrote:
> Stefan Rank wrote:
>
> >A big question is: Should slicing also return views? and why not?
>
> That's been considered before, in relation to strings.
> The stumbling block is the problem of a view of a
> small part of the object keeping th
On Thu, 2006-03-30 at 20:23 +1000, Nick Coghlan wrote:
> Robert Brewer wrote:
> > Nick Coghlan wrote:
> >> There are three big use cases:
> >>
> >>dict.keys
> >>dict.values
> >>dict.items
> >>
> >> Currently these all return lists, which may be expensive in
> >> terms of copying. They
On Wed, 2006-03-29 at 11:08 -0800, Brett Cannon wrote:
> On 3/29/06, Adam DePrince <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > set interface where we could have a __container__/__view__/__set__
> >
> > Why would I call a method to get a view on an object when the objec
hod do? Perhaps return a
catalog of perspectives ( my keys, my items, my values ) and the views
they are associated with ( SetView, Setview, View )?
- Adam DePrince
___
Python-3000 mailing list
Python-3000@python.org
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-3000
Unsubscribe:
http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-3000/archive%40mail-archive.com
s() - dictb.keys()
Because each supports the SetView interface, we need only provide a
single generic SetView.difference operator and move on. This prevents
the ungainly conversion to sets first which, while easy to write, is
slow, especially considering how well dict's implement sets
ping view provided
directly by the dict, and keys/values/items.
- Adam DePrince
___
Python-3000 mailing list
Python-3000@python.org
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-3000
Unsubscribe:
http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-3
On Wed, 2006-03-29 at 14:53 +1200, Greg Ewing wrote:
> Adam DePrince wrote:
>
> >The following interface names are abbreviations for the following
> >permutations of the above.
> >
> >* Collection View( SetView + Multiview )
> >* ListView
t/ideas/pep-views.txt
PEP: XXX
Title: Views
Version: $Revision: 1.4 $
Last-Modified: $Date: 2006/03/29 04:08:48 $
Author: , Adam DePrince <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Status: Draft
Type: Standards
Content-Type: text/plain
Created: 25-March-2006
Post-History:
Abstract:
This PEP proposes a plural
> for k in d: # or d.keys()
> for v in d.values():
> for k, v in d.items():
Right now I'm entertaining two competing "answers" to some of the issues
addressed in this thread. The first, and easiest to write about and
implement, was to make iters deletable to give the appearance of ha
clash
> with existing semantics.
>
> I'm mentioning it here again just in case anyone wants
> to consider it for Py3k. I still believe it would be
> nice to have a direct syntax for parallel iteration
> to avoid the overhead of using zip or iterzip.
Does this save any overhe
lways
look good right before you submit them.) I've going to backtrack and
describe a Java views style proposal that concrete classes can
implement.
Cheers - Adam DePrince
>
> -jJ
>
___
Python-3000 mailing list
Python-3000@python.org
http
> I won't go on any more - you probably get the idea...
Agreed, scratch that, I'll rework it in the spriit of views.
Cheers, Adam DePrince
___
Python-3000 mailing list
Python-3000@python.org
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinf
decides that delete should rehash, iters don't use the
dict's delete ... why delete by key when we have something better, the
slot #? A little housekeeping and the item is gone with no searching
and no comparisons.
Cheers - Adam DePrince
___
for this)
As for what qualifies as a compatible or incompatible change will depend
on the iterator and backing store implementation of course ... how
specific or demanding should we be?
On Fri, 2006-03-24 at 23:38 -0800, Guido van Rossum wrote:
> On 3/24/06, Adam DePrince <[EMAIL PROTECT
On Fri, 2006-03-24 at 23:38 -0800, Guido van Rossum wrote:
> On 3/24/06, Adam DePrince <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [Guido]
> > > Maybe. I need a volunteer to write the PEP!
> >
> > Oh, why not. Me me!
>
> Excellent! Let us know when it's ready or wh
> Maybe. I need a volunteer to write the PEP!
PEP: XXX
Title: Mutable Iterations
Version: $Revision$
Last-Modified: $Date$
Author: , Adam DePrince <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Status: Draft
Type: Standards
Content-Type: text/plain
Created: 25-March-2006
Post-History:
Abstract:
This PEP pr
On Fri, 2006-03-24 at 18:58 -0800, Guido van Rossum wrote:
> On 3/24/06, Tim Peters <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > [Guido]
> > > The Java collections framework actually has an API and an idiom that
> > > make this work: therd's a method on the *iterator* that deletes the
> > > current item without
On Sat, 2006-03-25 at 16:21 +1200, Greg Ewing wrote:
> Adam DePrince wrote:
>
> > I'm curious, however, what do you envision the semantics of [x times i]
> > being?
>
>[x for _i in xrange(i)]
>
> Greg
So [[x times n] times m] would be really the same a
nters and no access to wacky US paper sizes.
(legal sized = 21.5 x 35.5 cm - a B4 with 3 cm trimmed off the side and
one tacked on the bottom.)
- Adam DePrince
___
Python-3000 mailing list
Python-3000@python.org
http://mail.python.org/mail
On Fri, 2006-03-24 at 22:13 +1200, Greg Ewing wrote:
> Adam DePrince wrote:
>
> > Now, as for your example m * [ n * [0]], I would exclude it from a best
> > practices document.
>
> I'm assuming he meant the best-practices document would be
> documenting h
t initial
# data, we get random junk.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] ~]$ python2.4 -mtimeit -s 'from numarray import
array;n=50;m=100' 'a = array( shape=(n,m));a-=a'
1 loops, best of 3: 25.2 usec per loop
[EMAIL PROTECTED] ~]$
Well, which is best practi
.
And beyond the logistical complexity is the processing time ... dicts
are fast, anything fully ordered automatically involves O(lg(n))
insertion/deletion times.
I like the idea of information neutral or reducing views; but for
anything that requires the addition of "synthetic informa
35 matches
Mail list logo
