On Apr 23, 2006, at 8:28 AM, Bill Birch wrote:
> On Sun, 23 Apr 2006 12:53 am, Fredrik Lundh wrote:
>> Guido van Rossum wrote:
>>> It's an interesting idea; it's been brought up before but nobody
>>> AFAIK
>>> has ever implemented it. I like the scoping requirement.
>>
>> can we add support for
On Sun, 23 Apr 2006 12:53 am, Fredrik Lundh wrote:
> Guido van Rossum wrote:
> > It's an interesting idea; it's been brought up before but nobody AFAIK
> > has ever implemented it. I like the scoping requirement.
>
> can we add support for XML literals while we're at it?
>
> http://effbot.org/z
Guido van Rossum wrote:
> On 4/22/06, Nick Coghlan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> No matter what, permitting these kinds of hooks is going to require
>> alterations to the process of compiling the AST to the bytecode - and
>> subclassing is an excellent way of allowing some aspects of an implementat
Michael Urman wrote:
> For in-module effect, maybe some special import could pull in a
> compiler class instance used only for the current module, allowing its
> build_xyz methods be replaced.
>
> from __ast__ import compiler
> compiler.build_float = Decimal# on an instance, so no 'sel
Guido van Rossum wrote:
> Unfortunately, all of these schemes break down if you have
> non-identifier characters in attribute or element names, or if you
> want to use namespaces, or if you want to insert entity references,
> XML comments, or other funky stuff like DTDs or processing elements.
a
On 4/22/06, Josiah Carlson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Nevow.stan has a very similar method for generating *ML with
> (attribute='value')[content], but I've personally found that using only
> function-call semantics to create children and attributes for *ML in
> Python is much more convenient; all
"Guido van Rossum" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On 4/22/06, Fredrik Lundh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Guido van Rossum wrote:
> >
> > > It's an interesting idea; it's been brought up before but nobody AFAIK
> > > has ever implemented it. I like the scoping requirement.
> >
> > can we add sup
On 4/22/06, Guido van Rossum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> It's an interesting idea; it's been brought up before but nobody AFAIK
> has ever implemented it. I like the scoping requirement. I suggest you
> try to implement it and see how well it works.
I'll look into that now that I know it's not a
On 4/22/06, Fredrik Lundh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Guido van Rossum wrote:
>
> > It's an interesting idea; it's been brought up before but nobody AFAIK
> > has ever implemented it. I like the scoping requirement.
>
> can we add support for XML literals while we're at it?
>
> http://effbot.o
> can we add support for XML literals while we're at it?
>
> http://effbot.org/zone/idea-xml-literal.htm
The reason the literals aren't returned as ElementTree Elements is
because ElementTree didn't exist back then, right?
Because that particular integration would make a lot of sense.
Rega
Guido van Rossum wrote:
> It's an interesting idea; it's been brought up before but nobody AFAIK
> has ever implemented it. I like the scoping requirement.
can we add support for XML literals while we're at it?
http://effbot.org/zone/idea-xml-literal.htm
On 4/22/06, Nick Coghlan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> No matter what, permitting these kinds of hooks is going to require
> alterations to the process of compiling the AST to the bytecode - and
> subclassing is an excellent way of allowing some aspects of an implementation
> to be overridden while
Guido van Rossum wrote:
> On 4/22/06, Nick Coghlan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Michael Urman wrote:
>>> There's a lot of holes to this story, including at least how these
>>> functions are registered, and which additional arguments (if any) are
>>> necessary. Shall we try to fill these holes in?
On 4/22/06, Nick Coghlan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Michael Urman wrote:
> > There's a lot of holes to this story, including at least how these
> > functions are registered, and which additional arguments (if any) are
> > necessary. Shall we try to fill these holes in?
>
> Answering without check
Michael Urman wrote:
> There's a lot of holes to this story, including at least how these
> functions are registered, and which additional arguments (if any) are
> necessary. Shall we try to fill these holes in?
Answering without checking the source (which is undoubtedly a bad idea), but
this sou
It's an interesting idea; it's been brought up before but nobody AFAIK
has ever implemented it. I like the scoping requirement. I suggest you
try to implement it and see how well it works. You probably also want
to be able to hook list, tuple and dict displays (perhaps by supplying
an alternative f
This idea isn't fully fleshed out, but I wanted to air it to see if it
took wind or fell flat. Please forgive inaccuracies between lexing and
parsing.
It's about being able to override what a given literal is turned into.
It would only take effect in a limited scope, either per module, per
compile
17 matches
Mail list logo
