On 12/3/07, Phillip J. Eby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> At 03:48 PM 12/3/2007 +0100, Christian Heimes wrote:
> >Nick Coghlan wrote:
> > > Aren't the metaclass changes in PEP 3115 partially aimed at
> > > eliminating the need for stack frame hackery to implement
> > > these kinds of things?
Yes.
>
At 03:48 PM 12/3/2007 +0100, Christian Heimes wrote:
>Nick Coghlan wrote:
> > Aren't the metaclass changes in PEP 3115 partially aimed at eliminating
> > the need for stack frame hackery to implement these kinds of things?
> > (e.g. the metaclass could stuff a closure into the class namespace under
Nick Coghlan wrote:
> Aren't the metaclass changes in PEP 3115 partially aimed at eliminating
> the need for stack frame hackery to implement these kinds of things?
> (e.g. the metaclass could stuff a closure into the class namespace under
> the name 'implements' to avoid any need for frame hack
At 10:18 PM 12/3/2007 +1000, Nick Coghlan wrote:
>Phillip J. Eby wrote:
> > Well, for what class-level frame hacking is typically used for, it
> > would suffice to have a convenient way to refer to the local
> > namespace, e.g. if you could do something like:
> >
> > implements(@, IExample)
>
Phillip J. Eby wrote:
> Well, for what class-level frame hacking is typically used for, it
> would suffice to have a convenient way to refer to the local
> namespace, e.g. if you could do something like:
>
> implements(@, IExample)
>
> where @ was a shortcut for locals(). The most-used fr
Then I see pyvm dwindling to near-zero size, since nearly all the
types considered here are seen as official APIs by Jython, IronPython
and PyPy.
Also, if it's VM-specific perhaps it ought to have a VM-specific name.
Personally, I think they should all move into existing modules -- many
will fit
Terry Reedy wrote:
> "Christian Heimes" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> | I've started to work on a pyvm module patch today.
Is there a clear rationale for the dividing line between
sys and pyvm?
Maybe the distinction should be that pyvm is for things that
could
At 04:52 PM 11/30/2007 +, Paul Moore wrote:
>On 30/11/2007, Barry Warsaw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >> class Example:
> > >>implements(IExample)
> >
> > This frame hacking is also a pretty common feature of other types of
> > systems, such as ORMs. It can make certain Python code much
On Nov 30, 2007, at 2:52 PM, Paul Moore wrote:
> one of the arguments for class decorators was that they are a way to
> avoid the need for some of this getframe hacking, though.
IIRC, the zope.interface clusterfrack was _the_ argument that got
Guido to give thought to class decorators, after
On Nov 30, 2007 1:58 AM, Dirkjan Ochtman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I was talking to the guys in #pypy (and I think some people from twisted
> were agreeing), who said that the whole _frame thing is not really an
> implementation detail, but a rather important interface. As such, I was
> thinking
On 30/11/2007, Barry Warsaw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> class Example:
> >>implements(IExample)
>
> This frame hacking is also a pretty common feature of other types of
> systems, such as ORMs. It can make certain Python code much more
> readable, so "frame hacking" is clearly a useful fea
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Nov 30, 2007, at 9:31 AM, Jean-Paul Calderone wrote:
> On Fri, 30 Nov 2007 11:35:18 +0100, Christian Heimes
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Dirkjan Ochtman wrote:
>>> I don't know how hard it would be for Jython, IronPython et al. to
>>> support
On Fri, 30 Nov 2007 11:35:18 +0100, Christian Heimes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Dirkjan Ochtman wrote:
>> I don't know how hard it would be for Jython, IronPython et al. to
>> support this kind of interface, but seeing as how something like
>> zope.interface relies on it (and therefore all of Twis
Dirkjan Ochtman wrote:
> I don't know how hard it would be for Jython, IronPython et al. to
> support this kind of interface, but seeing as how something like
> zope.interface relies on it (and therefore all of Twisted, too, I
> think), it's kind of mandatory anyway.
zope.interface could work w
Terry Reedy wrote:
> |Maybe sys._current_frames, sys._getframe and
>
> Hmm. The idea of execution frames strikes me as somewhat independent of
> vm. In practice, they are associated with exceptions and tracebacks. If
> these were also split off from sys in another separate module, I would loo
"Christian Heimes" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
| Shorah!
|
| I've started to work on a pyvm module patch today. The new
| module is going to contain low level interfaces to Python's VM and some
| low level types, too. So far my first version contains only a bunch o
James Y Knight wrote:
> I'd like to quote some of a thread I started in Aug 2004, subject
> "Classes that claim to be defined in __builtin__ but aren't". I
> haven't rerun the script that generated this list (I have to find it
> again, first, or rewrite it...), but assuming these types are st
On Nov 29, 2007, at 11:33 AM, Christian Heimes wrote:
> Shorah!
>
> I've started to work on a pyvm module patch today. The new
> module is going to contain low level interfaces to Python's VM and
> some
> low level types, too. So far my first version contains only a bunch of
> types.
I'd like
18 matches
Mail list logo
