IMO (1) or (2) are both acceptable, but I'd prefer (2): swallow
'Exception'. There's a reason why hasattr() is different from
getattr() with a default value; it's too early for me to explain it
clearly, but I know it was discussed and argued at length when
hasattr() was introduced.
I don't see why
On Jan 20, 2008, at 10:39 PM, Alexandre Vassalotti wrote:
> On Jan 20, 2008 4:14 PM, Jim Fulton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> On Jan 12, 2008, at 7:33 PM, Alexandre Vassalotti wrote:
>>> By the way, you might be interested to look at my work on pickle [1]
>>> for Python 3K. As part of last yea
On Jan 22, 2008 9:31 AM, Chris Mellon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Jan 22, 2008 9:36 AM, Guido van Rossum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > IMO (1) or (2) are both acceptable, but I'd prefer (2): swallow
> > 'Exception'. There's a reason why hasattr() is different from
> > getattr() with a default
On Jan 22, 2008 11:36 AM, Guido van Rossum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Jan 22, 2008 9:31 AM, Chris Mellon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Jan 22, 2008 9:36 AM, Guido van Rossum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > IMO (1) or (2) are both acceptable, but I'd prefer (2): swallow
> > > 'Exception'
On Jan 22, 2008 9:36 AM, Guido van Rossum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> IMO (1) or (2) are both acceptable, but I'd prefer (2): swallow
> 'Exception'. There's a reason why hasattr() is different from
> getattr() with a default value; it's too early for me to explain it
> clearly, but I know it was d
On Jan 22, 2008 9:39 AM, Chris Mellon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Jan 22, 2008 11:36 AM, Guido van Rossum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > On Jan 22, 2008 9:31 AM, Chris Mellon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > On Jan 22, 2008 9:36 AM, Guido van Rossum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > IMO
i can work on a patch, but before i start, i want to make sure it's
accepted. the change will require sq_contains to return a PyObject,
as well as some minor tweaks to cmp_outcome().
-tomer
-- Forwarded message --
From: Guido van Rossum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Jan 22, 2008 9:55
On Jan 22, 2008 10:48 PM, Nicko van Someren <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I don't know if your patch will be accepted but two salient questions
> you should address are:
> a) Will the change break much existing code?
> b) Will the change substantially impact performance?
well, i wil
I can't promise a patch is accepted before I see it. :-)
But the idea is sound, so don't worry about it being rejected on the
basis of being an undesirable feature.
--Guido
On Jan 22, 2008 12:36 PM, tomer filiba <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> i can work on a patch, but before i start, i want to ma
On 22 Jan 2008, at 20:36, tomer filiba wrote:
> i can work on a patch, but before i start, i want to make sure it's
> accepted. the change will require sq_contains to return a PyObject,
> as well as some minor tweaks to cmp_outcome().
I don't know if your patch will be accepted but two salient qu
I missed the conversation on this one.
Was there a use case or a reason to add this?
I ask because the spelling has an unfortunate
overlap with the sys.ps2 prompt:
>>> def f(x):
... return x+1
I don't know if this is a problem. Just thought I would bring it up.
Raymond
Raymond Hettinger wrote:
> I missed the conversation on this one.
> Was there a use case or a reason to add this?
It was added for Numeric a long time ago. We use it in multidimensional indices
to specify slice(None, None, None) for all of the omitted dimensions. For
example:
In [25]: from num
12 matches
Mail list logo
