Greg Ewing wrote:
> Not very well, IMO.
>
> Without seeing a concrete use case, it's hard to be
> sure, but my feeling is that there's almost certainly
> a better way of thinking about the problem you're
> trying to solve -- one that doesn't require introspecting
> on a callable object to fi
At 08:59 PM 3/6/2008 -0800, Guido van Rossum wrote:
>Would you mind giving an "executive summary" of your argument that
>doesn't require scanning 40 lines of code?
He's writing a variant of 'partial' that inserts an argument *after*
the 'self', if there is one, but doesn't rely on 'self' being ca
Hi,
A while ago, I found some pieces of code which were susceptible to
overflow. I posted a patch, however I haven't heard any comment about
it. Could someone, who has the time, take a look and review the patch
before I commit it?
http://bugs.python.org/issue1950
Thanks,
-- Alexandre
___
I wish I could, I really wish, but I won't have time until April 1st,
unless I can steal some time while at PyCon.
On Fri, Mar 7, 2008 at 9:39 AM, Alexandre Vassalotti
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> A while ago, I found some pieces of code which were susceptible to
> overflow. I posted a p
On Fri, Mar 7, 2008 at 9:59 AM, Guido van Rossum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I wish I could, I really wish, but I won't have time until April 1st,
> unless I can steal some time while at PyCon.
>
Ditto for me, but make my availability time April 8th.
-Brett
>
> On Fri, Mar 7, 2008 at 9:39 AM
On Thu, Mar 6, 2008 at 11:59 PM, Guido van Rossum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Would you mind giving an "executive summary" of your argument that
> doesn't require scanning 40 lines of code?
>
Let me put it this way: if unbound methods are gone for good, then I
think it would nice to develop some
