Antoine Pitrou pit...@free.fr added the comment:
It might be not obvious, but it's consistent with the check for other
attributes.
I don't know what attributes you're talking about, and there doesn't seem to be
a lot of consistency there.
Besides, being consistently obscure and hard to find
Antoine Pitrou pit...@free.fr added the comment:
Committed in r86842.
--
resolution: - fixed
stage: - committed/rejected
status: open - closed
___
Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org
http://bugs.python.org/issue10518
SilentGhost michael.mischurow+...@gmail.com added the comment:
I thought PEP 3003 was quite unambiguous:
This PEP proposes a temporary moratorium (suspension) of **all changes** to
the Python language syntax, semantics, and built-ins for a period of at least
two years from the release of
Antoine Pitrou pit...@free.fr added the comment:
Le samedi 27 novembre 2010 à 22:23 +, SilentGhost a écrit :
SilentGhost michael.mischurow+...@gmail.com added the comment:
I thought PEP 3003 was quite unambiguous:
The stated goal of the moratorium is to make it easier for alternate
SilentGhost michael.mischurow+...@gmail.com added the comment:
I thought that moratorium meant Guido dis/approval is not applicable to the 3.2
Another listed change was help ease adoption of py3k. How's that helping?
--
___
Python tracker
Benjamin Peterson benja...@python.org added the comment:
2010/11/27 SilentGhost rep...@bugs.python.org:
SilentGhost michael.mischurow+...@gmail.com added the comment:
I thought that moratorium meant Guido dis/approval is not applicable to the
3.2
Another listed change was help ease
Antoine Pitrou pit...@free.fr added the comment:
I thought that moratorium meant Guido dis/approval is not applicable to the
3.2
Guido can decide of everything: PEPs, etc. That's what BDFL means.
So he can also decide of exceptions to the rules he decided on.
(rules can have exception in any
SilentGhost michael.mischurow+...@gmail.com added the comment:
yes, my problem is that callable was removed and a way was shown how to do this
check. The way which is consistent with the check for any other type (ABC). Now
out of the blue, w/o any justification this way is going to be ignored,
Antoine Pitrou pit...@free.fr added the comment:
yes, my problem is that callable was removed and a way was shown how
to do this check. The way which is consistent with the check for any
other type (ABC).
ABCs are still the exception in Python, and duck typing is still the
rule.
I don't
SilentGhost michael.mischurow+...@gmail.com added the comment:
ABCs are still the exception in Python, and duck typing is still the
rule.
Then why do we callable again?
Don't worry, I'll deal with it. It's not like this whole discussion mattered.
--
Antoine Pitrou pit...@free.fr added the comment:
ABCs are still the exception in Python, and duck typing is still the
rule.
Then why do we callable again?
Because the way __call__ is looked up means hasattr(x, __call__) is
not the right answer. Otherwise there would be no point in
Łukasz Langa luk...@langa.pl added the comment:
I was originally surprised to find that callable() was gone. I pointed it out
at Europython and got a very informative explanation from Brett. The
isinstance(obj, collections.Callable) was introduced and it works well.
I'm with Ezio here. I'm -1
Antoine Pitrou pit...@free.fr added the comment:
I'm with Ezio here. I'm -1 for callable(), +0 for iscallable() (there
should be preferably one obvious way to do it and using isinstance()
seems to be that way at this point).
The thing is, isisinstance(x, collections.Callable) is hardly
Michael Foord mich...@voidspace.org.uk added the comment:
Bringing back callable but with a different name is horrible. Just bring it
back for goodness sake.
--
nosy: +michael.foord
___
Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org
SilentGhost michael.mischurow+...@gmail.com added the comment:
Just for the reference: What's new in Python 3.0 page says:
Removed callable(). Instead of callable(f) you can use isinstance(f,
collections.Callable). The operator.isCallable() function is also gone.
There doesn't seem to be
Michael Foord mich...@voidspace.org.uk added the comment:
Well, Guido has already approved its return - so further debate is relatively
pointless. (Not that that usually stops us...)
--
___
Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org
SilentGhost michael.mischurow+...@gmail.com added the comment:
surely, such a relevant bit of information is worth linking to!
--
___
Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org
http://bugs.python.org/issue10518
___
Michael Foord mich...@voidspace.org.uk added the comment:
It was on python-ideas in the recent thread about bringing back callable. Feel
free to post a link here for the record.
--
___
Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org
SilentGhost michael.mischurow+...@gmail.com added the comment:
I wouldn't consider it approving, what Guido says is:
I admit defeat on this one
http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-ideas/2010-November/008747.html
Which incidentally is in response to your e-mails with the actual discussion
Changes by Daniel Urban urban.dani...@gmail.com:
--
nosy: +durban
___
Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org
http://bugs.python.org/issue10518
___
___
Python-bugs-list
New submission from Antoine Pitrou pit...@free.fr:
It was just resting. Here is a patch to wake it up for 3.2 (or 3.3 pending
moratorium interpretation).
As for the py3k warning in 2.x (and the 2to3 fixer), it's not obvious what we
should do: callable() clearly doesn't exist in 3.0 and 3.1.
Benjamin Peterson benja...@python.org added the comment:
I think we should lift the py3k warning after 3.2 is released, but leave the
2to3 fixer in for the time being.
--
___
Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org
http://bugs.python.org/issue10518
Éric Araujo mer...@netwok.org added the comment:
Does the plan include deprecating collections.Callable?
--
nosy: +eric.araujo
___
Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org
http://bugs.python.org/issue10518
___
SilentGhost michael.mischurow+...@gmail.com added the comment:
What is the reason for this? Why do we need it?
--
nosy: +SilentGhost
___
Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org
http://bugs.python.org/issue10518
___
Ezio Melotti ezio.melo...@gmail.com added the comment:
I'm not sure it's worth bringing callable() back at this point.
It would have made more sense for 3.1, but now we already have 2
callable()-less versions of Python if we do it for 3.2 (what about the
moratorium though?) or 3 if we do it
25 matches
Mail list logo
