Éric Araujo mer...@netwok.org added the comment:
I'd be writing a patch which would allow a programmer the option to
explicitly use/instantiate the library in a zero-based way. [...]
Would this be reasonable?
I think not. Mark already stated his opposition to “a crazy level of micro
James purplei...@gmail.com added the comment:
I'd be writing a patch which would allow a programmer the option to explicitly
use/instantiate the library in a zero-based way. This way throughout their
particular program, the indexing of elements could be consistent. Not having
this causes you
Terry J. Reedy tjre...@udel.edu added the comment:
I do not see a change as being accepted. It would not add any new function but
probably break code, if not habits, for the sake of consistency that would have
been nice.
--
resolution: - rejected
status: open - closed
versions:
James purplei...@gmail.com added the comment:
It's an incompatible change; it would definitely break my code, however I think
it should be wishlisted for an API-break release like 3.5 or 4.0 or something
like that. IMHO, the bindings should be pythonic, even if the underlying
library isn't.
Mark Dickinson dicki...@gmail.com added the comment:
A patch would be useful: I don't think this issue is going to go anywhere
without one.
One of the reasons I'm reluctant to mess with the readline module more than
necessary is that it's historically been fairly fragile: it has to work not
Mark Dickinson dicki...@gmail.com added the comment:
Postscript: I'm also opposed to the idea of 'optional' zero-based indexing.
This just seems like a crazy level of micro control to me. Better to have just
the one way way to do it, even if it isn't quite pythonic.
--
Terry J. Reedy tjre...@udel.edu added the comment:
I wonder if changing the base now would cause problems.
Is readline only used interactively?
--
versions: +Python 2.7, Python 3.1, Python 3.2 -Python 2.5
___
Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org
Mark Dickinson dicki...@gmail.com added the comment:
Changing to feature request: I'm fairly certain that this isn't a bug (i.e.,
it's working as designed).
It's possible to use the readline module non-interactively, so it's probably a
safe bet that there's at least some code out there that
James purplei...@gmail.com added the comment:
@mark: thanks for the comment; i suppose we should investigate why and
if c readline is 1 based...
--
___
Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org
http://bugs.python.org/issue6786
James purplei...@gmail.com added the comment:
i found this:
http://tiswww.case.edu/php/chet/readline/history.html
search for: Variable: int history_base
perhaps we can set this to 0 in the python bindings.
more so, perhaps someone is using 1 because they made a mistake?
--
Mark Dickinson dicki...@gmail.com added the comment:
I'd guess the same. Most of the readline module is just a thin wrapper
around the system readline library, so if the system readline library uses
one-based indexing, so does the readline module. Changing this would
probably be quite
Terry J. Reedy tjre...@udel.edu added the comment:
Please ask questions on, for instance, the python-list (c.l.p).
If you find evidence that this is actually a bug, please supply.
Else, close (or change to doc issue -- see below).
My *guess* is that history lists are 1-based and Python
New submission from James purplei...@gmail.com:
why is it that the zeroth readline history item is seemingly always
none. I would expect this to support zero-based indexing in python, but
perhaps I have missed some detail in readline somewhere. Cheers,
_J
ja...@work:~$ python
Python 2.5.2
13 matches
Mail list logo
