On Thu, 2005-01-27 at 17:24, "Martin v. Löwis" wrote:
> Raymond Hettinger wrote:
> > Other than a vague feeling of completeness is there any reason this
> > needs to be done? Is there anything useful that currently cannot be
> > expressed without this new module?
>
> That I wonder myself, too.
Thanks!!!
On Thu, 27 Jan 2005 16:16:19 -0800, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Update of /cvsroot/python/python/dist/src/Lib/idlelib
> In directory sc8-pr-cvs1.sourceforge.net:/tmp/cvs-serv5316
>
> Modified Files:
> EditorWindow.py NEWS.txt config-keys.def configHandler.py
On Thu, 27 Jan 2005 18:31:55 -0700, Fernando Perez <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> However, I think it would perhaps be best to advertise any methods of Bunch as
> strictly classmethods from day 1. Otherwise, you can have:
>
> b = Bunch()
> b.update(otherdict) -> otherdict happens to have an 'update
Steven Bethard wrote:
> Fernando Perez <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> My feeling about this is that if the name of the attribute is held in
> a variable, you should be using a dict, not a Bunch/Struct. If you
> have a Bunch/Struct and decide you want a dict instead, you can just
> use vars:
>
> p
Steven Bethard wrote:
> Fernando Perez wrote:
>> Steven Bethard wrote:
>> > I'm probably not willing to budge much on adding dict-style methods --
>> > if you want a dict, use a dict. But if people think they're
>> > necessary, there are a few methods from Struct that I wouldn't be too
>> > upset
Fernando Perez wrote:
> Steven Bethard wrote:
> > I'm probably not willing to budge much on adding dict-style methods --
> > if you want a dict, use a dict. But if people think they're
> > necessary, there are a few methods from Struct that I wouldn't be too
> > upset if I had to add, e.g. clear,
Raymond Hettinger wrote:
Other than a vague feeling of completeness is there any reason this
needs to be done? Is there anything useful that currently cannot be
expressed without this new module?
That I wonder myself, too.
Regards,
Martin
___
Python-De
> > Basically, I'd like to see them be given a binding somewhere, and
have
> > their claimed module agree with that, but am not particular as to
where.
>
> I think I cannot agree with this as a goal regardless of the
consequences.
Other than a vague feeling of completeness is there any reason thi
James Y Knight wrote:
Sooo should (for 'generator' in objects that claim to be in
__builtins__ but aren't),
1) 'generator' be added to __builtins__
2) 'generator' be added to types.py and its __module__ be set to 'types'
3) 'generator' be added to .py and its __module__ be set to
'' (and a name for
Fernando Perez <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Alan Green <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> Steven Bethard is proposing a new collection class named Bunch. I had
> >> a few suggestions which I attached as comments to the patch - but what
> >> is really required is a bit more work on the draft PEP, and
[James Y Knight]
> > Basically, I'd like to see them be given a binding somewhere, and
have
> > their claimed module agree with that, but am not particular as to
> > where. Option #2 seemed to be rejected last time, and option #1 was
> > given approval, so that's what I wrote a patch for. It sounds
On Thu, 27 Jan 2005 02:01:20 -0500, James Y Knight <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Basically, I'd like to see them be given a binding somewhere, and have
> their claimed module agree with that, but am not particular as to
> where. Option #2 seemed to be rejected last time, and option #1 was
> given a
On Thu, 27 Jan 2005 01:07:06 -0700, Fernando Perez <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I really would like to see such a class in the stdlib, as it's something that
> pretty much everyone ends up rewriting. I certainly don't claim my
> implementation to be a good reference (it isn't). But perhaps it can
Hi all,
Steven Bethard wrote:
> Alan Green <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Steven Bethard is proposing a new collection class named Bunch. I had
>> a few suggestions which I attached as comments to the patch - but what
>> is really required is a bit more work on the draft PEP, and then
>> discussio
14 matches
Mail list logo
