On Sat, 18 Jun 2005, Michael Hudson wrote:
The shortest way I know of going from 2149871625L to -2145095671 is
the still-fairly-gross:
v = 2149871625L
~int(~v0x)
-2145095671
I suppose the best thing is to introduce an unsignedint type for this
purpose.
Or some kind of bitfield
Donovan Baarda [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Nick Coghlan wrote:
Donovan Baarda wrote:
As I see it, a lambda is an anonymous function. An anonymous function is
a function without a name.
And here we see why I'm such a fan of the term 'deferred expression'
instead of 'anonymous
Keith Dart [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Therefore, I would like to ask here if anyone has already started
something like this? If not, I will go ahead and do it (if I have time).
If all you need to do is read or write C-like types to or from memory,
you should spend some time looking through the
Donovan Baarda wrote:
I don't get what the problem is with mixing statement and expression
semantics... from a practial point of view, statements just offer a
superset of expression functionality.
If there really is a serious practical reason why they must be limited
to expressions, why
Kay Schluehr wrote:
Reduction provides often the advantage to make expressions/statements
scriptable what they are not in Python. Python is strong in scripting
classes/objects ( a big plus of the language ) but you can't simply use
the language to prove that
lambda x,y:
Simon I hacked things a bit, and instead of sending XML, sent pickles
Simon inside the XML response.
I've done the same thing (I think I may have used marshal). It works fine
as long as you know both ends are Python.
Skip
___
Python-Dev
Raymond Suggest rejecting this PEP and making a note for Py3.0 to
Raymond either sync-up the type names or abandon the types module
Raymond entirely.
I thought the types module was already deprecated, at least verbally if not
officially.
Skip
As I see it, a lambda is an anonymous function. An anonymous function
is a function without a name. We already have a syntax for a
function... why not use it. ie:
f = filter(def (a): return a 1, [1,2,3])
Kay You mix expressions with statements.
You could remove
Reinhold Birkenfeld wrote:
lambda x,y: x+y*y
lambda x,y: y**2+x
are essentialy the same functions with different implementations [1].
Except that they are not. Think of __pow__, think of __add__ and __radd__.
You know the difference between the concept of
Skip Montanaro wrote:
As I see it, a lambda is an anonymous function. An anonymous function
is a function without a name. We already have a syntax for a
function... why not use it. ie:
f = filter(def (a): return a 1, [1,2,3])
Kay You mix expressions with
Kay Schluehr wrote:
Reinhold Birkenfeld wrote:
lambda x,y: x+y*y
lambda x,y: y**2+x
are essentialy the same functions with different implementations [1].
Except that they are not. Think of __pow__, think of __add__ and __radd__.
You know the difference
On 6/17/05, Raymond Hettinger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The principal use case was largely met by enumerate(). From PEP 276's
+1 for reject it.
.Facundo
Blog: http://www.taniquetil.com.ar/plog/
PyAr: http://www.python.org/ar/
___
Python-Dev
At 10:15 PM 6/18/2005 -0400, Phillip J. Eby wrote:
Okay, I think I see why you can't do it. You could guarantee that all
relevant __del__ methods get called, but it's bloody difficult to end up
with only unreachable items in gc.garbage afterwards. I think gc would
have to keep a new list for
Sigh. Looks like Guido already used the time machine to bring up these
ideas five years ago:
http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2000-March/002514.html
And apparently you went back with him:
http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2000-March/002478.html
So I give up,
At the www.python.org/peps page, PEP 281 is
erroneously listed in the Finished PEPs (done,
implemented in CVS) section.
Yahoo! Sports
Rekindle the Rivalries. Sign up for Fantasy Football
___
Python-Dev mailing list
Python-Dev@python.org
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev
Unsubscribe:
http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
Well, it's fixed now. Thanks to whomever took care of
it.
--- Nick Jacobson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
At the www.python.org/peps page, PEP 281 is
erroneously listed in the Finished PEPs (done,
implemented in CVS) section.
__
Do You Yahoo!?
17 matches
Mail list logo
