On 10/16/05, Neal Norwitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 10/10/05, Neal Norwitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > There's a problem with genexp's that I think really needs to get
> > fixed. See http://python.org/sf/1167751 the details are below. This
> > code:
> >
> > >>> foo(a = i for i in range(1
At 07:57 PM 10/20/2005 -0700, Guido van Rossum wrote:
>(Sorry for the long post -- there just wasn't anything you said that I
>felt could be left unquoted. :-)
Wow. You've brought up an awful lot of stuff I want to respond to, about
the nature of frameworks, AOP, Chandler, PEP 342, software depl
Jeremy,
There are a bunch of mods from the AST branch that got integrated into
head. Hopefully, by doing this on python-dev more people will get
involved. I'll describe high level things first, but there will be a
ton of details later on. If people don't want to see this crap on
python-dev, I
> so the new syntax would
> not be useful, unless it was something that provided access to the index
> item as a variable, like:
>
> yield foo(i) for i in x
>
> which barely saves you anything (a colon, a newline, and an indent).
Not even that, because you can omit the newline and indent:
On 10/20/05, Anthony Baxter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> So it looks like the AST branch has landed. Wooo! Well done to all who
> were involved - it seems like it's been a huge amount of work.
Hear, hear. Great news! Thanks to Jeremy, Neil and all the others. I
can't wait to check it out!
--
--Gu
On 10/20/05, Phillip J. Eby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> At 08:57 AM 10/20/2005 -0700, Guido van Rossum wrote:
> >Whoa, folks! Can I ask the gentlemen to curb their enthusiasm?
> >
> >PEP 343 is still (back) on the drawing table, PEP 342 has barely been
> >implemented (did it survive the AST-branch
Hi,
I was thinking why not have a separate file for all the proposed
optional meta-information (in particular interfaces, static types)?
Something along the lines of IDLs in CORBA (with pythonic syntax, of
curse). This way most of the benefits are retained without
"contaminating" the actual sy
On 10/20/05, Anthony Baxter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Could someone involved give a short email laying out what concrete (no
> pun intended) advantages this new compiler gives us? Does it just
> allow us to do new and interesting manipulations of the code during
> compilation? Cleaner, easier
So it looks like the AST branch has landed. Wooo! Well done to all who
were involved - it seems like it's been a huge amount of work.
Could someone involved give a short email laying out what concrete (no
pun intended) advantages this new compiler gives us? Does it just
allow us to do new and
On 10/20/05, Phillip J. Eby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> At 04:04 PM 10/20/2005 -0400, Jeremy Hylton wrote:
> >On 10/20/05, Guido van Rossum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > Whoa, folks! Can I ask the gentlemen to curb their enthusiasm?
> > >
> > > PEP 343 is still (back) on the drawing table, PEP
"Guido van Rossum" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> [Fred]
>> > think iterators shouldn't have length at all:
>> > they're *not* containers and shouldn't act that way.
>>
>> Some iterators can usefully report their length with the invariant:
>>len(it) == len(list
At 08:57 AM 10/20/2005 -0700, Guido van Rossum wrote:
>Whoa, folks! Can I ask the gentlemen to curb their enthusiasm?
>
>PEP 343 is still (back) on the drawing table, PEP 342 has barely been
>implemented (did it survive the AST-branch merge?), and already you
>are talking about adding more stuff. P
"Greg Ewing" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Karl Chen wrote:
>> Hi, has anybody considered adding something like this:
>> a = [1, 2]
>> [ 'x', *a, 'y']
>>
>> as syntactic sugar for
>> a = [1, 2]
>> [ 'x' ] + a + [ 'y' ].
>
> You can write that as
>
At 04:04 PM 10/20/2005 -0400, Jeremy Hylton wrote:
>On 10/20/05, Guido van Rossum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Whoa, folks! Can I ask the gentlemen to curb their enthusiasm?
> >
> > PEP 343 is still (back) on the drawing table, PEP 342 has barely been
> > implemented (did it survive the AST-branc
On 10/20/05, Guido van Rossum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Whoa, folks! Can I ask the gentlemen to curb their enthusiasm?
>
> PEP 343 is still (back) on the drawing table, PEP 342 has barely been
> implemented (did it survive the AST-branch merge?), and already you
> are talking about adding more s
At 10:40 PM 10/20/2005 +1000, Nick Coghlan wrote:
>Phillip J. Eby wrote:
> > This is still rather rough, but I figured it's easier to let everybody
> fill
> > in the remaining gaps by arguments than it is for me to pick a position I
> > like and try to convince everybody else that it's right. :)
On 10/19/05, Martin Blais <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Just wondering, would anyone think of it as a good idea if the
> enumerate() builtin could accept a "start" argument?
And why not an additional "step" argument? Anyway, perhaps all this
can be done with a 'xrange' object...
--
Lisandro Dalcí
Jim Jewett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I'll try to be more explicit; if Josiah and I are talking past each
> other, than the explanation was clearly not yet mature.
>
> (In http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2005-October/057251.html)
> Eyal Lotem suggested:
>
> > Name: Attribute access
Whoa, folks! Can I ask the gentlemen to curb their enthusiasm?
PEP 343 is still (back) on the drawing table, PEP 342 has barely been
implemented (did it survive the AST-branch merge?), and already you
are talking about adding more stuff. Please put on the brakes!
If there's anything this discussi
I'll try to be more explicit; if Josiah and I are talking past each
other, than the explanation was clearly not yet mature.
(In http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2005-October/057251.html)
Eyal Lotem suggested:
> Name: Attribute access for all namespaces ...
> global x ; x = 1
> R
Nick Coghlan wrote:
> P.S. Here's a different generator wrapper that could be used to create a
> generator-based "suspendable context" that can be invoked multiple times
> through use of the "without" keyword. If applied to the PEP 343
> decimal.Context() __with__ method example, it would automa
Phillip J. Eby wrote:
> This is still rather rough, but I figured it's easier to let everybody fill
> in the remaining gaps by arguments than it is for me to pick a position I
> like and try to convince everybody else that it's right. :) Your feedback
> is requested and welcome.
I think you'r
As other explained, the syntax would not work for functions (and it is
not intended to).
A possible use case I had in mind is to define inlined modules to be
used as bunches
of attributes. For instance, I could define a module as
module m():
a = 1
b = 2
where 'module' would be the followi
23 matches
Mail list logo
