On 11/23/05, Greg Ewing <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Brett Cannon wrote:
>
> > There are two problems to this topic; how to
> > get the AST structs into Python objects and how to allow Python code
> > to modify the AST before bytecode emission
>
> I'm astounded to hear that the AST isn't made from
Paul Jimenez wrote:
> So I propose that urlsplit, the main offender, be replaced with something
> that looks like:
>
> def urlsplit(url, scheme='', allow_fragments=1, default=('','','','','')):
+1 in principle.
You should probably do a
global _parse_cache
and add 'is not None' after 'if cac
Brett Cannon wrote:
> There are two problems to this topic; how to
> get the AST structs into Python objects and how to allow Python code
> to modify the AST before bytecode emission
I'm astounded to hear that the AST isn't made from
Python objects in the first place. Is there a particular
reason
At 11:51 PM 11/23/2005 +1000, Nick Coghlan wrote:
>The key thing that is missing is the "imp.getloader" functionality discussed
>at the end of PEP 302.
This isn't hard to implement per se; setuptools for example has a
'get_importer' function, and going from importer to loader is simple:
def get_
On Tue, Nov 22, 2005, Paul Jimenez wrote:
>
> If this isn't the right forum for this discussion, or the right place
> to submit code, please let me know. Also, please cc: me directly on
> responses as I'm not subscribed to the firehose that is python-dev.
This is the right forum for discussion.
It is my assertion that urlparse is currently broken. Specifically, I
think that urlparse breaks an abstraction boundary with ill effect.
In writing a mailclient, I wished to allow my users to specify their
imap server as a url, such as 'imap://user:[EMAIL PROTECTED]:port/'. Which
worked fine.
Phillip J. Eby wrote:
> At 06:32 PM 11/22/2005 -0800, Brett Cannon wrote:
>>> Hmm, it would be nice to give a function a module
>>> name (like from an import statement) and have Python resolve it using
>>> the normal sys.path iteration.
>>>
>> Yep, import path -> filename path would be cool.
>
>
Neil Schemenauer wrote:
>Fredrik Lundh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
>>Thomas Lee wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>Even if it meant we had just one function call - one, safe function call
>>>that deallocated all the memory allocated within a function - that we
>>>had to put before each and every return,
