On Feb 2, 2006, at 10:36 PM, Bengt Richter wrote:
> So long as we have a distinction between int and long, IWT int will
> be fixed width
> for any given implementation, and for interfacing with foreign
> functions it will
> continue to be useful at times to limit the type of arguments being
>
On Fri, 3 Feb 2006 10:16:17 +1100, "Delaney, Timothy (Tim)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>Andrew Koenig wrote:
>
>>> I definately agree with the 0c664 octal literal. Seems rather more
>>> intuitive.
>>
>> I still prefer 8r664.
>
>The more I look at this, the worse it gets. Something beginning with
On Thu, 02 Feb 2006 23:46:00 +0100, =?ISO-8859-1?Q?=22Martin_v=2E_L=F6wis=22?=
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Bengt Richter wrote:
[1] To reduce all this eye-glazing discussion to a simple example,
how do people now
use hex notation to define an integer bit-mask constant with bits
>>
Andrew Koenig wrote:
>> I definately agree with the 0c664 octal literal. Seems rather more
>> intuitive.
>
> I still prefer 8r664.
The more I look at this, the worse it gets. Something beginning with
zero (like 0xFF, 0c664) immediately stands out as "unusual". Something
beginning with any other
M J Fleming wrote:
> +1
>
> I definately agree with the 0c664 octal literal. Seems rather more
> intuitive.
And importantly, sounds like "Oc" 664 ;)
Tim Delaney
___
Python-Dev mailing list
Python-Dev@python.org
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/
Bengt Richter wrote:
>>>[1] To reduce all this eye-glazing discussion to a simple example,
>>>how do people now
>>>use hex notation to define an integer bit-mask constant with bits
>
> ^^^
>
>>>31 and 2 set?|
>>
>>
I was recently reviewing a lot of the Python 2.4 code I have written,
and I've noticed one thing: thanks to the attrgetter and itemgetter
functions in module operator, I've been using (or been tempted to use)
far fewer lambdas, particularly but not exclusively in key= arguments
to sort and sorted.
On Thu, 2 Feb 2006 15:26:24 -0500, James Y Knight <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On Feb 2, 2006, at 7:11 PM, Bengt Richter wrote:
>> [1] To reduce all this eye-glazing discussion to a simple example,
>> how do people now
>> use hex notation to define an integer bit-mask constant with bits
On 2/1/06, Greg Wilson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Generator expressions make syntactic support irrelevant:
>
> Not when you're teaching the language to undergraduates: I haven't
> actually done the study yet (though I may this summer), but I'm willing to
> bet that allowing "math" notation for
Andrew Koenig wrote:
>>I definately agree with the 0c664 octal literal. Seems rather more
>>intuitive.
>
>
> I still prefer 8r664.
664[8] looks better and allows any radix
___
Python-Dev mailing list
Python-Dev@python.org
http://mail.python.org/mailma
On Wed, 1 Feb 2006, Greg Wilson wrote:
[...]
> (Imagine having to write "list(1, 2, 3, 4, 5)"...)
[...]
I believe that was actually proposed on this list for Python 3.
John
___
Python-Dev mailing list
Python-Dev@python.org
http://mail.python.org/mailma
On Wed, 1 Feb 2006, Greg Wilson wrote:
>> Like many things in Python where people pre-emptively believe one thing
>> or another, the interpreter's corrective feedback is immediate:
>
> Yup, that's the theory; it's a shame practice is different.
So what mistake(s) *do* your students make? As peop
On Feb 2, 2006, at 7:11 PM, Bengt Richter wrote:
> [1] To reduce all this eye-glazing discussion to a simple example,
> how do people now
> use hex notation to define an integer bit-mask constant with bits
> 31 and 2 set?
That's easy:
0x8004
That was broken in python < 2.4, though, so the
On Wed, 1 Feb 2006 13:54:49 -0500 (EST), Paul Svensson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>On Wed, 1 Feb 2006, Barry Warsaw wrote:
>
>> The proposal for something like 0xff, 0o664, and 0b1001001 seems like
>> the right direction, although 'o' for octal literal looks kind of funky.
>> Maybe 'c' for oCtal?
> I definately agree with the 0c664 octal literal. Seems rather more
> intuitive.
I still prefer 8r664.
___
Python-Dev mailing list
Python-Dev@python.org
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev
Unsubscribe:
http://mail.python.org/mailman/o
Hye-Shik Chang <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On 1/30/06, "Martin v. Löwis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Hye-Shik Chang wrote:
>> > I did some work to make ctypes+libffi compacter and liberal.
>> > http://openlook.org/svnpublic/ctypes-compactffi/ (svn)
>> >
>> > I removed sources/gcc and put sour
> Like many things in Python where people pre-emptively believe one thing
> or another, the interpreter's corrective feedback is immediate:
Yup, that's the theory; it's a shame practice is different.
> Once the students have progressed beyond academic finger drills and have
> started writing real
> The PEP records that Tim argued for leaving the extra parentheses. What
> would you do with {'title'} -- create a four element set consisting of
> letters or a single element set consisting of a string?
This is a moderately-fertile source of bugs for newcomers: judging from
the number of student
> Generator expressions make syntactic support irrelevant:
Not when you're teaching the language to undergraduates: I haven't
actually done the study yet (though I may this summer), but I'm willing to
bet that allowing "math" notation for sets will more than double their
use. (Imagine having to w
On Wed, Feb 01, 2006 at 01:35:14PM -0500, Barry Warsaw wrote:
> The proposal for something like 0xff, 0o664, and 0b1001001 seems like
> the right direction, although 'o' for octal literal looks kind of funky.
> Maybe 'c' for oCtal? (remember it's 'x' for heXadecimal).
>
> -Barry
>
+1
I definatel
On 1/30/06, "Martin v. Löwis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hye-Shik Chang wrote:
> > I did some work to make ctypes+libffi compacter and liberal.
> > http://openlook.org/svnpublic/ctypes-compactffi/ (svn)
> >
> > I removed sources/gcc and put sources/libffi copied from gcc 4.0.2.
> > And removed a
On 1 feb 2006, at 19:14, BJörn Lindqvist wrote:
> I've submitted an updated version of the PEP. The only major change is
> that instead of the method atime and property getatime() there is now
> only one method named atime(). Also some information about the string
> inheritance problem in Open Iss
22 matches
Mail list logo
