Guido van Rossum wrote:
> > I don't think a change like this should go into a 2.4.x release. It
> > stands a very very high chance of breaking someone's code. I _could_
> > be convinced about a warning being emitted about it, though I'm not
> > going to have the time to figure out the new compiler
On 3/5/06, Neal Norwitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
test_generators leaked [255, 255, 255] references254 of those 255 leaks seem to be caused by the two recursive-generator examples at the bottom of the fun_tests doctest: fib() and the last m235() implementation. The recursiveness isn't in the gener
On 3/6/06, Thomas Lee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Just a quick question: how can I add new future keywords to Python? Ineed to add a new (Python) keyword to the language, but there seems tobe a few different source files that I need to modify.Just want to make sure I'm doing it the right way before
Hi,
Just a quick question: how can I add new future keywords to Python? I
need to add a new (Python) keyword to the language, but there seems to
be a few different source files that I need to modify.
Just want to make sure I'm doing it the right way before I go unleashing
a nasty broken patch
On 3/4/06, Anthony Baxter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Saturday 04 March 2006 15:34, Tim Peters wrote:
> > Indeed! But whose arm could we twist to get them to repair the
> > compiler in 2.4? I'd settle for a blurb in the next 2.4 NEWS just
> > noting that 2.5 will follow the documented syntax.
On Sun, Mar 05, 2006 at 06:48:22PM +, Neil Schemenauer wrote:
> Oleg Broytmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > What are disadvantages of a direct .len() instead of .__len__()?
>
> I can think of a few arguments against getting rid of double
> underscores in general.
The discussion is about
Talin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> However, I would like to be able to reply to posts in such a way as to
> have them appear in the appropriate place in the thread hierarchy.
The message should have a References header that contains the
Message-Id of the message that you are responding to.
> Doe
Oleg Broytmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> What are disadvantages of a direct .len() instead of .__len__()?
I can think of a few arguments against getting rid of double
underscores in general. First, special methods are a little like
keywords in that it would be nice to introduce new ones from t
Phillip J. Eby a écrit :
> I didn't misstate her argument or reduce it to the absurd. I simply
> applied that argument consistently to similar features of Python. It's you
> who is concluding that this results in absurdity; I made no such
> conclusion. I'm simply pointing out that in 3.0 we
Just a quick question about the mechanics of replying to this list.
I am a subscriber to the list, however I much prefer readiing the list
archives on the web instead of having the postings delivered to my email
account. Because of this, I have delivery turned off in the mailing list
preference
Hello,
> >should we perhaps switch to (careful use of) C++ in 3.0 ?
> I can't see many advantages in moving to C++, but a lot of disadvantages:
>
> - Size increase, especially when we start using templates
> - Performance decrease
> - Problems with name mangling together with dynamic loading and c
Hello!
On Sat, Mar 04, 2006 at 04:31:26PM -0500, Phillip J. Eby wrote:
> I'm not sure that "more object-oriented" should be equated with "good" in
> this context, or indeed any context. :)
I am sure it is.
> A function is no more or less
> polymorphic than a method in any case, especially i
Raymond Hettinger wrote:
> This conversation is getting goofy.
indeed.
let's pray that nobody that is considering picking up Python sees this
thread.
___
Python-Dev mailing list
Python-Dev@python.org
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-
13 matches
Mail list logo
