I wrote:
> Bob writes:
Ack - sorry about that - the HTML mail confused me :) It was Brett, of
course.
Mark
___
Python-Dev mailing list
Python-Dev@python.org
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev
Unsubscribe:
http://mail.python.org/mailm
Bob writes:
> I don't know how JavaScript is doing it yet. The critical thing
> for me for this month was trying to come up with a security model.
I don't fully understand how JS does it either, certainly not in any detail.
I know that it uses the concept of a "principal" (the IDL file can be se
Greg Ewing wrote:
> BTW, I'm not sure if 'xturtle' is such a good name.
> There's a tradition of X Windows executables having
> names starting with 'x', whereas this is presumably
> platform-independent.
>
> Maybe 'turtleplus' or something?
When it goes into Python, it will be 'turtle'.
Regards,
Martin v. Löwis wrote:
> xturtle
BTW, I'm not sure if 'xturtle' is such a good name.
There's a tradition of X Windows executables having
names starting with 'x', whereas this is presumably
platform-independent.
Maybe 'turtleplus' or something?
--
Greg
Jim Jewett wrote:
> IMHO, I would prefer that it limit disk consumption; a deleted or
> overwritten file would not count against the process, but even a
> temporary spike would need to be less than the cap.
The problem is that there's no easy way to reliably measure
disk consumption by a particul
Raymond wrote:
> One other thought -- at PyCon, I talked with a group of
> educators. While they needed some minor tweaks to the Turtle
> module, there were no requests for an extensive rewrite or a
> fatter API. The name of the game was to have a single module
> with a minimal toolset supportin
Talin wrote:
> The case -> sub mapping doesn't need to be defined every time - that's
> the point, you as the programmer decide when and how to construct the
> dictionary,
Then you seem to be proposing a variation on the constant-only
case option, with a more convoluted control flow.
--
Greg
_
Nick Coghlan wrote:
> By 'current namespace' I really do mean locals() - the cell objects themselves
> would be local variables from the point of view of the currently executing
> code.
This is wrong. Cells are *parameters* implicitly passed
in by the calling function. They may temporarily be
re
Fredrik Lundh schrieb:
> Gregor Lingl wrote:
>
>
>> What a shame!! An immanent bug, persistent
>> for years now!
>>
>> Is this what Anthony Baxter calls
>> "the most solid Python release ever"
>>
>
> do you really think stuff like this helps your cause ?
>
>
Perhaps it dosn't help the tu
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> As a compromise. we could tack Gregor Lingl's module under
> the Tools directory. This makes the tool more readily available
> for student use and allows it a more liberal zone to evolve than
> if it were in the standard library.
That could also work. See my other com
Guido van Rossum wrote:
> It was already patched by the other Georg. Thanks for the quick fix, georgbot!
My pleasure, even if there's a difference between "Georg" and "Gregor" ;)
cheers,
Georg
___
Python-Dev mailing list
Python-Dev@python.org
http://ma
> I believe at least one poster has pointed out that 'once' (if defined
> suitably) could be used as a better way to do this:
>
> def index_functions(n):
> return [(lambda: once i) for i in range(n)]
>
> But delaying the evaluation of the once argument until the function is
> called would b
Gregor Lingl wrote:
> For example: put turtle.py and xturtle.py both into beta2 and
> see which one stands better the (beta)test of time. Or perhaps you have
> an even better idea!
As a compromise, we could put an ad into the turtle document (a "see
also" link).
Regards,
Martin
_
[Collin Winter]
>> While I have no opinion on Gregor's app, and while I fully
agree that
>> new language features and stdlib modules should generally
stay out of
>> bug-fix point releases, xturtle doesn't seem to rise to that
level
>> (and hence, those restrictions).
[Martin]
> It's a stdlib mo
Gregor Lingl wrote:
> Sorry Martin, but to me this seems not to be the right way to manage
> things.
As you explain later, this is precisely the right way; it is unfortunate
that it isn't always followed.
> (Who reviewed it? This is a _newly_added_ function -
> did nobody try it out yet? Incredib
It was already patched by the other Georg. Thanks for the quick fix, georgbot!
--Guido
On 6/28/06, Bob Ippolito <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Jun 28, 2006, at 1:05 PM, Gregor Lingl wrote:
>
> > Martin v. Löwis schrieb:
> >> Collin Winter wrote:
> >>
> >>> While I have no opinion on Gregor's a
On Jun 28, 2006, at 1:05 PM, Gregor Lingl wrote:
> Martin v. Löwis schrieb:
>> Collin Winter wrote:
>>
>>> While I have no opinion on Gregor's app, and while I fully agree
>>> that
>>> new language features and stdlib modules should generally stay
>>> out of
>>> bug-fix point releases, xturtl
On 6/28/06, Trent Mick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Brett Cannon wrote:> > > The idea is that there be a separate Python interpreter per web> > > browser page instance.>> > I think there may be scaling issues there. _javascript_ isn't doing that
> > is it, do you know? As well, that doesn't s
Gregor Lingl wrote:
> What a shame!! An immanent bug, persistent
> for years now!
>
> Is this what Anthony Baxter calls
> "the most solid Python release ever"
do you really think stuff like this helps your cause ?
___
Python-Dev mailing list
Python-
Brett Cannon wrote:
> > > The idea is that there be a separate Python interpreter per web
> > > browser page instance.
>
> > I think there may be scaling issues there. JavaScript isn't doing that
> > is it, do you know? As well, that doesn't seem like it would translate
> > well to sha
On Wed, Jun 28, 2006, James Y Knight wrote:
>
> I just found another reason to dislike the warnings: my homedir on
> one machine has a lot of random directories in it. One of them is
> named "readline". Every time I run python 2.5, it now helpfully notes:
>sys:1: ImportWarning: Not importin
Martin v. Löwis schrieb:
Collin Winter wrote:
While I have no opinion on Gregor's app, and while I fully agree that
new language features and stdlib modules should generally stay out of
bug-fix point releases, xturtle doesn't seem to rise to that level
(and hence, those restrictions).
On 6/28/06, Bill Janssen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Yep, it would be. Then again, Mark Hammond has already done a bunch of work> for pyXPCOM, so getting Python compiled right into Firefox itself shouldn't> be too bad.Of course, that's the road Sun first went down with Java, and that
turned out n
On Jun 25, 2006, at 9:47 PM, James Y Knight wrote:
>
> On Jun 24, 2006, at 1:29 PM, Ralf W. Grosse-Kunstleve wrote:
>
>> --- Jean-Paul Calderone <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> I think it is safe to say that Twisted is more widely used than
>>> anything
>>> Google has yet released. Twisted also h
Guido van Rossum wrote:
> On 6/28/06, Brett Cannon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> On 6/28/06, Guido van Rossum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> - File size should be rounded up to some block size (512 if you don't
>>> have filesystem specific information) before adding to the total.
>> Why?
>
> Becau
Collin Winter wrote:
> While I have no opinion on Gregor's app, and while I fully agree that
> new language features and stdlib modules should generally stay out of
> bug-fix point releases, xturtle doesn't seem to rise to that level
> (and hence, those restrictions).
It's a stdlib module, even if
> Yep, it would be. Then again, Mark Hammond has already done a bunch of work
> for pyXPCOM, so getting Python compiled right into Firefox itself shouldn't
> be too bad.
Of course, that's the road Sun first went down with Java, and that
turned out not-so-well for them. I think the plug-in approa
On 6/28/06, Jim Jewett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 6/28/06, Guido van Rossum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On 6/28/06, Jim Jewett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> It basically requires a reserved word.
>
> def f(a, b="key", __func__.extra=i):
> if __func__.extra < 43: ...
>
> > And an
On Jun 28, 2006, at 10:54 AM, Brett Cannon wrote:On 6/28/06, Trent Mick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Brett Cannon wrote: Mark (and me a little bit) has been sketching out creating a "Python forMozilla/Firefox" extension for installing an embedded Python into anexisting Firefox installation on the pyx
On 6/28/06, Guido van Rossum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 6/28/06, Jim Jewett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On 6/28/06, Guido van Rossum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > def index_functions(n):
> > > return [(lambda i=i: i) for i in range(n)]
> > > which works but has the disadvantage o
> > Forget subroutines for a moment - the main point of the thread was the
> > idea that the dispatch table was built explicitly rather than
> > automatically - that instead of arguing over first-use vs.
> > function-definition, we let the user decide. I'm sure that my specific
> > proposal isn't t
Guido van Rossum wrote:
> On 6/27/06, Greg Ewing <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Giovanni Bajo wrote:
>>
>> > This is where I wonder why the "def __main__()" PEP was rejected in the
>> > first place. It would have solved this problem as well.
>>
>> Could this be reconsidered for Py3k?
>
> You have a
On 6/28/06, Trent Mick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Brett Cannon wrote:> The plan is to allow pure Python code to be embedded into web pages like> _javascript_. ...> ...Then again, Mark Hammond has already done a bunch of work for pyXPCOM, so getting Python compiled right into Firefox itself shouldn'
Only one gripe:
[Anthony Baxter]
> ...
> Once we hit release candidate 1, the trunk gets branched to
> reease25-maint.
Save the branch for 2.5 final (i.e., the 2.5final tag and the
release25-maint branch start life exactly the same). Adding a new
step before it's possible to fix rc1 critical bug
On 6/28/06, Guido van Rossum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 6/28/06, Brett Cannon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:> On 6/28/06, Guido van Rossum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:> > - File size should be rounded up to some block size (512 if you don't
> > have filesystem specific information) before adding to th
On 6/28/06, Jim Jewett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 6/28/06, Brett Cannon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:> On 6/28/06, Guido van Rossum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:> > - File size should be rounded up to some block size (512 if you don't
> > have filesystem specific information) before adding to the tota
On 6/28/06, Anthony Baxter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> As far as people to sign off on things, Neal, myself or Guido should
> be the ones to do it. Course, Guido will probably decide he doesn't
> want this dubious honour .
Right. But I agree with the policy.
FWIW, I think Nick's change for -m is
This is a request for comments - this is my current thinking on a
policy for checkins to the trunk between now and the release of 2.5
final.
Now that we're in beta:
If you don't add an entry to Misc/NEWS, a test (if relevant or
possible) and docs (if relevant), the checkin is probably g
On 6/28/06, Brett Cannon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 6/28/06, Guido van Rossum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > - File size should be rounded up to some block size (512 if you don't
> > have filesystem specific information) before adding to the total.
>
> Why?
Because that's how filesystems work
Brett Cannon wrote:
> The plan is to allow pure Python code to be embedded into web pages like
> JavaScript. ...
> ...Then again, Mark Hammond has already done a bunch of work for pyXPCOM, so
> getting Python compiled right into Firefox itself shouldn't be too bad.
>
> If this really takes off,
On 6/28/06, Talin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Guido van Rossum wrote:
> > Let's just drop the switchable subroutine proposal. It's not viable.
>
> Perhaps not - but at the same time, when discussing new language
> features, let's not just limit ourselves to what other languages have
> done already
On 6/28/06, Jim Jewett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 6/28/06, Guido van Rossum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > def index_functions(n):
> > return [(lambda i=i: i) for i in range(n)]
>
> > which works but has the disadvantage of returning a list of functions
> > of 0 or 1 argument
>
> > I b
Guido van Rossum wrote:
> Let's just drop the switchable subroutine proposal. It's not viable.
>
Perhaps not - but at the same time, when discussing new language
features, let's not just limit ourselves to what other languages have
done already.
Forget subroutines for a moment - the main point
On 6/28/06, Brett Cannon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 6/28/06, Guido van Rossum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > - File size should be rounded up to some block size (512 if you don't
> > have filesystem specific information) before adding to the total.
> Why?
That reflects the amount of disk I
Guido van Rossum wrote:
>>> This is where I wonder why the "def __main__()" PEP was rejected in
>>> the first place. It would have solved this problem as well.
>>
>> Could this be reconsidered for Py3k?
>
> You have a point.
AFAICT, there's nothing preventing it from being added in 2.6. It won't
On Thursday 29 June 2006 03:03, Collin Winter wrote:
> This may be a stupid question, but we're talking about replacing
> the turtle.py in Lib/lib-tk/, right? The one that's basically just
> a GUI demo / introduction to programming tool?
>
> If so, can someone explain to me how improving something
On 6/28/06, Guido van Rossum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> def index_functions(n):
> return [(lambda i=i: i) for i in range(n)]
> which works but has the disadvantage of returning a list of functions
> of 0 or 1 argument
> I believe at least one poster has pointed out that 'once' (if define
On Wed, Jun 28, 2006, Collin Winter wrote:
>
> This may be a stupid question, but we're talking about replacing the
> turtle.py in Lib/lib-tk/, right? The one that's basically just a GUI
> demo / introduction to programming tool?
>
> If so, can someone explain to me how improving something like th
On 6/28/06, Josiah Carlson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Gregor Lingl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Could you imagine - downgrading it's 'featureness' - to put it into 2.5.1
> > or something like this?
>
> Changing features/abilities of Python in micro releases (2.5 -> 2.5.1),
> aside from bugfix
Josiah Carlson schrieb:
> Gregor Lingl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> Could you imagine - downgrading it's 'featureness' - to put it into 2.5.1
>> or something like this?
>>
>
> Changing features/abilities of Python in micro releases (2.5 -> 2.5.1),
> aside from bugfixes, is a no-no.
I un
On 6/27/06, Bill Janssen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The plan is to allow pure Python code to be embedded into web pages like> _javascript_. I am not going for the applet approach like Java.Java support is now just a plug-in. Should be easy to make a Python
plug-in system that works the same way
On 6/28/06, Guido van Rossum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 6/28/06, Jim Jewett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:> On 6/27/06, Neal Norwitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:> > On 6/27/06, Brett Cannon <
[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:> > >> > > > (5) I think file creation/writing should be capped rather than> > > > b
On 6/28/06, Jim Jewett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 6/27/06, Neal Norwitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:> On 6/27/06, Brett Cannon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:> >> > > (5) I think file creation/writing should be capped rather than
> > > binary; it is reasonable to say "You can create a single temp file
Let's just drop the switchable subroutine proposal. It's not viable.
On 6/28/06, Josiah Carlson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Talin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Josiah Carlson wrote:
> > > Talin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >
> > >>My version of this is to add to Python the notion of a simple
On 6/27/06, Neal Norwitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 6/27/06, Brett Cannon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:>> > (5) I think file creation/writing should be capped rather than> > binary; it is reasonable to say "You can create a single temp file up
> > to 4K" or "You can create files, but not more than
On 6/28/06, Jim Jewett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 6/27/06, Neal Norwitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On 6/27/06, Brett Cannon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >
> > > > (5) I think file creation/writing should be capped rather than
> > > > binary; it is reasonable to say "You can create a sin
Gregor Lingl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Could you imagine - downgrading it's 'featureness' - to put it into 2.5.1
> or something like this?
Changing features/abilities of Python in micro releases (2.5 -> 2.5.1),
aside from bugfixes, is a no-no. See the Python 2.2 -> 2.2.1
availability of True/
On 6/28/06, Nick Coghlan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The workaround to replace __name__ with __module_name__ in order to enable
> relative imports turned out to be pretty ugly, so I also worked up a patch to
> import.c to get it to treat __module_name__ as an override for __name__ when
> __name__
On 6/28/06, Fredrik Lundh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I just wish I could figure out what school my original micro-PEP belongs
> to (but as long as my implementation note is still just a draft, I guess no-
> body else can figure that out either... ;-)
There aren't just schools; there are alternat
On 6/28/06, Jim Jewett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 6/25/06, Ka-Ping Yee wrote:
>
> > def f(x):
> > def g(y):
> > return y + once x
> > return g
>
> > Does "once" mean not really once here, but "once for each new function
> > object that's created for g"?
>
> Unt
Talin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Josiah Carlson wrote:
> > Talin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >>My version of this is to add to Python the notion of a simple
> >>old-fashioned subroutine - that is, a function with no arguments and no
> >>additional scope, which can be referred to by name.
Gregor Lingl wrote:
>I would appreciate it very much if xturtle.py could go into Python2.5.
>
>
+1 The need for turtle.py improvements was discussed at the last
PyCon. It would be a nice plus for people teaching programming to kids.
In theory, it is a little late to be adding new modules.
Gregor Lingl wrote:
> Already now, only one week after publishing it I have some very positive
> feedback and people start to use it. So I think there is some demand for
> it.
some demand != should be added to the core distribution a few days after
its first release. (and if everything that someo
On 6/25/06, Ka-Ping Yee wrote:
> def f(x):
> def g(y):
> return y + once x
> return g
> Does "once" mean not really once here, but "once for each new function
> object that's created for g"?
Until today, it hadn't really occurred to me that once could mean once
p
Anthony Baxter schrieb:
> On Wednesday 28 June 2006 20:57, Gregor Lingl wrote:
>
>> I would very much appreciate if xturtle.py could go into
>> Python 2.5
>>
>
> Unfortunately Python 2.5b1 came out last week. Now that we're in beta,
> we're feature frozen (unless some horrible issue comes
On Wednesday 28 June 2006 20:41, nick.coghlan wrote:
> Author: nick.coghlan
> Date: Wed Jun 28 12:41:47 2006
> New Revision: 47142
>
> Modified:
>python/trunk/Doc/lib/librunpy.tex
>python/trunk/Lib/runpy.py
>python/trunk/Lib/test/test_runpy.py
> Log:
> Make full module name available as
On Wednesday 28 June 2006 20:57, Gregor Lingl wrote:
> I would very much appreciate if xturtle.py could go into
> Python 2.5
Unfortunately Python 2.5b1 came out last week. Now that we're in beta,
we're feature frozen (unless some horrible issue comes up that means
we really need to do a feature
On 6/28/06, Nick Coghlan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Guido van Rossum wrote:
> > I think we all agree
> > that side effects of case expressions is one way how we can deduce the
> > compiler's behind-the-scenes tricks (even School Ib is okay with
> > this). So I don't accept this as proof that Opti
Guido van Rossum wrote:
>> that's not true for all programming languages that has a switch construct,
>> though;
>> the common trait is that you're dispatching on a single value, not
>> necessarily that
>> there cannot be potentially overlapping case conditions.
>
> You have a point.
that can h
Looks like this doesn't help at all when pre-computing the dispatch
dict based on named constants. So this is a no-go.
I should add that ABC had such named subroutines (but not for
switching); I dropped them to simplify things. They're not an
intrinsically undesirable or even unnecessary thing IMO
On 6/28/06, Fredrik Lundh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Phillip J. Eby wrote:
>
> > Hear, hear! We already have if/elif, we don't need another way to spell
> > it. The whole point of switch is that it asserts that exactly *one* case
> > is supposed to match
>
> that's not true for all programming
On Wed, Jun 28, 2006 at 12:57:23PM +0200, Gregor Lingl wrote:
> I would very much appreciate if xturtle.py could go into
> Python 2.5
That decision is up to Anthony Baxter, the release manager.
Unfortunately 2.5beta1 is already out, and the developers try to avoid
large changes during the beta se
On 6/27/06, Neal Norwitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 6/27/06, Brett Cannon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > (5) I think file creation/writing should be capped rather than
> > > binary; it is reasonable to say "You can create a single temp file up
> > > to 4K" or "You can create files, but
Gregor Lingl wrote:
> I would appreciate it very much if xturtle.py could go into Python2.5.
> I'm ready to do the amendments, which may emerge as necessary from the
> dicussion here.
I see little chance for that. Python 2.5 is feature-frozen.
Regards,
Martin
___
Ralf W. Grosse-Kunstleve wrote:
>> There can be many reasons why an import could fail: there might be
>> no read permission for the file,
>
> The warning in 2.5b1 doesn't fire in this case:
Sure, but it would produce your "note", right? And the note would be
essentially wrong. Instead, the Import
Nick Coghlan wrote:
> Guido van Rossum wrote:
>> However, I'm fine with setting *another* variable to the full package
>> name so someone who *really* wants to do relative imports here knows
>> the package name.
>
> OK, I'll do that. Any objections to __module_name__ as the name of the
> variable?
--- "Martin v. L�wis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Ralf W. Grosse-Kunstleve wrote:
> > If there is a consenus, I'd create a new exception
> ImportErrorNoModule(name)
> > that is used consistently from all places. This would ensure uniformity of
> the
> > message in the future.
>
> A correction
Sorry (dunno why)
Gregor
___
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
xturtle.py, extended turtle graphics
is a new Tkinter based turtle graphics module for Python
xturtle.py (Version 0.91) can be found at:
http://sourceforge.net/tracker/?group_id=5470&atid=305470
(Request ID 1513695, and 1513699 for the docs)
and at
http://ada.rg16.asn-wien.ac.at/~python/xturtle
xturtle.py, extended turtle graphics
a new Tkinter based turtle graphics module for Python
I just have released xturtle.py (v.0.91). It can be found at:
http://sourceforge.net/tracker/?group_id=5470&atid=305470
with RequestID 1513695 (and 1513699 for the docs)
and also here
http://ada.rg16.asn
Ralf W. Grosse-Kunstleve wrote:
> If there is a consenus, I'd create a new exception ImportErrorNoModule(name)
> that is used consistently from all places. This would ensure uniformity of the
> message in the future.
A correction proposal should only be given if it is likely correct.
There can be
Hi Brett,
On Tue, Jun 27, 2006 at 10:32:08AM -0700, Brett Cannon wrote:
> OK, with you and Thomas both wanting to keep it I will let it be. I just
> won't worry about fixing it myself during my interpreter hardening crusade.
I agree with this too. If I remember correctly, you even mentioned in
Guido van Rossum wrote:
>> Is it unacceptable - or impractical - to break the addition of switch
>> to python in two (minor version separated) steps ?
>
> But what's the point? We have until Python 3000 anyway.
except that we may want to "reserve" the necessary keywords in 2.6...
__
Phillip J. Eby wrote:
> Hear, hear! We already have if/elif, we don't need another way to spell
> it. The whole point of switch is that it asserts that exactly *one* case
> is supposed to match
that's not true for all programming languages that has a switch construct,
though;
the common trait
Nick Coghlan wrote:
> There certainly isn't anything in the code above to suggest to a reader that
> the condition attempting to guard evaluation of the switch statement might not
> do its job.
that's why the evaluation model used in the case statement needs to be explicit.
that applies to the "
Josiah Carlson wrote:
> Talin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>My version of this is to add to Python the notion of a simple
>>old-fashioned subroutine - that is, a function with no arguments and no
>>additional scope, which can be referred to by name. For example:
>
>
> I don't like the idea of
Guido van Rossum wrote:
> I think we all agree
> that side effects of case expressions is one way how we can deduce the
> compiler's behind-the-scenes tricks (even School Ib is okay with
> this). So I don't accept this as proof that Option 2 is better.
OK, I worked out a side effect free example o
Talin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> My version of this is to add to Python the notion of a simple
> old-fashioned subroutine - that is, a function with no arguments and no
> additional scope, which can be referred to by name. For example:
I don't like the idea of an embedded subrutine for a few
Guido van Rossum wrote:
> However, I'm fine with setting *another* variable to the full package
> name so someone who *really* wants to do relative imports here knows
> the package name.
OK, I'll do that. Any objections to __module_name__ as the name of the
variable? (to keep things simple, run_mo
89 matches
Mail list logo
