On 5/7/07, Terry Reedy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> "Guido van Rossum" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> | But why bother? The 2to3 converter can do this for you.
> |
> | In a sense using range() is more likely to produce broken results in
> | 3.0: if your code depen
> I'd like to suggest that we remove all (or nearly all) uses of
> xrange from the stdlib. A quick scan shows that most of the usage
> of it is unnecessary. With it going away in 3.0, and it being
> informally deprecated anyway, it seems like a good thing to go away
> where possible.
>
>Any obj
"Guido van Rossum" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
| But why bother? The 2to3 converter can do this for you.
|
| In a sense using range() is more likely to produce broken results in
| 3.0: if your code depends on the fact that range() returns a list, it
| is broken in
On Tue, May 08, 2007 at 09:14:02AM +1000, Anthony Baxter wrote:
> I'd like to suggest that we remove all (or nearly all) uses of
> xrange from the stdlib. A quick scan shows that most of the usage
> of it is unnecessary. With it going away in 3.0, and it being
> informally deprecated anyway, it
>> Surely
>>
>> from textwrap import dedent as d
>>
>> is close enough?
Nick> Apart from it happening at run time rather than compile time.
And as someone else pointed out, what if you don't want each chunk of text
terminated by a newline?
Skip
_
But why bother? The 2to3 converter can do this for you.
In a sense using range() is more likely to produce broken results in
3.0: if your code depends on the fact that range() returns a list, it
is broken in 3.0, and 2to3 cannot help you here. But if you use
list(xrange()) today, the converter wil
I'd like to suggest that we remove all (or nearly all) uses of
xrange from the stdlib. A quick scan shows that most of the usage
of it is unnecessary. With it going away in 3.0, and it being
informally deprecated anyway, it seems like a good thing to go away
where possible.
Any objections?
Ant
Mike Klaas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 5/4/07, Baptiste Carvello <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > maybe we could have a "dedent" literal that would remove the first newline
> > and
> > all indentation so that you can just write:
> >
> > call_something( d'''
> > first part
>
[+python-3000; replies please remove python-dev]
On 5/5/07, Josiah Carlson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> "Fred L. Drake, Jr." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > On Saturday 05 May 2007, Aahz wrote:
> > > I'm with MAL and Fred on making literals immutable -- that's safe and
> > > lots of newbies
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >> So is having mutable bytes just a matter of calling them "byte
> >> displays" instead of "byte literals" or does that also require
> >> changing something in the back end?
>
> Martin> It's certainly also an issue of language semantics (i.e. changes
>
>> So is having mutable bytes just a matter of calling them "byte
>> displays" instead of "byte literals" or does that also require
>> changing something in the back end?
Martin> It's certainly also an issue of language semantics (i.e. changes
Martin> to interpreter code). The
11 matches
Mail list logo
