2009/9/2 Campbell Barton :
> For blender we have a number of types defined in the C/API like
> meshes, lamps, metaballs, nurbs etc that dont make sense with some of
> richcmp's operations.
> A problem I have is that in python 3.1 the Py_CmpToRich function is removed.
>
> Should we copy Py_CmpToRich
People, please note that the discussion has shifted to python-ideas
and further comments should happen over there. Carl did the right
thing to shift it there, although cross-posting once the conversation
redirection has occurred is not needed.
hoping-google-wave-will-have-a-permanent-redirector-fo
On Wed, Sep 2, 2009 at 08:19, Boya Sun wrote:
> Dear Developers,
>
> I am a Ph.D student from Case Western Reserve University, specialized at
> software engineering. Our recent approach analyzes bugs that are being
> fixed in the issue database, and tries to discover any latent bug instances
> tha
For blender we have a number of types defined in the C/API like
meshes, lamps, metaballs, nurbs etc that dont make sense with some of
richcmp's operations.
A problem I have is that in python 3.1 the Py_CmpToRich function is removed.
Should we copy Py_CmpToRich into our source tree?
Otherwise we ha
> I saw on planet Python that the buildbots have currently been shut
> down. I guess this makes my question fairly irrelevant for the moment,
> then :-(
That was a misunderstanding. It was only the community buildbots, and
Grig Gheorghiu is working on restoring them.
Regards,
Martin
_
James Y Knight wrote:
On Sep 2, 2009, at 6:15 AM, Rob Cliffe wrote:
So - the syntax restriction seems not only inconsistent, but
pointless; it doesn't forbid anything, but merely means we have to do
it in a slightly convoluted (unPythonesque) way. So please, Guido,
will you reconsider?
Ind
Erik Bray wrote:
I think Guido may have a point about not allowing any arbitrary
expression. But I do think that if it allows calls, it should also at
least support the itemgetter syntax, for which there seems to be a
demonstrable use case. But that's just adding on another special
case, so it
On Wed, Sep 2, 2009 at 10:35 AM, James Y Knight wrote:
> On Sep 2, 2009, at 6:15 AM, Rob Cliffe wrote:
>
>> So - the syntax restriction seems not only inconsistent, but pointless; it
>> doesn't forbid anything, but merely means we have to do it in a slightly
>> convoluted (unPythonesque) way. So p
Dear Developers,
I am a Ph.D student from Case Western Reserve University, specialized at
software engineering. Our recent approach analyzes bugs that are being
fixed in the issue database, and tries to discover any latent bug instances
that are the same as the fixed bug but are left unfixed. We
On Sep 2, 2009, at 6:15 AM, Rob Cliffe wrote:
So - the syntax restriction seems not only inconsistent, but
pointless; it doesn't forbid anything, but merely means we have to
do it in a slightly convoluted (unPythonesque) way. So please,
Guido, will you reconsider?
Indeed, it's a silly in
2009/8/22 Paul Moore :
> 2009/8/22 Jeroen Ruigrok van der Werven :
>> -On [20090822 21:30], Paul Moore (p.f.mo...@gmail.com) wrote:
>>>I've just had a look on python.org, but couldn't immediately see a
>>>pointer to instructions on what the process is to set up a buildbot.
>>
>> http://wiki.python.
Not advocating a change, merely pointing out that it's how Ruby works.
K
> -Original Message-
> From: python-dev-bounces+kristjan=ccpgames@python.org
> [mailto:python-dev-bounces+kristjan=ccpgames@python.org] On Behalf
> Of Nick Coghlan
> Sent: 2. september 2009 11:12
> To: Greg Ew
Greg Ewing wrote:
> Xavier Morel wrote:
>
>> I fail to grasp the unpredictability of "the last expression
>> evaluated in the body of a function is its return value".
>
> It's unpredictable in the sense that if you're writing
> a function that's not intended to return a value, you're
> not think
On 2 Sep 2009, at 12:15 , Rob Cliffe wrote:
@Identity(DecoList[0])# THIS WORKS
def foo():
pass
For what it's worth, you don't need an id function, you can simply write
@itemgetter(0)(decorators)
def foo():
'whatever'
or
@decorators.__getitem__(0)
def foo():
I actually encountered this for the first time yesterday and didn't realise
that the decorator syntax was limited in this way (I was mentally preparing
a blog entry when these emails arrived).
What I needed to do was turn a Python function into a .NET event handler in
IronPython. The simple case
Crossposting to Python-ideas,
I asked for the same change to the grammar a couple months back on
python-ideas.
See http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-ideas/2009-February/thread.html#2787
I'm all for it, but you'll have to convince Guido that this won't
result in confusing to read code. My o
Hi All,
This is my first post to python-dev so I will briefly introduce myself: My
name is Rob Cliffe and I am a commercial programmer living in London, UK. I
have some 30 years of programming experience but have only been using Python
for a couple of years.
First I want to say what a fantasti
On 2 Sep 2009, at 00:10 , Greg Ewing wrote:
Le mardi 01 septembre 2009 à 15:09 +0200, Xavier Morel a écrit :
"We" are not Erlang, Smalltalk, OCaml or Haskell either, sadly.
IIRC, the default return value of a Smalltalk method is
self, not the last thing evaluated.
Methods yes (and that's one of
the three types: function, classmethod, staticmethod are descriptors.
but staticmethod's __get__ return the orignal value, others return
object of instancemethod. (from souce in Objects/funcobject.c)
so the staticmethod just like a wrap that make the wrapped object
'frozen'. like in your example.
19 matches
Mail list logo
