On Mon, Apr 2, 2012 at 9:12 PM, Brian Curtin wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> If you are a running a build slave or otherwise have an MSDN account
> for development work, please check that your MSDN subscription is
> still in effect. If the subscription expired, please let me know in
> private what your subsc
On 5/12/2012 10:50 AM, Eric Snow wrote:
given a normal (dict-based)
object you can use vars() to turn it into a dict:
>>> data = SomeClass(a=1, b=2, c=3)
>>> ns = vars(data)
>>> ns['a']
1
>>> ns['b']
2
>>> ns['c']
3
I'll grant that it doesn't work for some objects (like named tuples)
Tres Seaver wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 05/12/2012 08:04 AM, Nick Coghlan wrote:
On Sat, May 12, 2012 at 12:40 PM, Eric Snow
wrote:
If anyone has strong feelings for item-access over
attribute-access, please elaborate. I'm just not seeing it as that
important and
On Sat, May 12, 2012 at 10:51 AM, Tres Seaver wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On 05/12/2012 08:04 AM, Nick Coghlan wrote:
>> On Sat, May 12, 2012 at 12:40 PM, Eric Snow
>> wrote:
>>> If anyone has strong feelings for item-access over
>>> attribute-access, please elabo
On Sat, May 12, 2012 at 8:35 AM, Barry Warsaw wrote:
> I'm okay with dropping immutability for sys.implementation, but I still think
> attribute access is a more useful model. You can easily support both getattr
> and getitem with a class instance, so I think that's the way to go.
>
> (FWIW, immu
On Sat, May 12, 2012 at 6:04 AM, Nick Coghlan wrote:
> On Sat, May 12, 2012 at 12:40 PM, Eric Snow
> wrote:
>> If anyone has strong feelings for item-access over attribute-access,
>> please elaborate. I'm just not seeing it as that important and would
>> rather finish up the PEP as simply as po
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 05/12/2012 08:04 AM, Nick Coghlan wrote:
> On Sat, May 12, 2012 at 12:40 PM, Eric Snow
> wrote:
>> If anyone has strong feelings for item-access over
>> attribute-access, please elaborate. I'm just not seeing it as that
>> important and would rath
On May 12, 2012, at 10:04 PM, Nick Coghlan wrote:
>On Sat, May 12, 2012 at 12:40 PM, Eric Snow
>wrote: > If anyone has strong feelings for item-access over attribute-access,
>> please elaborate. I'm just not seeing it as that important and would >
>rather finish up the PEP as simply as possible.
On Sat, May 12, 2012 at 12:40 PM, Eric Snow wrote:
> If anyone has strong feelings for item-access over attribute-access,
> please elaborate. I'm just not seeing it as that important and would
> rather finish up the PEP as simply as possible.
I object to adding a new type to the stdlib just for
