On 09/14/2013 07:30 PM, Antoine Pitrou wrote:
On Sat, 14 Sep 2013 14:33:56 +0900
Larry Hastings wrote:
Whenever I read a discussion about the dict, I always wonder whether the
same thing applies to a set. Have you considered the utility of a
TransformSet? Or is it YAGNI?
Well, a TransformSet
On 09/14/2013 05:32 PM, Serhiy Storchaka wrote:
15.09.13 00:58, Antoine Pitrou написав(ла):
On Sun, 15 Sep 2013 00:55:35 +0300
Serhiy Storchaka wrote:
14.09.13 20:41, Antoine Pitrou написав(ла):
No good reason. What's the name? transform_func?
transform_func looks... truncated. Why not tran
15.09.13 00:58, Antoine Pitrou написав(ла):
On Sun, 15 Sep 2013 00:55:35 +0300
Serhiy Storchaka wrote:
14.09.13 20:41, Antoine Pitrou написав(ла):
No good reason. What's the name? transform_func?
transform_func looks... truncated. Why not transform_function or trans_func?
The stdlib common
+1. A 10.6-only build makes sense.
If you aren't having problems with GCC 4.8, then Clang shouldn't give any
trouble. Honestly, I still think Clang should be a compiler option in Windows
distutils...
Raymond Hettinger wrote:
>
>On Sep 14, 2013, at 1:32 PM, Ned Deily wrote:
>> The
>> most r
On 14/09/13 23:31, Eli Bendersky wrote:
On Sat, Sep 14, 2013 at 2:55 PM, Serhiy Storchaka mailto:storch...@gmail.com>> wrote:
14.09.13 20:41, Antoine Pitrou написав(ла):
No good reason. What's the name? transform_func?
transform_func looks... truncated. Why not transform_fu
On Sat, Sep 14, 2013 at 2:55 PM, Serhiy Storchaka wrote:
> 14.09.13 20:41, Antoine Pitrou написав(ла):
>
>> No good reason. What's the name? transform_func?
>>
>
> transform_func looks... truncated. Why not transform_function or
> trans_func?
transform_λ
_
On Sun, 15 Sep 2013 00:55:35 +0300
Serhiy Storchaka wrote:
> 14.09.13 20:41, Antoine Pitrou написав(ла):
> > No good reason. What's the name? transform_func?
>
> transform_func looks... truncated. Why not transform_function or trans_func?
The stdlib commonly uses "func" rather than "function". F
14.09.13 20:41, Antoine Pitrou написав(ла):
No good reason. What's the name? transform_func?
transform_func looks... truncated. Why not transform_function or trans_func?
___
Python-Dev mailing list
Python-Dev@python.org
https://mail.python.org/mailma
On Sep 14, 2013, at 1:32 PM, Ned Deily wrote:
> The
> most recent Developer Tools for 10.8 and 10.7 systems, Xcode 4.6.x, have
> a mature clang but do not provide a 10.6 SDK. Even with using an SDK,
> it's still possible to end up inadvertently linking with the wrong
> versions of system li
On Sat, 14 Sep 2013 12:31:36 -0700
Guido van Rossum wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 13, 2013 at 11:40 AM, Antoine Pitrou wrote:
>
> > Following the python-dev discussion, I've written a PEP to recap the
> > proposal and the various arguments. It's inlined below, and it will
> > probably appear soon at http
In article <70c99f87-e9a5-4838-a1e9-4739fbf2e...@gmail.com>,
Raymond Hettinger wrote:
> I was exercising the alpha two release of 3.4 and noticed that
> it is still being built under GCC 4.2.1.
>
> Is there any reason we have to use an old compiler?
Yes, kinda. It's because the 64-bit/32-bit
I was exercising the alpha two release of 3.4 and noticed that
it is still being built under GCC 4.2.1.
Is there any reason we have to use an old compiler?
I would like to see it built under the latest version of Clang
(like the other tools on the Mac) or under GCC 4.8.1.
I've better using the
On Fri, Sep 13, 2013 at 11:40 AM, Antoine Pitrou wrote:
> Following the python-dev discussion, I've written a PEP to recap the
> proposal and the various arguments. It's inlined below, and it will
> probably appear soon at http://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0455/, too.
>
Thanks, Antoine!
Raymond
On 9/14/2013 1:45 PM, antoine.pitrou wrote:
http://hg.python.org/cpython/rev/4f5815747f58
changeset: 85701:4f5815747f58
user:Antoine Pitrou
date:Sat Sep 14 19:45:47 2013 +0200
summary:
Issue #18937: Add an assertLogs() context manager to unittest.TestCase to
ensure that a b
On Sat, 14 Sep 2013 22:07:50 +0300
Serhiy Storchaka wrote:
> 14.09.13 20:41, Antoine Pitrou написав(ла):
> > On Sat, 14 Sep 2013 09:43:13 -0700
> > Ethan Furman wrote:
> >> Still, I think it would be useful to expose the transform function.
> >> Any good reason not to?
> >
> > No good reason. Wha
14.09.13 20:41, Antoine Pitrou написав(ла):
On Sat, 14 Sep 2013 09:43:13 -0700
Ethan Furman wrote:
Still, I think it would be useful to expose the transform function.
Any good reason not to?
No good reason. What's the name? transform_func?
There is one reason -- serialization. For example p
On 09/14/2013 10:41 AM, Antoine Pitrou wrote:
On Sat, 14 Sep 2013 09:43:13 -0700 Ethan Furman wrote:
Still, I think it would be useful to expose the transform function.
Any good reason not to?
No good reason. What's the name? transform_func?
I had originally thought transform_key, but trans
On Sat, 14 Sep 2013 09:43:13 -0700
Ethan Furman wrote:
> On 09/14/2013 03:27 AM, Antoine Pitrou wrote:
> > On Fri, 13 Sep 2013 21:59:11 -0700
> > Ethan Furman wrote:
> >>
> >>> I mean - given no function to retrieve the canonical key,
> >>> one would have to resort to:
> >>>
> >>> my_key = data._
On 09/14/2013 03:27 AM, Antoine Pitrou wrote:
On Fri, 13 Sep 2013 21:59:11 -0700
Ethan Furman wrote:
I mean - given no function to retrieve the canonical key,
one would have to resort to:
my_key = data.__transform__(given_key)
for key, value in data.items():
if data.__transform__(key)
On 14/09/2013 05:47, Ethan Furman wrote:
On 09/13/2013 08:18 PM, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
You're missing that I'm not iterating over the entire dict, just some
subset ("data") that I got from elsewhere.
Ah, okay. Between you and Antoine I am convinced that .getitem() is a good
thing. So have
On 14 September 2013 12:44, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 13, 2013 at 06:00:18PM -0700, Ethan Furman wrote:
>
>> Personally, if there's a bunch of push-back against just adding
>> TransformDict directly, why don't we make it provisional? I thought that
>> was what provisional was for (mean
On 14 September 2013 12:44, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 13, 2013 at 06:00:18PM -0700, Ethan Furman wrote:
>
>> Personally, if there's a bunch of push-back against just adding
>> TransformDict directly, why don't we make it provisional? I thought that
>> was what provisional was for (mean
On Sat, 14 Sep 2013 14:33:56 +0900
Larry Hastings wrote:
> On 09/14/2013 03:40 AM, Antoine Pitrou wrote:
> > Hello,
> >
> > Following the python-dev discussion, I've written a PEP to recap the
> > proposal and the various arguments. It's inlined below, and it will
> > probably appear soon at http:
On Fri, 13 Sep 2013 21:59:11 -0700
Ethan Furman wrote:
>
> > I mean - given no function to retrieve the canonical key,
> > one would have to resort to:
> >
> > my_key = data.__transform__(given_key)
> > for key, value in data.items():
> > if data.__transform__(key) == my_key:
> > ..
As will become evident, I disagree with Steven at almost every point.
However, I think his point about users not reading documentation is
well-taken. Due to hyperlinking, users are very likely to skip past
module docstrings. I suggest two (perhaps informal) additions to the
documentation policy i
25 matches
Mail list logo
