On 25 September 2016 at 21:18, Guido van Rossum wrote:
> Be careful though, comparing these to plain integers should probably
> be allowed,
There's a good reason why it's "opaque" ... why would you want to make it
less opaque?
And I'm curious why Python didn't adopt the fgetpos/fsetpos style
Hi Gordon,
You pose an interesting question that I don't think anyone has posed
before. Having thought about it, I think that the keys in the group
dict are similar to the names of variables or attributes, and I think
treating them always as strings makes sense. For example, I might
write a functi
Be careful though, comparing these to plain integers should probably
be allowed, and we also should make sure that things like
serialization via JSON or storing in an SQL database don't break. I
personally think it's one of those "learn not to touch the stove"
cases and there's limited value in mak
On 26 September 2016 at 10:21, MRAB wrote:
> On 2016-09-26 00:21, Ben Leslie wrote:
>> Are there any downsides to this? I've made some progress developing a
>> patch to change this functionality. Is it worth polishing and
>> submitting?
>>
> An alternative might be a subclass of int.
It could mak
I've been lurking for a couple of months, working up the confidence to
ask the list about this behavior - I've searched through the PEPs but
couldn't find any specific reference to it.
In a nutshell, in the Python 3.5 library re patterns and search buffers
both need to be either unicode or byte st
On 2016-09-26 00:21, Ben Leslie wrote:
Hi all,
I recently shot myself in the foot by assuming that TextIO.tell
returned integers rather than opaque cookies. Specifically I was
adding an offset to the value returned by TextIO.tell. In retrospect
this doesn't make sense/
Now, I don't want to driv
Hi all,
I recently shot myself in the foot by assuming that TextIO.tell
returned integers rather than opaque cookies. Specifically I was
adding an offset to the value returned by TextIO.tell. In retrospect
this doesn't make sense/
Now, I don't want to drive change simply because I failed to read
On 24 September 2016 at 18:07, Benjamin Peterson wrote:
>
>
> On Fri, Sep 23, 2016, at 09:32, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
>> On Thu, Sep 22, 2016 at 11:47:20PM -0700, Benjamin Peterson wrote:
>> >
>> > On Thu, Sep 22, 2016, at 04:44, Victor Stinner wrote:
>> > > 2016-09-22 8:02 GMT+02:00 Benjamin Peter
