On 7 Dec 2006, at 21:47, Josiah Carlson wrote:
Alastair Houghton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 7 Dec 2006, at 02:01, Josiah Carlson wrote:
Alastair Houghton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 7 Dec 2006, at 01:01, Josiah Carlson wrote:
If we don't want
slicing, or if prodicing a slice would produce
On 8 Dec 2006, at 16:38, Josiah Carlson wrote:
My statement in the email you replied to above was to say that if we
wanted it to return a group, then we could include subsequent .group
(0)
with the same semantics as the original match object.
And my reply was simply to point out that that's
On 7 Dec 2006, at 02:01, Josiah Carlson wrote:
Alastair Houghton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 7 Dec 2006, at 01:01, Josiah Carlson wrote:
If we don't want
slicing, or if prodicing a slice would produce a semantically
questionable state, then lets not do it.
...if you return match objects
On 7 Dec 2006, at 07:15, Fredrik Lundh wrote:
Michael Urman wrote:
The idea that slicing a match object should produce a match object
sounds like a foolish consistency to me.
well, the idea that adding m[x] as a convenience alias for m.group(x)
automatically turns m into a list-style
On 7 Dec 2006, at 18:54, Martin v. Löwis wrote:
Alastair Houghton schrieb:
How about we remove the word foolish from the debate?
We should table the debate. If you really want that feature,
write a PEP. You want it, some people are opposed; a PEP is
the procedure to settle the difference
On 5 Dec 2006, at 15:51, Fredrik Lundh wrote:
Alastair Houghton wrote:
What's more, I think it will be confusing for Python newbies because
they'll see someone doing
m[3]
and assume that m is a list-like object, then complain when things
like
for match in m:
print match
On 6 Dec 2006, at 20:29, Josiah Carlson wrote:
The problem is that either we return a list (easy), or we return
something that is basically another match object (not quite so easy).
Either way, we would be confusing one set of users or another. By not
including slicing functionality by
On 7 Dec 2006, at 00:39, Mike Klaas wrote:
Keep in mind when implementing that m[3:4] should contain only the
element at index 3, not both 3 and 4, as you've seemed to imply twice.
Yes, you're quite right. I was writing off the top of my head and
I'm still a relative newbie to Python
On 7 Dec 2006, at 01:01, Josiah Carlson wrote:
*We* may not be confused, but it's not about us (I'm personally
happy to
use the .group() interface); it's about relative newbies who,
generally
speaking, desire/need consistency (see [1] for a paper showing that
certain kinds of
On 5 Dec 2006, at 09:02, Ben Wing wrote:
Fredrik Lundh wrote:
Ka-Ping Yee wrote:
taking everything into account, I think we should simply map
__getitem__
to group, and stop there. no len(), no slicing, no sequence or
mapping
semantics. if people want full sequence behaviour with len
On Oct 7, 2006, at 3:36 PM, M.-A. Lemburg wrote:
Georg Brandl wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I don't know if Apple has picked up on it (or if the version they
currently
distribute is affected - 2.3.5 built Oct 5 2005).
Note that the bug refers to a UCS4 Python build. Most Linux
distros
On 4 Oct 2006, at 06:34, Martin v. Löwis wrote:
Alastair Houghton schrieb:
On 3 Oct 2006, at 17:47, James Y Knight wrote:
On Oct 3, 2006, at 8:30 AM, Martin v. Löwis wrote:
As Michael Hudson observed, this is difficult to implement, though:
You can't distinguish between -0.0 and +0.0 easily
On 4 Oct 2006, at 02:38, Josiah Carlson wrote:
Alastair Houghton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
There is, of course, the option of examining their representations in
memory (I described the general technique in another posting on this
thread). From what I understand of IEEE 764 FP doubles, -0.0
On Oct 4, 2006, at 8:14 PM, Martin v. Löwis wrote:
If it breaks a few systems, that already is some systems too many.
Python should never crash; and we have no control over the floating
point exception handling in any portable manner.
You're quite right, though there is already plenty of
On 3 Oct 2006, at 17:47, James Y Knight wrote:
On Oct 3, 2006, at 8:30 AM, Martin v. Löwis wrote:
As Michael Hudson observed, this is difficult to implement, though:
You can't distinguish between -0.0 and +0.0 easily, yet you should.
Of course you can. It's absolutely trivial. The only part
15 matches
Mail list logo
