Hiho,
in case noone didn't notice yet: the Windows MSI Installer link at
http://www.python.org/download/releases/2.5/ points to Python 2.4!
Regards,
Michael
___
Python-Dev mailing list
Python-Dev@python.org
Maybe switch became a keyword with the patch..
Regards,
Michael
On 6/12/06, M.-A. Lemburg [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Thomas Lee wrote:
Hi all,
As the subject of this e-mail says, the attached patch adds a switch
statement to the Python language.
However, I've been reading through PEP
1/2
0
(-1) ** (1./2)
Traceback (most recent call last):
File stdin, line 1, in ?
ValueError: negative number cannot be raised to a fractional power
Regards,
Michael
On 2/20/06, Jonathan Barbero [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hello!
My name is Jonathan, i´m new with Python.
I try this in
It doesn't seem to me that math.nice has an obvious meaning.
Regards,
Michael
On 2/14/06, Crutcher Dunnavant [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 2/12/06, Alan Gauld [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
However I do dislike the name nice() - there is already a nice() in the
os module with a fairly well
The behavior of libiberty's alloca() replacement might be interesting as well:
http://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/libiberty/Functions.html#index-alloca-59
Regards,
Michael
On 11/18/05, Alex Martelli [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Nov 17, 2005, at 5:00 PM, Thomas Lee wrote:
Portability may also be
FWIW, the Perl 6 community is also investigating STM, so it appears to
be a worthwhile idea for an impure, multi-paradigm language as well.
Regards,
Michael
On 9/29/05, Bruce Eckel [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This paper looks very interesting and promises some good ideas. It
also looks like it
How about simply with block or guarded scope or something like that?
Michael
On 7/3/05, Ron Adam [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Nick Coghlan wrote:
On the other hand 'enter and exit' rolls off the tongue
significantly better than 'enter and leave'
My only concern is enter and exit may be too
Hmm:
Guarding a scope with a decimal.Context() object explain effect.
What do you think? (I'm not sure myself, but we even got a with in there :-)
Michael
On 7/3/05, Raymond Hettinger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[Michael Walter]
How about simply with block or guarded scope or something like
Hmm, I think I'm seeing mostly the (guarded) entry/exit part of
guard metaphor, but I see what you mean (not allowing entry, so to
say, right?). Not sure.
Michael
On 7/3/05, Raymond Hettinger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Guarding a scope with a decimal.Context() object explain effect.
://www.cs.utexas.edu/users/psp/unity/notes/07-89.pdf
IOW, guard is a specific term, not an amorphous metaphor that can be
accurately applied to the enter/exit or enter/leave pair.
Raymond
-Original Message-
From: Michael Walter [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Sunday
On 4/28/05, Stephen J. Turnbull [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Guido == Guido van Rossum [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Guido You mean like this?
if x 0:
...normal case...
elif y 0:
abnormal case...
else:
...edge case...
The salient example! If
On 4/19/05, BJörn Lindqvist [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
RSMotD (random stupid musing of the day): so I wonder if the decorator
syntax couldn't be extended for this kind of thing.
@acquire(myLock):
code
code
code
Would it be useful for anything other than mutex-locking?
On Tue, 15 Mar 2005 07:47:20 -0800, Guido van Rossum
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
But I'm not so sure now. Thinking ahead to generic types, I'd like the
full signature to be:
def sum(seq: sequence[T], initial: T = 0) - T.
Would this _syntax_ work with generic types:
def sum(seq:
On Wed, 16 Mar 2005 08:28:22 -0800, Guido van Rossum
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Thinking ahead to generic types, I'd like the full signature to be:
def sum(seq: sequence[T], initial: T = 0) - T.
Would this _syntax_ work with generic types:
def sum(seq: sequence[T], initial: T =
On Thu, 17 Mar 2005 14:34:23 +1300, Greg Ewing
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Not to mention that if the seq is empty, there's no
way of knowing what T to instantiate...
You just use the same T as inferred for seq : sequence[T] wink.
Michael
___
Python-Dev
That is like Lisp's +, must be good :P
Michael
On Sun, 13 Mar 2005 08:38:42 -0800, Guido van Rossum
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
There are a few design choices we could have made for sum(); in
particular, for non-empty sequences we could not have used the
identity element (the optional second
But... only as an additional option, not as a replacement, right?
Michael
On Sat, 19 Feb 2005 03:01:14 -0500, Raymond Hettinger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This is something I've typed way too many times:
Py class C():
File stdin, line 1
class C():
^
On Thu, 13 Jan 2005 01:04:01 -0500, Phillip J. Eby
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
At 12:01 AM 1/13/05 -0500, Michael Walter wrote:
What am I missing?
The fact that this is a type-declaration issue, and has nothing to do with
*how* types are checked.
I was talking about how you declare such types
instead interfaces can be defined in terms of individual operations, and
those operations can be initially defined by an abstract base, concrete
class, or an interface object.
I think this is quite problematic in the sense that it will force many
dummy interfaces to be created. At least
19 matches
Mail list logo
