Guido van Rossum wrote:
On 1/6/06, Kay Schluehr [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Then simply reject the PEP and the discussion can be stopped on
comp.lang.python too.
Only in the most severe cases does it make sense to create a PEP
specifically to be rejected.
Or why do you think it should be
Ian Bicking wrote:
would have to be translated to this this:
inst = Foo()
f = Foo.bar
meth = bind(f, inst)
print meth(1, 2)
+1 for an explicit bind unbound method operation, although I
would spell it as
inst = Foo()
f = Foo.bar
meth = f.bind(inst)
print meth(1,
On Sat, Jan 07, 2006 at 05:12:06PM -0800, Guido van Rossum wrote:
On 1/6/06, Kay Schluehr [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Then simply reject the PEP and the discussion can be stopped on
comp.lang.python too.
Only in the most severe cases does it make sense to create a PEP
specifically to be
Thomas Wouters wrote:
Yet if it isn't recorded, people will keep bringing it up. How about a
'rejected ideas' PEP for ideas that are right out no matter how people
argue?
Recorded it is, in the mailing list archive.
However, a central place might be better, preferably with referrals to
--- Alexander Kozlovsky [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
What do you think about this?
I (who writes Python code for a living) love it! See also:
http://cci.lbl.gov/~rwgk/python/adopt_init_args_2005_07_02.html
***Please*** make Python more selfish. Note that this is also an obvious avenue
for
Thomas Wouters wrote:
Only in the most severe cases does it make sense to create a PEP
specifically to be rejected.
Yet if it isn't recorded, people will keep bringing it up. How about a
'rejected ideas' PEP for ideas that are right out no matter how people
argue? A single PEP, with
Ralf W. Grosse-Kunstleve wrote:
***Please*** make Python more selfish. Note that this is also an obvious
avenue
for significant performance increases. If self is implicit you don't have to
do
the dictionary lookup for self all the time as is the case now.
what dictionary lookup ?
/F
--- Fredrik Lundh [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ralf W. Grosse-Kunstleve wrote:
***Please*** make Python more selfish. Note that this is also an obvious
avenue
for significant performance increases. If self is implicit you don't have
to do
the dictionary lookup for self all the time as is
Ralf W. Grosse-Kunstleve wrote:
what dictionary lookup ?
IIUC, self is first looked up in the local dictionary.
no, self is a local variable. self.x means that x is looked up in the in-
stance dictionary, though.
Please try the code below to see the performance impact.
oh, please. do
--- Guido van Rossum [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 1/6/06, Armin Rigo [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, Jan 06, 2006 at 12:56:01AM +0300, Alexander Kozlovsky wrote:
There are three different peculiarity in Python 2.x
in respect of 'self' method argument:
Yuk! This has been discussed
On Sun, Jan 08, 2006 at 07:35:53AM -0800, Ralf W. Grosse-Kunstleve wrote:
IIUC, self is first looked up in the local dictionary.
No. Local variables are stored in a tuple (more or less,) and indexed by,
er, index. Loading a local variable onto the stack is a fairly fast
operation.
Please try
Ralf W. Grosse-Kunstleve wrote:
--- Fredrik Lundh [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Please try the code below to see the performance impact.
oh, please. do you seriously think that if you don't have to type self
yourself, Python will suddenly be able to turn all instance variables into
local function
--- Thomas Wouters [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The main difference isn't the lookup of 'self', it's the attribute retrieval
of 'x' from 'self'.
I see. Thanks!
If you put 'self' into a special category (with corresponding C code), couldn't
you use the same indexing tricks as for local variables
--- Fredrik Lundh [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Please try the code below to see the performance impact.
oh, please. do you seriously think that if you don't have to type self
yourself, Python will suddenly be able to turn all instance variables into
local function variables without any
On Sun, Jan 08, 2006 at 08:09:22AM -0800, Ralf W. Grosse-Kunstleve wrote:
--- Thomas Wouters [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The main difference isn't the lookup of 'self', it's the attribute retrieval
of 'x' from 'self'.
I see. Thanks!
If you put 'self' into a special category (with
At 08:09 AM 1/8/2006 -0800, Ralf W. Grosse-Kunstleve wrote:
--- Thomas Wouters [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The main difference isn't the lookup of 'self', it's the attribute
retrieval
of 'x' from 'self'.
I see. Thanks!
If you put 'self' into a special category (with corresponding C code),
[Thomas Wouters]
My point isn't that it isn't archived somewhere (mailinglists, wiki, FAQ,
the minds of many, many people, not just Python developers) but that it
isn't easily findable and it isn't easily accessible in a single location. I
thought PEP's where supposed to be that, and if I have
Thomas Wouters wrote:
My point isn't that it isn't archived somewhere (mailinglists, wiki, FAQ,
the minds of many, many people, not just Python developers) but that it
isn't easily findable and it isn't easily accessible in a single location.
Why would a single Wiki page not be accessible in a
Martin v. Löwis wrote:
But they might suffer from misunderstandings, such as your
misunderstanding in how local variables work and whether
'self' is looked up in a dictionary.
So it's being dumb - just being uninformed.
Sorry: *not* being dumb is what I wanted to say.
Regards,
Martin
On Sun, Jan 08, 2006 at 06:31:35PM +0100, Martin v. Löwis wrote:
Thomas Wouters wrote:
My point isn't that it isn't archived somewhere (mailinglists, wiki, FAQ,
the minds of many, many people, not just Python developers) but that it
isn't easily findable and it isn't easily accessible in a
Tim Peters wrote:
[Thomas Wouters]
My point isn't that it isn't archived somewhere (mailinglists, wiki, FAQ,
the minds of many, many people, not just Python developers) but that it
isn't easily findable and it isn't easily accessible in a single location. I
thought PEP's where supposed to be
Ian Bicking wrote:
Tim Peters wrote:
[Thomas Wouters]
My point isn't that it isn't archived somewhere (mailinglists, wiki, FAQ,
the minds of many, many people, not just Python developers) but that it
isn't easily findable and it isn't easily accessible in a single location. I
thought PEP's
On Sun, Jan 08, 2006 at 02:43:17PM -0600, Ian Bicking wrote:
[T]he editorialization that Python isn't going to be a functional language
is both rather inaccurate, misses the real reason for statements, and
needlessly alienates people who like functional programming
So... maybe Guido or
Thomas Wouters wrote:
[T]he editorialization that Python isn't going to be a functional language
is both rather inaccurate, misses the real reason for statements, and
needlessly alienates people who like functional programming
So... maybe Guido or python-dev should write/vet the justifications
Ian Bicking wrote:
I just don't want people to feel discouraged when they try to contribute
to the Python community and a PEP 13 could help direct people towards
areas where their contributions are more likely to be useful. Also I
think it is unfair to use python-list to clarify things
Ian Bicking wrote:
I just don't want people to feel discouraged when they try to contribute
to the Python community and a PEP 13 could help direct people towards
areas where their contributions are more likely to be useful.
but people have a lot of options, probably more effective, ranging
[Martin]
But now: who is going to write it? Guido should write it clearly won't
work. And no, I'm explicitly not volunteering either.
[Thomas]
Well, the PEP will be mostly boilerplate anyway (unless there's a sudden
influx of old ideas) so I'm sure I can whip something up before next
On 1/6/06, Kay Schluehr [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Then simply reject the PEP and the discussion can be stopped on
comp.lang.python too.
Only in the most severe cases does it make sense to create a PEP
specifically to be rejected.
Or why do you think it should be discussed there
again and
Example 1 (Python 2.x):
---
class Foo:
def __init__(self, x): # 1: Explicit 'self' argument
self.x = x # 2: 'self' must be used explicitly
def bar(self, a, b): # 3: There are three arguments...
print
Hi Alexander,
On Fri, Jan 06, 2006 at 12:56:01AM +0300, Alexander Kozlovsky wrote:
There are three different peculiarity in Python 2.x
in respect of 'self' method argument:
Yuk! This has been discussed again and again already. *Please* move
this discussion to comp.lang.python.
A bientot,
Hello!
Ian Bicking wrote:
(As an aside directed at the original PEP, I think discussion of leaving
self out of expressions, e.g., .x for self.x, should be separate
from the rest of this PEP).
Yes, I'm fully agree.
Nick Coghlan wrote:
The main concern I have is with the answer to the
On 1/6/06, Armin Rigo [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, Jan 06, 2006 at 12:56:01AM +0300, Alexander Kozlovsky wrote:
There are three different peculiarity in Python 2.x
in respect of 'self' method argument:
Yuk! This has been discussed again and again already. *Please* move
this
Guido van Rossum wrote:
Yuk! This has been discussed again and again already. *Please* move
this discussion to comp.lang.python.
Yes please. This won't change.
Then simply reject the PEP and the discussion can be stopped on
comp.lang.python too. Or why do you think it should be discussed
I wrote:
5. Each function have two constant attributes, __class__ and __self__,
both of them have value 'None'
Of course, this attributes have names 'im_class' and 'im_self',
as before, but can be used with any function.
I have not sleep enough last night :)
Best regards,
Alexander
Alexander Kozlovsky wrote:
Hello!
I have some proposal for Python 3.0 (interesting one, from my point
of view). I'm sorry for my English, it is not very good.
Your English seems fine. About the only thing I noticed is that you have the
meaning of 'function arguments' vs 'function
35 matches
Mail list logo
