On 2/10/07, Steve Holden [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sun, Feb 11, 2007 at 03:35:29AM +0200, Yotam Rubin wrote:
Why don't you use Stackless? It's very simple, stable, and solves
quite completely the problems in writing concurrect code.
That's a great point -- I'm
Brett Cannon schrieb:
Of course Stackless isn't quite fully integrated with 2.5 (yet).
When did someone last suggest that Stackless become part of the core
CPython implementation, and why didn't that ever happen?
Don't remember the when. The why has always been that Christian's
hacks
Someone checked in Parser/Python.asdl. After rebuilding Subversion tells me
that Python/Python-ast.c has been modified. I assume the two are related.
Did whoever checked in the former need to check in the latter (and maybe add
a note to Misc/NEWS)?
Skip
On 2/11/07, Martin v. Löwis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Brett Cannon schrieb:
Of course Stackless isn't quite fully integrated with 2.5 (yet).
When did someone last suggest that Stackless become part of the core
CPython implementation, and why didn't that ever happen?
Don't remember
On 2/11/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Someone checked in Parser/Python.asdl. After rebuilding Subversion tells me
that Python/Python-ast.c has been modified. I assume the two are related.
Did whoever checked in the former need to check in the latter
Yeah, sorry about that.
Richard Tew schrieb:
If these generator coroutine microthreads went ahead and part
of it was improving the support for asynchronous calls in the
runtime and standard library, this would also be something
which also benefited Stackless Python. Even if they didn't go
ahead I would be
Brett Cannon schrieb:
On 2/11/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Someone checked in Parser/Python.asdl. After rebuilding Subversion tells me
that Python/Python-ast.c has been modified. I assume the two are related.
Did whoever checked in the former need to check in the latter
Hi Martin,
On Sun, Feb 11, 2007 at 07:09:29PM +0100, Martin v. L?wis wrote:
hacks into the core were complicated and he didn't even think
integration was worth it.
With emphasis on the latter. Christian never proposed (to my knowledge)
that Stackless should be integrated. Of course, he
On 2/11/07, Martin v. Löwis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Actually, the regenerating should happen immediately after commit,
as this bumps the revision number of the asdl file. This means
you have to make two commits per AST grammar change: one to change
the grammar, and the other to update the
Hi,
A few days ago I posted to python-ideas with a suggestion for some new
Python syntax, which would allow easier access to object attributes
where the attribute name is known only at run-time. For example:
setattr(self, method_name, getattr(self.metadata, method_name))
from
Ben North wrote:
c.5 uses which would have to stay as getattr because they
are calls of a variable named getattr whose default
value is the builtin getattr;
Have you checked if these are intended to bring the getattr name into
local scope for fast lookup,
On Monday 12 February 2007 13:57, Brett Cannon wrote:
On 2/11/07, Guido van Rossum [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 2/11/07, Martin v. Löwis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Actually, the regenerating should happen immediately after
commit, as this bumps the revision number of the asdl file.
This
On 2/11/07, Ben North [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[SNIP]
* The draft currently allows a two-argument form, to supply a default
value if the object has no attribute of that name. This mimics the
behaviour of the three-argument form of getattr, but looks a bit wrong:
s = obj.(attr_name,
I have to say that I'm not that impressed by either the 1-arg or
2-arg versions. Someone coming across this syntax for the first
time will not have any hints as to what it means - and worse, it
looks like a syntax error to me. -1 from me.
___
I like the general idea, but the syntax looks like dirt on my monitor.
The period is too easy to lose visually and without it, there's
nothing to distinguish this from a function call. Also, like Anthony
Baxter said, someone coming across this for the first time will think
it's a syntax error,
Armin Rigo schrieb:
The history as I remember it is that Christian tried hard to integrate
the first versions of Stackless with CPython, but was turned town by
python-dev.
Are there public records of that? As I remember it, Christian never
actually submitted a patch for inclusion (at least not
Anthony Baxter wrote:
I have to say that I'm not that impressed by either the 1-arg or
2-arg versions. Someone coming across this syntax for the first
time will not have any hints as to what it means - and worse, it
looks like a syntax error to me. -1 from me.
I'm not sure the looks
Guido van Rossum schrieb:
Is this documented somewhere? It wouldn't hurt if there was a pointer
to that documentation right next to the line in Python-ast.c that gets
modified by the regeneration. (I've been wondering about this a few
times myself.)
Done!
Martin
Brett Cannon schrieb:
/*
File automatically generated by %s.
This module must be committed separately from each AST grammar change;
the __version__ number is set to the revision number of the commit
containing the grammar change.
*/
It doesn't completely show up in svn diff (when
Anthony Baxter schrieb:
This module must be committed separately from each AST grammar
change; the __version__ number is set to the revision number of
the commit containing the grammar change.
*/
Note that the welease.py script that builds the releases does
a touch on the relevant
Collin Winter schrieb:
I like the general idea, but the syntax looks like dirt on my monitor.
The period is too easy to lose visually and without it, there's
nothing to distinguish this from a function call. Also, like Anthony
Baxter said, someone coming across this for the first time will
21 matches
Mail list logo
