On 2008-05-17 16:59, Alexandre Vassalotti wrote:
On Sat, May 17, 2008 at 5:05 AM, M.-A. Lemburg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I'd like to bring a potential problem to attention that is caused
by the recent module renaming approach:
Object serialization protocols like e.g. pickle usually store the
M.-A. Lemburg wrote:
Perhaps I have a misunderstanding of the reasoning behind
doing the renaming in the 2.x branch, but it appears that
the only reason is to get used to the new names. That's a
rather low priority argument in comparison to the breakage
the renaming will cause in the 2.x branch.
On Fri, May 2, 2008 at 10:21 AM, Thomas Lee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Any Jython folk care to weigh in on this? If there are no major objections I
> think I'm going to forge ahead with an independant Const() node.
I suspect that having a marker for non-int non-str constants could
also be used fo
On Tue, Mar 4, 2008 at 1:36 PM, A.M. Kuchling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 04, 2008 at 08:58:57AM -0500, Steve Holden wrote:
>> While I hesitate to suggest a change of such magnitude, there's
>> something to recommend the old IBM mainframe approach of separating out
>> "Principles of Op
> Is there any downside to doing this by default?
The most obvious one is the (slight) loss of performance.
The mere fact that it is an option, and not enabled by default,
indicates that there might be problems enabling it. One problem
might be that some applications may require support for
async
On Sun, May 18, 2008 at 6:14 AM, Nick Coghlan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> M.-A. Lemburg wrote:
>>
>> Perhaps I have a misunderstanding of the reasoning behind
>> doing the renaming in the 2.x branch, but it appears that
>> the only reason is to get used to the new names. That's a
>> rather low pri
Hi all,
I've written a small C extension to submit commands to SCSI devices via
Linux's sg_io driver (for a camera hacking project). The extension is
just a wrapper around a couple ioctl()'s with Pythonic exception handling
thrown in. One of my extension methods is called like this from pytho
I'd like to propose an addition to the for statement's syntax:
for {variable} in {iterable} if {condition}:
{block}
which is equivalent to
for {variable} in {iterable}:
if not {condition}:
continue
{block}
and
for {variable} in filter(lambda: {condition}, iterable):
{bl
First, the best list on which to discuss this would be Python-Ideas not
Python-Dev.
Second, this was brought up there a few months ago, although not much
discussion ensued:
http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-ideas/2008-March/001407.html
- Eli
On Sun, May 18, 2008 at 9:45 PM, Ryan Hitchman
On Sun, 18 May 2008, Ryan Hitchman wrote:
I'd like to propose an addition to the for statement's syntax:
for {variable} in {iterable} if {condition}:
{block}
which is equivalent to
for {variable} in {iterable}:
if not {condition}:
continue
{block}
and
for {variable} in filte
"Ryan Hitchman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
| I'd like to propose an addition to the for statement's syntax:
|
| for {variable} in {iterable} if {condition}:
|{block}
|
| which is equivalent to
|
| for {variable} in {iterable}:
|if not {condition}:
|
11 matches
Mail list logo
