Phillip J. Eby wrote:
This is still rather rough, but I figured it's easier to let everybody fill
in the remaining gaps by arguments than it is for me to pick a position I
like and try to convince everybody else that it's right. :) Your feedback
is requested and welcome.
I think you're
I'll try to be more explicit; if Josiah and I are talking past each
other, than the explanation was clearly not yet mature.
(In http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2005-October/057251.html)
Eyal Lotem suggested:
Name: Attribute access for all namespaces ...
global x ; x = 1
Whoa, folks! Can I ask the gentlemen to curb their enthusiasm?
PEP 343 is still (back) on the drawing table, PEP 342 has barely been
implemented (did it survive the AST-branch merge?), and already you
are talking about adding more stuff. Please put on the brakes!
If there's anything this
Jim Jewett [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'll try to be more explicit; if Josiah and I are talking past each
other, than the explanation was clearly not yet mature.
(In http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2005-October/057251.html)
Eyal Lotem suggested:
Name: Attribute access for all
On 10/19/05, Martin Blais [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Just wondering, would anyone think of it as a good idea if the
enumerate() builtin could accept a start argument?
And why not an additional step argument? Anyway, perhaps all this
can be done with a 'xrange' object...
--
Lisandro Dalcín
At 10:40 PM 10/20/2005 +1000, Nick Coghlan wrote:
Phillip J. Eby wrote:
This is still rather rough, but I figured it's easier to let everybody
fill
in the remaining gaps by arguments than it is for me to pick a position I
like and try to convince everybody else that it's right. :) Your
On 10/20/05, Guido van Rossum [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Whoa, folks! Can I ask the gentlemen to curb their enthusiasm?
PEP 343 is still (back) on the drawing table, PEP 342 has barely been
implemented (did it survive the AST-branch merge?), and already you
are talking about adding more stuff.
On 10/20/05, Phillip J. Eby [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
At 04:04 PM 10/20/2005 -0400, Jeremy Hylton wrote:
On 10/20/05, Guido van Rossum [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Whoa, folks! Can I ask the gentlemen to curb their enthusiasm?
PEP 343 is still (back) on the drawing table, PEP 342 has barely
Hi,
I was thinking why not have a separate file for all the proposed
optional meta-information (in particular interfaces, static types)?
Something along the lines of IDLs in CORBA (with pythonic syntax, of
curse). This way most of the benefits are retained without
contaminating the actual
On 10/20/05, Phillip J. Eby [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
At 08:57 AM 10/20/2005 -0700, Guido van Rossum wrote:
Whoa, folks! Can I ask the gentlemen to curb their enthusiasm?
PEP 343 is still (back) on the drawing table, PEP 342 has barely been
implemented (did it survive the AST-branch merge?),
so the new syntax would
not be useful, unless it was something that provided access to the index
item as a variable, like:
yield foo(i) for i in x
which barely saves you anything (a colon, a newline, and an indent).
Not even that, because you can omit the newline and indent:
for
Jeremy,
There are a bunch of mods from the AST branch that got integrated into
head. Hopefully, by doing this on python-dev more people will get
involved. I'll describe high level things first, but there will be a
ton of details later on. If people don't want to see this crap on
python-dev, I
At 07:57 PM 10/20/2005 -0700, Guido van Rossum wrote:
(Sorry for the long post -- there just wasn't anything you said that I
felt could be left unquoted. :-)
Wow. You've brought up an awful lot of stuff I want to respond to, about
the nature of frameworks, AOP, Chandler, PEP 342, software
13 matches
Mail list logo
