At 01:58 PM 7/2/2006 +0200, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I believe the problem has nothing to do with how many scopes a block/function
definition has, but with what the lambda does with the scope it's given.
Currently it remembers the block and looks up the nescessary variables in it
when it's
http://www.python.org/sf/1488934 argues that Python's use of fwrite()
has incorrect error checking; this most affects file.write(), but
there are other uses of fwrite() in the core. It seems fwrite() can
return N bytes written even if an error occurred, and the code needs
to also check
A.M. Kuchling [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
http://www.python.org/sf/1488934 argues that Python's use of fwrite()
has incorrect error checking; this most affects file.write(), but
there are other uses of fwrite() in the core. It seems fwrite() can
return N bytes written even if an error
On Sat, 1 Jul 2006, Andrew Koenig wrote:
I'd rather see a simpler rule: = never defines a variable in a surrounding
scope. If you want to affect the binding of such a variable, you have to
define it explicitly in the scope in which you want it.
Example:
x = 42
def f():
Josiah Carlson wrote:
If the only code that benefits from such changes are very *simple*,
then I think that says something about its necessity.
The point is that they're only very simple if you
can write them using access to an outer scope. Without
that ability, they become less simple, less
Giovanni Bajo wrote:
I believe that names in
lambdas/nested-functions referring to local names in the outer scope should
really be bound at function definition time
No, you don't want that, because it would make functions that
call each other very awkward to arrange.
And it's also handy that
Tim Peters wrote:
Scheme has no loops in Python's sense --
things like do are shorthand for expressing stylized recursion
But it does have foreach and map, which are the
moral equivalent of Python's for-loops and list
comprehensions. The body is a lambda which takes
the loop variable as a
On Tue, Jun 27, 2006 at 02:09:19PM -0400, Alexander Belopolsky wrote:
Setobject code allocates several internal objects on the heap that are
cleaned up by the PySet_Fini function. This is a fine design choice,
but it often makes debugging applications with embedded python more
difficult.
I
Hi guys,
I filed this bug but sourceforge is down so I can't update it:
http://sourceforge.net/tracker/index.php?func=detailaid=1513646group_id=5470atid=105470
Basically, os.access returns the wrong result for W_OK, and that's
because instead of using it uses to see if the file is read only.
Here's the summary for the first half of June. Thanks in advance for
your comments and corrections!
=
Announcements
=
---
Python 2.5 schedule
---
Python 2.5 is moving steadily towards its next release. See `PEP
356`_ for more details
Greg Ewing [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Josiah Carlson wrote:
If the only code that benefits from such changes are very *simple*,
then I think that says something about its necessity.
The point is that they're only very simple if you
can write them using access to an outer scope. Without
On 7/3/06, Josiah Carlson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Greg Ewing [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Josiah Carlson wrote:
If the only code that benefits from such changes are very *simple*,
then I think that says something about its necessity.
The point is that they're only very simple if you
12 matches
Mail list logo
