Gregory P. Smith wrote:
I've never liked the .join([]) idiom for string concatenation; in my
opinion it violates the principles Beautiful is better than ugly. and
There should be one-- and preferably only one --obvious way to do it..
(And perhaps several others.) To that end I've submitted
Steve Holden wrote:
instance.method(*args) == type.method(instance, *args)
You can nowadays spell this as str.join(, lst) - no need to import a
whole module!
except that str.join isn't polymorphic:
str.join(u,, [1, 2, 3])
Traceback (most recent call last):
File stdin, line 1, in
Greg have you run any generic benchmarks such as pystone to get a
Greg better idea of what the net effect on typical python code is?
MAL's pybench would probably be better for this presuming it does some
addition with string operands.
Skip
___
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Greg have you run any generic benchmarks such as pystone to get a
Greg better idea of what the net effect on typical python code is?
MAL's pybench would probably be better for this presuming it does some
addition with string operands.
or stringbench.
/F
Gregory P. Smith wrote:
I've never liked the .join([]) idiom for string concatenation; in my
opinion it violates the principles Beautiful is better than ugly. and
There should be one-- and preferably only one --obvious way to do it..
(And perhaps several others.) To that end I've submitted
Ron Adam wrote:
I think what may be missing is a larger set of higher level string functions
that will work with lists of strings directly. Then lists of strings can be
thought of as a mutable string type by its use, and then working with
substrings
in lists and using ''.join() will not
I was looking at the logs for classobject.c and noticed this commit
that adds Py_TPFLAGS_HAVE_WEAKREFS to the instance type. Should it be
backported to 2.4? (It looks to me like it should, but I don't know
anything about weakref implementation and want to get approval from
someone who knows.)
No need to backport. Py_TPFLAGS_DEFAULT implies
Py_TPFLAGS_HAVE_WEAKREFS.
The change was for clarity -- most things that have the weakref slots
filled-in will also make the flag explicit -- that makes it easier on
the brain when verifying code that checks the weakref flag.
Raymond
Fredrik Lundh [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ron Adam wrote:
I think what may be missing is a larger set of higher level string
functions
that will work with lists of strings directly. Then lists of strings can
be
thought of as a mutable string type by its use, and then working with
On Fri, Oct 06, 2006 at 08:48:15AM -0700, Raymond Hettinger wrote:
The change was for clarity -- most things that have the weakref slots
filled-in will also make the flag explicit -- that makes it easier on
the brain when verifying code that checks the weakref flag.
OK; I won't backport this.
On 10/6/06, Fredrik Lundh [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ron Adam wrote:
I think what may be missing is a larger set of higher level string functions
that will work with lists of strings directly. Then lists of strings can be
thought of as a mutable string type by its use, and then working with
Josiah Carlson wrote:
Fredrik Lundh [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ron Adam wrote:
I think what may be missing is a larger set of higher level string
functions
that will work with lists of strings directly. Then lists of strings can
be
thought of as a mutable string type by its use, and
On 6 Oct 2006, at 12:37, Ron Adam wrote:
I've never liked the .join([]) idiom for string concatenation;
in my
opinion it violates the principles Beautiful is better than
ugly. and
There should be one-- and preferably only one --obvious way to
do it..
...
Well I always like things to
Patch / Bug Summary
___
Patches : 428 open ( +6) / 3417 closed ( +2) / 3845 total ( +8)
Bugs: 939 open ( +6) / 6229 closed (+17) / 7168 total (+23)
RFE : 240 open ( +3) / 239 closed ( +0) / 479 total ( +3)
New / Reopened Patches
__
Speed up
Nicko van Someren wrote:
On 6 Oct 2006, at 12:37, Ron Adam wrote:
I've never liked the .join([]) idiom for string concatenation; in my
opinion it violates the principles Beautiful is better than ugly. and
There should be one-- and preferably only one --obvious way to do
it..
...
Well I
15 matches
Mail list logo
