So is having mutable bytes just a matter of calling them byte
displays instead of byte literals or does that also require
changing something in the back end?
Martin It's certainly also an issue of language semantics (i.e. changes
Martin to interpreter code). There are a
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So is having mutable bytes just a matter of calling them byte
displays instead of byte literals or does that also require
changing something in the back end?
Martin It's certainly also an issue of language semantics (i.e. changes
Martin to
[+python-3000; replies please remove python-dev]
On 5/5/07, Josiah Carlson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Fred L. Drake, Jr. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Saturday 05 May 2007, Aahz wrote:
I'm with MAL and Fred on making literals immutable -- that's safe and
lots of newbies will need to use
I'd like to suggest that we remove all (or nearly all) uses of
xrange from the stdlib. A quick scan shows that most of the usage
of it is unnecessary. With it going away in 3.0, and it being
informally deprecated anyway, it seems like a good thing to go away
where possible.
Any objections?
But why bother? The 2to3 converter can do this for you.
In a sense using range() is more likely to produce broken results in
3.0: if your code depends on the fact that range() returns a list, it
is broken in 3.0, and 2to3 cannot help you here. But if you use
list(xrange()) today, the converter
Surely
from textwrap import dedent as d
is close enough?
Nick Apart from it happening at run time rather than compile time.
And as someone else pointed out, what if you don't want each chunk of text
terminated by a newline?
Skip
On Tue, May 08, 2007 at 09:14:02AM +1000, Anthony Baxter wrote:
I'd like to suggest that we remove all (or nearly all) uses of
xrange from the stdlib. A quick scan shows that most of the usage
of it is unnecessary. With it going away in 3.0, and it being
informally deprecated anyway, it
Guido van Rossum [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
| But why bother? The 2to3 converter can do this for you.
|
| In a sense using range() is more likely to produce broken results in
| 3.0: if your code depends on the fact that range() returns a list, it
| is broken in
I'd like to suggest that we remove all (or nearly all) uses of
xrange from the stdlib. A quick scan shows that most of the usage
of it is unnecessary. With it going away in 3.0, and it being
informally deprecated anyway, it seems like a good thing to go away
where possible.
Any
On 5/7/07, Terry Reedy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Guido van Rossum [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
| But why bother? The 2to3 converter can do this for you.
|
| In a sense using range() is more likely to produce broken results in
| 3.0: if your code depends on the
10 matches
Mail list logo
