On Wed, Apr 8, 2009 at 12:09 AM, Michele Simionato
michele.simion...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Apr 7, 2009 at 11:04 PM, Terry Reedy tjre...@udel.edu wrote:
This probably should have gone to the python-ideas list. In any case, I
think it needs to start with a clear offer from Michele (directly
Tennessee Leeuwenburg wrote:
Now, I know that sets aren't ordered, but...
foo = set([1,2,3,4,5])
bar = [1,2,3,4,5]
foo.pop() will reliably return 1
while bar.pop() will return 5
discuss :)
As designed.
If you play around a bit it becomes clear that what set.pop() returns
is independent
On Wed, Apr 8, 2009 at 7:13 AM, John Barham jbar...@gmail.com wrote:
If you play around a bit it becomes clear that what set.pop() returns
is independent of the insertion order:
It might look like that, but I don't think this is
true in general (at least, with the current implementation):
foo
On Wed, Apr 8, 2009 at 8:10 AM, Jack diederich jackd...@gmail.com wrote:
Plus he's a softie for decorators, as am I.
I must admit that while I still like decorators, I do like them as
much as in the past.
I also see an overuse of decorators in various libraries for things that could
be done more
On Wed, Apr 8, 2009 at 3:55 PM, Jeroen Ruigrok van der Werven
asmo...@in-nomine.org wrote:
-On [20090408 05:24], Tennessee Leeuwenburg (tleeuwenb...@gmail.com)
wrote:
It seems like the bug relates only to an older version of a 'weird'
operating system ducks and could perhaps be left unfixed
On Wed, Apr 8, 2009 at 2:44 AM, Mark Dickinson dicki...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Apr 8, 2009 at 7:13 AM, John Barham jbar...@gmail.com wrote:
If you play around a bit it becomes clear that what set.pop() returns
is independent of the insertion order:
It might look like that, but I don't think
Jack diederich wrote:
On Wed, Apr 8, 2009 at 2:44 AM, Mark Dickinson dicki...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Apr 8, 2009 at 7:13 AM, John Barham jbar...@gmail.com wrote:
If you play around a bit it becomes clear that what set.pop() returns
is independent of the insertion order:
It might look like
Andrea Griffini griph...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Apr 8, 2009 at 12:57 PM, Jack diederich jackd...@gmail.com
wrote:
You wrote a program to find the two smallest ints that would have a
hash collision in the CPython set implementation? I'm impressed.
And by impressed I mean frightened.
?
Mark Dickinson dickinsm at gmail.com writes:
On Wed, Apr 8, 2009 at 7:13 AM, John Barham jbarham at gmail.com wrote:
If you play around a bit it becomes clear that what set.pop() returns
is independent of the insertion order:
It might look like that, but I don't think this is
true in
On Wed, Apr 8, 2009 at 12:57 PM, Jack diederich jackd...@gmail.com wrote:
You wrote a program to find the two smallest ints that would have a
hash collision in the CPython set implementation? I'm impressed. And
by impressed I mean frightened.
?
print set([0,8]).pop(), set([8,0]).pop()
Hi, Just noticed the new Python 2.6.2 docs now dont have any reference to
* PyCFunction_New
* PyCFunction_NewEx
* PyCFunction_Check
* PyCFunction_Call
Ofcourse these are still in the source code but Im wondering if this
is intentional that these functions should be for internal use only?
--
-
Hello,
We're in the process of forward-porting the recent (massive) json updates to
3.1, and we are also thinking of dropping remnants of support of the bytes type
in the json library (in 3.1, again). This bytes support almost didn't work at
all, but there was a lot of C and Python code for it
2009/4/8 Duncan Booth duncan.bo...@suttoncourtenay.org.uk:
Andrea Griffini griph...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Apr 8, 2009 at 12:57 PM, Jack diederich jackd...@gmail.com
wrote:
You wrote a program to find the two smallest ints that would have a
hash collision in the CPython set implementation?
Paul Moore wrote:
2009/4/8 Duncan Booth duncan.bo...@suttoncourtenay.org.uk:
Andrea Griffini griph...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Apr 8, 2009 at 12:57 PM, Jack diederich jackd...@gmail.com
wrote:
You wrote a program to find the two smallest ints that would have a
hash collision in the CPython
2009/4/8 Steve Holden st...@holdenweb.com:
Paul Moore wrote:
2009/4/8 Duncan Booth duncan.bo...@suttoncourtenay.org.uk:
Andrea Griffini griph...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Apr 8, 2009 at 12:57 PM, Jack diederich jackd...@gmail.com
wrote:
You wrote a program to find the two smallest ints that
A question that arose on this thread, which I'm forwarding for context (and
we're quite happy about it too!):
- What is the scope of a patch that requires a contributor agreement?
This particular patch on #1188 simply adds obvious (in retrospect of course)
handling on SecurityException
We're in the process of forward-porting the recent (massive) json updates to
3.1, and we are also thinking of dropping remnants of support of the bytes type
in the json library (in 3.1, again). This bytes support almost didn't work at
all, but there was a lot of C and Python code for it
Oops, didn't attach the entire thread, so see below:
On Wed, Apr 8, 2009 at 9:50 AM, Jim Baker jba...@zyasoft.com wrote:
A question that arose on this thread, which I'm forwarding for context (and
we're quite happy about it too!):
- What is the scope of a patch that requires a contributor
Someone listed this URL on c.l.py and I thought it would make a good
reference addition to PEP 374 (DVCS decision):
http://www.catb.org/~esr/writings/version-control/version-control.html
--
Aahz (a...@pythoncraft.com) * http://www.pythoncraft.com/
...string iteration isn't
On Wed, Apr 8, 2009 at 12:17 AM, Michele Simionato
michele.simion...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Apr 8, 2009 at 8:10 AM, Jack diederich jackd...@gmail.com wrote:
Plus he's a softie for decorators, as am I.
This worries me a bit.
There was a remark (though perhaps meant humorously) in Michele's
foo = set([1, 65537])
foo.pop()
1
foo = set([65537, 1])
foo.pop()
65537
You wrote a program to find the two smallest ints that would have a
hash collision in the CPython set implementation? I'm impressed. And
by impressed I mean frightened.
Well, Mark is the guy who deals with
We're in the process of forward-porting the recent (massive) json updates to
3.1, and we are also thinking of dropping remnants of support of the bytes
type
in the json library (in 3.1, again). This bytes support almost didn't work at
all, but there was a lot of C and Python code for it
* What is the scope of a patch that requires a contributor
agreement?
Unfortunately, that question was never fully answered (or I forgot
what the answer was).
* Do Google employees, working on company time, automatically get
treated as contributors with existing
At 10:51 AM 4/8/2009 -0700, Guido van Rossum wrote:
I would like it even less if an API cared about the
*actual* signature of a function I pass into it.
One notable use of callable argument inspection is Bobo, the
12-years-ago predecessor to Zope, which used argument information to
determine
On Wed, Apr 8, 2009 at 4:18 AM, David Cournapeau courn...@gmail.com wrote:
...
I guess something similar could be useful for Python, maybe this is
what distutils actually do ?
distutils does roughly everything that autotools does, and more:
- configuration: not often used in extensions, we
- registration to pypi
Alex No idea what this is .
http://pypi.python.org/
It is, in some ways, a CPAN-like system for Python.
Skip
___
Python-Dev mailing list
Python-Dev@python.org
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev
P.J. Eby wrote:
Anyway, it's nice for decorators to be transparent to inspection when
the decorator doesn't actually modify the calling signature, so that you
can then use your decorated functions with tools like the above.
If anyone wanted to take PEP 362 up again, we could easily add a
Assuming that Mark's and my changes in the py3k-short-float-repr branch
get checked in shortly, I'd like to deprecate PyOS_ascii_formatd. Its
functionality is largely being replaced by PyOS_double_to_string, which
we're introducing on our branch.
PyOS_ascii_formatd was introduced to fix the
On Wed, Apr 8, 2009 at 8:37 PM, Martin v. Löwis mar...@v.loewis.dewrote:
--8--
* Should we change the workflow for roundup to make this assignment
of license clearer (see Tobias's idea in the thread about a
click-though agreement).
I think we do need something written; a
Martin v. Löwis martin at v.loewis.de writes:
What does Bob Ippolito think about this change? IIUC, he considers
simplejson's speed one of its primary advantages, and also attributes it
to the fact that he can parse directly out of byte strings, and marshal
into them (which is important, as
On Wed, Apr 8, 2009 at 4:10 AM, Antoine Pitrou solip...@pitrou.net wrote:
We're in the process of forward-porting the recent (massive) json updates to
3.1, and we are also thinking of dropping remnants of support of the bytes
type
in the json library (in 3.1, again). This bytes support almost
On Thu, Apr 9, 2009 at 4:45 AM, Alexander Neundorf
alex.neund...@kitware.com wrote:
I think cmake can do all of the above (cpack supports creating packages).
I am sure it is - it is just a lot of work, specially if you want to
stay compatible with distutils-built extensions :)
cheers,
David
On Wed, Apr 8, 2009 at 7:51 PM, Guido van Rossum gu...@python.org wrote:
There was a remark (though perhaps meant humorously) in Michele's page
about decorators that worried me too: For instance, typical
implementations of decorators involve nested functions, and we all
know that flat is
Guido van Rossum guido at python.org writes:
I'm kind of surprised that a serialization protocol like JSON wouldn't
support reading/writing bytes (as the serialized format -- I don't
care about having bytes as values, since JavaScript doesn't have
something equivalent AFAIK, and hence JSON
Besides, Bob doesn't really seem to care about
porting to py3k (he hasn't said anything about it until now, other than that
he
didn't feel competent to do it).
That is quite unfortunate, and suggests that perhaps the module
shouldn't have been added to Python in the first place.
I can
35 matches
Mail list logo
