Le Mon, 27 Jun 2011 11:32:32 +1000,
Nick Coghlan ncogh...@gmail.com a écrit :
On Mon, Jun 27, 2011 at 7:52 AM, Terry Reedy tjre...@udel.edu wrote:
or the 'attribute' substitution everywhere makes sense?
No.
My strong history-based opinions ;-).
+1 to what Terry said.
Members is a
On 27 June 2011 09:24, Antoine Pitrou solip...@pitrou.net wrote:
While I know it is technically right, I find it a bit strange to refer to
methods as attributes. We're describing an API, not the inner working of
the object model. Also, people just discovering Python will probably be a
bit
On 27/06/2011 09:24, Antoine Pitrou wrote:
Le Mon, 27 Jun 2011 11:32:32 +1000,
Nick Coghlanncogh...@gmail.com a écrit :
On Mon, Jun 27, 2011 at 7:52 AM, Terry Reedytjre...@udel.edu wrote:
or the 'attribute' substitution everywhere makes sense?
No.
My strong history-based opinions ;-).
+1
On Mon, Jun 27, 2011 at 10:24:28AM +0200, Antoine Pitrou wrote:
FWIW, I tend to understand members as methods + attributes, which makes
it a nice term to use for that purpose.
That's my feeling too.
Oleg.
--
Oleg Broytmanhttp://phdru.name/p...@phdru.name
Hi all.
I'm writing a module to proxy C++ objects into Python for a large C++
application. There are hundreds of thousands of C++ objects, some of
which are temporary while others are very long lived.
Currently every time one of these objects is accessed from Python, a
new myproxy instance is
Tom Whittock, 27.06.2011 12:48:
I'm writing a module to proxy C++ objects into Python for a large C++
application. There are hundreds of thousands of C++ objects, some of
which are temporary while others are very long lived.
Currently every time one of these objects is accessed from Python, a
Tom Whittock wrote:
Currently every time one of these objects is accessed from Python, a
new myproxy instance is created. So if I were to access the same
field of an object twice, I would receive two python objects proxying
the same underlying C++ object.
Perhaps you could use a
Hi Greg thanks for your quick reply.
Perhaps you could use a WeakValueDictionary to keep a mapping
from a C++ object address to its Python proxy.
Thank you, I'll implement this and see whether it works out. I'll
certainly be better off if it does. I was avoiding holding weak
references due to
Hi again.
Just to let you know that Greg's suggestion worked beautifully - I
guess my id idea was just me trying to make life hard for myself.
My concerns over the json modules usage of id seem unjustified, as
circular references are detected now that the weak reference
dictionary is in place.
On Mon, 27 Jun 2011 09:47:05 +0100, Paul Moore p.f.mo...@gmail.com wrote:
On 27 June 2011 09:24, Antoine Pitrou solip...@pitrou.net wrote:
While I know it is technically right, I find it a bit strange to refer to
methods as attributes. We're describing an API, not the inner working of
the
On 27/06/2011 15:08, R. David Murray wrote:
Wow, all these people who like 'members', and I can't think of ever
using that term in a Python context.
While I agree that using 'attribute' when only methods are being discussed
would most likely be confusing, and that it can be tricky to clearly
On 27/06/2011 15:08, R. David Murray wrote:
On Mon, 27 Jun 2011 09:47:05 +0100, Paul Moorep.f.mo...@gmail.com wrote:
On 27 June 2011 09:24, Antoine Pitrousolip...@pitrou.net wrote:
While I know it is technically right, I find it a bit strange to refer to
methods as attributes. We're
On Tue, Jun 28, 2011 at 12:08 AM, R. David Murray rdmur...@bitdance.com wrote:
While I agree that using 'attribute' when only methods are being discussed
would most likely be confusing, and that it can be tricky to clearly
word things when both are being discussed, the existence in the language
On Tue, Jun 28, 2011 at 12:27 AM, Michael Foord
fuzzy...@voidspace.org.uk wrote:
Well perhaps, but where does the language draw the distinction between
attributes and data attributes as you all them (a term entirely new to
me)? Only in the descriptor protocol and that term isn't used there
2011/6/27 nick.coghlan python-check...@python.org:
http://hg.python.org/peps/rev/1e3d663c67ee
changeset: 3892:1e3d663c67ee
user: Nick Coghlan ncogh...@gmail.com
date: Tue Jun 28 00:23:57 2011 +1000
summary:
Happy Tau Day folks! :)
files:
pep-0628.html | 149
On Tue, Jun 28, 2011 at 12:38 AM, Benjamin Peterson benja...@python.org wrote:
You're not going to give us the source?
Just a teensy error with hg add, tab completion and not checking the
diff before committing. Fixed now, though :)
Cheers,
Nick.
--
Nick Coghlan | ncogh...@gmail.com |
Nick Coghlan ncoghlan at gmail.com writes:
I hit a snag with this. The real tests of the PEP 380 functionality
aren't currently part of the patch - they're a big set of golden
output tests in the zipfile hosted on Greg's site. Those need to be
refactored into proper unittest or doctest based
Nick Coghlan writes:
And no, the fact that methods can be treated as attributes is not a
minor detail. It is *fundamental* to Python's object model that
*methods are not a special case of attribute access*.
That's ambiguous. I assume you mean just a case of attribute access,
and not
Nick Coghlan ncogh...@gmail.com wrote:
And no, the fact that methods can be treated as attributes is not a
minor detail. It is *fundamental* to Python's object model that
*methods are not a special case of attribute access*. All attributes
work the same way, it is just the way functions
On Mon, 27 Jun 2011 15:27:12 +0100, Michael Foord fuzzy...@voidspace.org.uk
wrote:
On 27/06/2011 15:08, R. David Murray wrote:
'data attributes' can so easily become something else in Python...it
seems to me that the only real difference between 'data attributes' and
'method attributes' in
I see that parc-snowleopard-1 went down again. I've done a software
update, rebooted, and installed the latest buildslave, 0.8.4. I can
ping dinsdale.python.org successfully from the machine. However, when I
start the buildslave, I get this:
$ buildslave start ~/buildarea/
Egads.
Back when I wrote
Members and methods should just be attributes.
I used quotes to specifically indicate that this applied to the phrase
members and methods, not their separate use. I guess I wasn't obvious
enough.
The general Python-historical uses of members is unfortunate.
My
On 27/06/2011 18:01, Bill Janssen wrote:
I see that parc-snowleopard-1 went down again. I've done a software
update, rebooted, and installed the latest buildslave, 0.8.4. I can
ping dinsdale.python.org successfully from the machine. However, when I
start the buildslave, I get this:
$
Le Tue, 28 Jun 2011 00:36:20 +1000,
Nick Coghlan ncogh...@gmail.com a écrit :
And no, the fact that methods can be treated as attributes is not a
minor detail. It is *fundamental* to Python's object model that
*methods are not a special case of attribute access*.
Uh, and so what?
Again, the
On 05:01 pm, jans...@parc.com wrote:
I see that parc-snowleopard-1 went down again. I've done a software
update, rebooted, and installed the latest buildslave, 0.8.4. I can
ping dinsdale.python.org successfully from the machine. However, when
I
start the buildslave, I get this:
[snip]
On 6/27/2011 4:24 AM, Antoine Pitrou wrote:
Le Mon, 27 Jun 2011 11:32:32 +1000,
Nick Coghlanncogh...@gmail.com a écrit :
Members is a historical relic that is best replaced by attributes
or data attributes if we want to explicitly exclude methods for some
reason. Methods is a subset of
exar...@twistedmatrix.com wrote:
On 05:01 pm, jans...@parc.com wrote:
I see that parc-snowleopard-1 went down again. I've done a software
update, rebooted, and installed the latest buildslave, 0.8.4. I can
ping dinsdale.python.org successfully from the machine. However,
when I
start
I also find http://trac.buildbot.net/ticket/1854 interesting, because
it seems a good explanation of why the build slave might go into the
zombie state of attempting to reconnect to the master.
Bill
___
Python-Dev mailing list
Python-Dev@python.org
On Mon, 27 Jun 2011 19:27:26 +0200, Antoine Pitrou solip...@pitrou.net wrote:
Le Tue, 28 Jun 2011 00:36:20 +1000,
Nick Coghlan ncogh...@gmail.com a écrit :
And no, the fact that methods can be treated as attributes is not a
minor detail. It is *fundamental* to Python's object model that
On 27/06/2011 20:22, R. David Murray wrote:
[snip...]
So, the correct generic term for something that can be accessed
via attribute notation is attribute. The more specific term for an
attribute that is a method is method. We don't currently have a more
specific collective term for attributes
On Mon, 27 Jun 2011 20:30:12 +0100, Michael Foord fuzzy...@voidspace.org.uk
wrote:
On 27/06/2011 20:22, R. David Murray wrote:
[snip...]
So, the correct generic term for something that can be accessed
via attribute notation is attribute. The more specific term for an
attribute that is a
On 6/27/2011 5:42 AM, Michael Foord wrote:
On 27/06/2011 09:24, Antoine Pitrou wrote:
FWIW, I tend to understand members as methods + attributes, which
makes
it a nice term to use for that purpose.
That is my understanding / use of the terms as well.
On 6/27/2011 5:45 AM, Oleg Broytman
On 6/27/2011 2:33 PM, Terry Reedy wrote:
Let me repeat that that is historically wrong for Python, and illustrate
why the term 'members' should not be used. From the 1.5 Language
Reference, 3.2 Standard type hierarchy: There are also some 'generic'
special attributes, not listed with the
On 27/06/2011 23:18, Terry Reedy wrote:
On 6/27/2011 2:33 PM, Terry Reedy wrote:
Let me repeat that that is historically wrong for Python, and illustrate
why the term 'members' should not be used. From the 1.5 Language
Reference, 3.2 Standard type hierarchy: There are also some 'generic'
When debugging generators (especially when using them as coroutines) I
often want 'next' to step over a yield statement/expression, instead
of the current behavior, which is to step out of the frame, since pdb
doesn't seem to see the difference between yield and return. Or I
could live with a
On Tue, Jun 28, 2011 at 1:09 AM, renaud rndbl...@gmail.com wrote:
Nick Coghlan ncoghlan at gmail.com writes:
I hit a snag with this. The real tests of the PEP 380 functionality
aren't currently part of the patch - they're a big set of golden
output tests in the zipfile hosted on Greg's site.
R. David Murray wrote:
So, the correct generic term for something that can be accessed
via attribute notation is attribute. The more specific term for an
attribute that is a method is method. We don't currently have a more
specific collective term for attributes that aren't methods. *That*
On Tue, Jun 28, 2011 at 8:46 AM, Michael Foord
fuzzy...@voidspace.org.uk wrote:
So the Python 2.2 what's new talks about attributes and methods as different
things Of course the context makes it clear, but this mirrors how I use
the terms in discussion and how I see others generally using
Rob Cliffe rob.cli...@btinternet.com writes:
On 27/06/2011 15:08, R. David Murray wrote:
I guess what I'm saying is that I am more comfortable calling them
all attributes than calling them all members. The term 'members'
isn't used anywhere in the language itself, as far as I can recall,
On Mon, Jun 27, 2011 at 8:11 PM, Ben Finney ben+pyt...@benfinney.id.au wrote:
Rob Cliffe rob.cli...@btinternet.com writes:
'function attributes' ? 'def attributes' ?
-1. They don't have to be functions, and hence don't have to be created
by 'def'.
Or just stick with method attributes' ?
Eric Snow ericsnowcurren...@gmail.com writes:
On Mon, Jun 27, 2011 at 8:11 PM, Ben Finney ben+pyt...@benfinney.id.au
wrote:
callable attributes describes exactly what they are, in terms that
will remain useful to the person learning Python.
The usage of the object determines what we call
41 matches
Mail list logo
