On 30 Dec 2008, at 13:45, Barry Scott wrote:
...
Since I've been building 3.0 for a while now I looked at the script.
build-install.py seems to have been half converted to py 3.0.
Going full 3.0 was not hard but then there is the problem of
the imports.
Python 3.0 does not have MacOS or Carbon
On 1 Feb 2008, at 18:37, Steve Holden wrote:
Jeffrey Yasskin wrote:
On Feb 1, 2008 6:43 AM, Nicko van Someren [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Perhaps it has to do with the low signal to noise ratio of your
messages...
That was a little uncalled for. Be polite.
I don't believe it was at all
On 15 Jan 2008, at 15:37, Guido van Rossum wrote:
Second, a metaclass to add a number of methods (or other attributes)
to an existing class, using a convenient class notation:
...
class newclass(someclass):
__metaclass__ = monkeypatch_class
def method1(...): ...
def method2(...):
On 2 Dec 2007, at 03:09, Neil Toronto wrote:
Are there any use-cases for allowing namespace dicts (such as globals,
builtins and classes) to have non-string keys? I'm asking because I'm
planning on accelerating method lookups next, and the possibility of a
key compare changing the underlying
On 29 Nov 2007, at 14:06, Isaac Morland wrote:
I wonder how much you could sell the naming rights for? i.e. call it
__[name of sponsor]__. Python's pretty popular, such advertising
should
be worth something
I'm sorry, but if you call it __Microsoft_Office_2007__ I shall never
write
On 7 Oct 2006, at 09:17, Fredrik Lundh wrote:
Nicko van Someren wrote:
If it speeds up pystone by 5.5% with such minimal down side
I'm hard pressed to see a reason not to use it.
can you tell me where exactly pystone does string concatenations?
No, not without more in depth examination
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
On 5 Oct 2006, at 20:28, 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
On 3 Oct 2006, at 15:10, Martin v. Löwis wrote:
Nick Maclaren schrieb:
That was the point of a previous posting of mine in this thread :-(
You shouldn't, despite what IEEE 754 says, at least if you are
allowing for either portability or numeric validation.
There are a huge number of good
On 27 Jun 2006, at 13:03, Nick Coghlan wrote:
...
It occurred to me that a slight modification to PEP 338 might solve
the
problem fairly cleanly: instead of simply setting __name__ to
'__main__' for a
module in a package, the -m switch could prepend the package name
so that
relative
On 16 Jun 2006, at 00:49, Phillip J. Eby wrote:
At 11:45 PM 6/15/2006 +0100, Nicko van Someren wrote:
On 15 Jun 2006, at 11:37, Nick Coghlan wrote:
...
The lack of a switch statement doesn't really bother me personally,
since I
tend to just write my state machine type code so
On 12 Jun 2006, at 02:19, Terry Jones wrote:
Greg == Greg Ewing [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Greg Terry Jones wrote:
Suppose you have a RNG with a cycle length of 5. There's nothing
to stop an
algorithm from taking multiple already returned values and
combining them
in some
12 matches
Mail list logo
