Is immutability a general need that should have general solution? By
generalizing the idea to lists/tuples, set/frozenset, dicts, and strings
(for example), it seems one could simplify the container classes, eliminate
code complexity, and perhaps improve resource utilization.
mark
...After a sufficient period of waiting, say a day or two with no
response:
Ok, I'll wait a bit longer.
I don't think that's a good idea.
My bad, I really only meant a sufficient delay to allow the
possibility of an interested party replying. I actually figured
about a day.
1. I suggested one improvement to the canned response in my previous
post: expand 'using' to 'using or understanding'.
I changed wording to if you're having problems learning, understanding
or using Python
I think it's critical to disambiguate between questions about using
and programming
We'are sorry but we cannot help you. This mailing list is to work on
developing Python (fixing bugs and adding new features to Python itself); if
you're having problems using Python, please find another forum. Probably
python-list (comp.lang.python) news group/mailing list is the best place.
On behalf of the Python development team, I'm merry to announce the first beta
release of Python 2.7.
Python 2.7 is scheduled (by Guido and Python-dev) to be the last major version
in the 2.x series. Though more major releases have not been absolutely ruled
out, it's likely that the 2.7
globals() and locals() return dicts mapping names to objects.
Damn, I totally pulled a *?!* on that one. I should have pulled out
my Python reference. I was thinking of dir() and thought that these
functions were similar. Apologies for that. However, I still do
believe that as a general
On Sat, Apr 3, 2010 at 6:31 AM, Nick Coghlan ncogh...@gmail.com wrote:
Steve Bonner wrote:
What do we think of adding a built-in nonlocals() function that would
be similar to globals() and locals()? Like those functions, it would
return a dictionary of variable names and their values. Since
[Guido wrote:]
- If sets were to grow an API to non-destructively access the object
stored in the set for a particular key, then dicts should have such a
method too.
- I still wish we could go back in time and unify sets and dicts, if
only to find out how that experiment would turn out.
+5.
[I wrote:]
If Python3 were to have this feature it would make it worth
migrating to
Sorry that may have sounded more harsh than I expected. If I had more
resources, I'd propose (and volunteer) a python3000 branch where any
and all who were disappointed at the *lack* of compatability changes
Is it really that confusing? I have never heard of anyone asking what
is py3k?
Do you read python-list? It has been asked. Also, some people seem to
think that py3k is different from python 3.
Personally, I vote for keeping the 3k for 3000 (or is it 3072?). I
believe that py3k represents a
Summer of Code is ramping up. Every year the common complaint is that not
enough Python core projects get proposed by students, and of course a big
reason for that is often the only encouragement we offer prospective
students is a link to the PEP index.
The challenge is finding project
Daniel Furrer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
As part of an advanced compiler design course at our university (ETH
Zurich), we have to implement an optimization (or various thereof).
I've spoken with a couple of people who are, like me, very fascinated by
Python.
So I would just like to ask if
It seems that the frustration with super revolves around how Python
currently conflates (as well as many users) two very different types
of inheritance, both is-a and has-a (or compositional)
inheritance. Unfortunately, Python assists this confusion because the
language doesn't provide a distinct
13 matches
Mail list logo
