2009/3/3 Jeffrey Yasskin jyass...@gmail.com:
Unfortunately, I think overloading functions on Number or Iterable
would be really useful, and constraining it to only look at base
classes would be unfortunate.
That could well be the case. So the question is, I guess, how would
you write such a
Terry Reedy wrote:
Nick Coghlan wrote:
Terry Reedy wrote:
As for the actual feature, I don't think it should hold up releases.
Fair enough.
Given that the purpose of 2.7 is
a) maintenance of existing code (which can include minor new features
for existing facilities), and
b) easing
Nick Coghlan wrote:
Terry Reedy wrote:
OK, that suggests that the new feature should only be committed, if
ever, to 2.7 after 3.1, when it can also be committed to 3.2 at the same
time.
Not really - there's already stuff in 3.0 that wasn't backported the
first time around.
Irrelevant.
On Mon, Mar 2, 2009 at 1:14 PM, Paul Moore p.f.mo...@gmail.com wrote:
2009/3/2 Jeffrey Yasskin jyass...@gmail.com:
I tend to think it's a bug in ABCs. You seem to have thought of
several possible ways to fix it, and I don't have strong preferences
between them.
I've discussed ways of fixing
2009/3/2 Benjamin Peterson benja...@python.org:
2009/3/1 Paul Moore p.f.mo...@gmail.com:
Is it worth getting simplegeneric exposed in 3.1
(http://bugs.python.org/issue5135)? If it's going to be in 2.7, I'd
like to see it hit 3.1. The patch is against trunk (for 2.7) at the
moment, I'm not
At 10:41 AM 3/2/2009 +, Paul Moore wrote:
2009/3/2 Benjamin Peterson benja...@python.org:
2009/3/1 Paul Moore p.f.mo...@gmail.com:
Is it worth getting simplegeneric exposed in 3.1
(http://bugs.python.org/issue5135)? If it's going to be in 2.7, I'd
like to see it hit 3.1. The patch is
Paul Moore wrote:
2009/3/2 Benjamin Peterson benja...@python.org:
2009/3/1 Paul Moore p.f.mo...@gmail.com:
Is it worth getting simplegeneric exposed in 3.1
(http://bugs.python.org/issue5135)? If it's going to be in 2.7, I'd
like to see it hit 3.1. The patch is against trunk (for 2.7) at the
2009/3/2 P.J. Eby p...@telecommunity.com:
By the way guys, are you aware of:
http://pypi.python.org/pypi/simplegeneric
Yes. It has been mentioned, and I am certainly aware of both it and
RuleDispatch.
There might be a bit of name confusion by exposing pkgutils' internal
simplegeneric
On Mon, Mar 2, 2009 at 2:41 AM, Paul Moore p.f.mo...@gmail.com wrote:
...
More generally, there is NO WAY to determine the list of classes for
which issubclass(C, x) is true.
This could be considered a limitation of, or a bug in, ABCs, I don't
have a particular opinion on that, but it does
Terry Reedy wrote:
As for the actual feature, I don't think it should hold up releases.
Fair enough.
Given that the purpose of 2.7 is
a) maintenance of existing code (which can include minor new features
for existing facilities), and
b) easing conversion of code to 3.1
I am puzzled at
2009/3/2 Jeffrey Yasskin jyass...@gmail.com:
I tend to think it's a bug in ABCs. You seem to have thought of
several possible ways to fix it, and I don't have strong preferences
between them.
I've discussed ways of fixing simplegeneric, but not of fixing the
issue with ABCs. I'm not sure the
At 09:14 PM 3/2/2009 +, Paul Moore wrote:
2009/3/2 Jeffrey Yasskin jyass...@gmail.com:
I tend to think it's a bug in ABCs. You seem to have thought of
several possible ways to fix it, and I don't have strong preferences
between them.
I've discussed ways of fixing simplegeneric, but not
12 matches
Mail list logo
