on 18.10.2005 19:17 Antoine Pitrou said the following:
What would this mythical block statement look like that would make
properties easier to write than the above late-binding or the subclass
Property recipe?
I suppose something like:
class C(object):
x = prop:
Yay for
On 10/18/05, Guido van Rossum [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I wonder if at some point in the future Python will have to develop a
macro syntax so that you can write
Property foo:
def get(self): return self._foo
...etc...
This reminds me of an idea I have kept in my drawer for
Stefan Rank [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]:
I think there is no need for a special @syntax for this to work.
I suppose it would be possible to allow a trailing block after any
function invocation, with the effect of creating a new namespace that
gets treated as
On 10/19/05, Michele Simionato [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 10/18/05, Guido van Rossum [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I wonder if at some point in the future Python will have to develop a
macro syntax so that you can write
Property foo:
def get(self): return self._foo
Phillip J. Eby wrote:
Note that a where or given statement like this could make it a
little easier to drop lambda.
I think the lambda will disappear in Py3k concept might have been what
triggered the original 'where' statement discussion.
The idea was to be able to lift an arbitrary
On 10/19/05, Paul Moore [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
One question - in the expansion, name is used on both sides of the
assignment. Consider
something name():
definitions
This expands to
name = something(name, (), dict)
What should happen if name wasn't defined before? A
Hi Michele,
Property p():
I am a property
def fget(self):
pass
def fset(self):
pass
def fdel(self):
pass
In effect this is quite similar to the proposal I've done (except that
you've reversed the traditional assignment order from p = Property()
to
On 10/14/05, Josiah Carlson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Until Microsoft adds kernel support for fork, don't expect standard
Windows Python to support it.
AFAIK the NT kernel has support for fork, but the Win32 subsystem
doesn't support it (you can only use it with the POSIX subsystem).
--
JanC
(In http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2005-October/057251.html)
Eyal Lotem wrote:
Name: Attribute access for all namespaces ...
global x ; x = 1
Replaced by:
module.x = 1
Attribute access as an option would be nice, but might be slower.
Also note that one common use
(In http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2005-October/057409.html,)
Nick Coghlan suggested allowing attribute references as binding targets.
x = property(Property x (must be less than 5))
def x.get(instance): ...
Josiah shivered and said it was hard to tell what was even
Michele Simionato wrote:
This reminds me of an idea I have kept in my drawer for a couple of years or
so.
Here is my proposition: we could have the statement syntax
callable name tuple:
definitions
to be syntactic sugar for
name = callable(name, tuple, dict-of-definitions)
[snip]
At 07:47 PM 10/19/2005 +1000, Nick Coghlan wrote:
Phillip J. Eby wrote:
Note that a where or given statement like this could make it a
little easier to drop lambda.
I think the lambda will disappear in Py3k concept might have been what
triggered the original 'where' statement discussion.
The
I'm still making slow progress on this front. I have a versioned
merged to the CVS head. I'd like to make a final pass over the patch.
I'd upload it to SF, but I can't connect to a web server there. If
anyone would like to eyeball that patch before I commit it, I can
email it to you.
Jeremy
At 11:43 AM 10/19/2005 -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
callable name tuple:
definitions
...
Steve Wow, that's really neat. And you save a keyword! ;-)
Two if you add a builtin called function (get rid of def).
Not unless the tuple is passed in as an abstract syntax
JanC [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 10/14/05, Josiah Carlson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Until Microsoft adds kernel support for fork, don't expect standard
Windows Python to support it.
AFAIK the NT kernel has support for fork, but the Win32 subsystem
doesn't support it (you can only use it
Jim Jewett [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
(In http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2005-October/057251.html)
Eyal Lotem wrote:
Name: Attribute access for all namespaces ...
global x ; x = 1
Replaced by:
module.x = 1
Attribute access as an option would be nice, but
Calvin Spealman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 10/16/05, Josiah Carlson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[snip]
What I'm saying is that whether or not you can modify the contents of
stack frames via tricks, you shouldn't. Why? Because as I said, if the
writer wanted you to be hacking around with a
Phillip == Phillip J Eby [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Phillip At 11:43 AM 10/19/2005 -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
callable name tuple:
definitions
...
Steve Wow, that's really neat. And you save a keyword! ;-)
Two if you add a builtin called
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Phillip == Phillip J Eby [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Phillip At 11:43 AM 10/19/2005 -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
callable name tuple:
definitions
...
Steve Wow, that's really neat. And you save a keyword! ;-)
Jim Jewett [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
(In http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2005-October/057409.html,)
Nick Coghlan suggested allowing attribute references as binding targets.
x = property(Property x (must be less than 5))
def x.get(instance): ...
Josiah shivered and
At 12:46 PM 10/19/2005 -0700, Josiah Carlson wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Phillip == Phillip J Eby [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Phillip Not unless the tuple is passed in as an abstract syntax
tree or
Phillip something.
Hmmm... Maybe I misread something then. I saw (I
On 10/19/05, Fredrik Lundh [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
letting class inject a slightly magic self variable into the class
namespace ?
class C:
foo = property(self.getFoo, self.setFoo, None, 'the foo property')
def getFoo(self):
return self._foo
def
Andrew Koenig wrote:
Sure, that would work. Or even this, if the scheduler would
automatically recognize generator objects being yielded and so would run
the the nested coroutine until finish:
This idea has been discussed before. I think the problem with recognizing
generators as the
Martin Blais wrote:
Hi
Just wondering, would anyone think of it as a good idea if the
enumerate() builtin could accept a start argument? I've run across
a few cases where this would have been useful. It seems generic
enough too.
+1, but something more useful might be a a cross between
Phillip J. Eby [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
For efficiency's sake, however, CPython could simply store the
execution context dictionary in its thread state structure, creating
an empty dictionary at thread initialization time. This would make it
somewhat easier to offer a C API for access to
At 07:30 PM 10/19/2005 -0700, Josiah Carlson wrote:
What about a situation in which corutines are handled by multiple
threads? Any time a corutine passed from one thread to another, it
would lose its state.
It's the responsibility of a coroutine scheduler to take a snapshot() when
a task is
Phillip J. Eby [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It's the responsibility of a coroutine scheduler to take a snapshot() when
a task is suspended, and to swap() it in when resumed. So it doesn't
matter that you've changed what thread you're running in, as long as you
keep the context with the
27 matches
Mail list logo
