On Fri, Dec 29, 2017 at 1:01 AM, Chris Angelico wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 29, 2017 at 1:31 PM, Franklin? Lee
> wrote:
>> On Thu, Dec 28, 2017 at 5:21 AM, William Rose
>> wrote:
>>> I agree with the point that it should allow builtin but the main purpose of
>>> it is to not allow global variables
>>
On Fri, Dec 29, 2017 at 1:31 PM, Franklin? Lee
wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 28, 2017 at 5:21 AM, William Rose
> wrote:
>> I agree with the point that it should allow builtin but the main purpose of
>> it is to not allow global variables
>
> But functions are also accessed using global names. What is you
Hi Inada, can I take your point as being that execution speed is an issue?
I am coming from the "Python as higher level, more programmer-centric
language"direction.
In the past, useful but slow things have spurred actions to speed them up. ___
Python-
On Thu, Dec 28, 2017 at 5:21 AM, William Rose wrote:
> I agree with the point that it should allow builtin but the main purpose of
> it is to not allow global variables
But functions are also accessed using global names. What is your
answer to the potential problem of programmers being reluctant
On Dec 28, 2017 12:10, "Joao S. O. Bueno" wrote:
This is probably too little to justify the compatibility breakage, but is
there a motive for the "slice" type to be on built-ins ?
(besides people forgot it there at PEP-3000 time?)
It is normally used in super-specialized cases, mostly when one
On Thu, Dec 28, 2017 at 06:09:32PM -0200, Joao S. O. Bueno wrote:
> This is probably too little to justify the compatibility breakage,
Indeed.
[...]
> It seems to me it should lie on the "types" module (or some other
> place), rather than
> eat built-in namespace (which can confuse newcomers any
Hi Steve, I did not write an attack on the "Python devs". Re-read my
original with a little less hostility and there should be room for an
interpretation, (which I meant), that does not warrant such a hostile reply.
The original is written in the hope of furthering discussion on the need
for wh
This is probably too little to justify the compatibility breakage, but is
there a motive for the "slice" type to be on built-ins ?
(besides people forgot it there at PEP-3000 time?)
It is normally used in super-specialized cases, mostly when one is
implementing a Sequence type, and even there jus
28.12.17 12:10, Erik Bray пише:
There's no index() alternative to int().
operator.index()
___
Python-ideas mailing list
Python-ideas@python.org
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-ideas
Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct
On Fri, Dec 8, 2017 at 7:20 PM, Ethan Furman wrote:
> On 12/08/2017 04:33 AM, Erik Bray wrote:
>
>> More importantly not as many objects that coerce to int actually
>> implement __index__. They probably *should* but there seems to be
>> some confusion about how that's to be used.
>
>
> __int__ is
10 matches
Mail list logo
