On Jun 17, 2019, at 13:09, Guido van Rossum wrote:
>
>> On Mon, Jun 17, 2019 at 12:54 PM Andrew Barnert wrote:
>>> On Jun 17, 2019, at 07:47, Guido van Rossum wrote:
>>>
On Mon, Jun 17, 2019 at 7:23 AM Rhodri James wrote:
On 16/06/2019 03:34, Guido van Rossum wrote:
> I don't
There is probably some existing python API you can hijack to make custom
locals() and globals() work everywhere. Perhaps pdb and inspect.stack are good
places to start; maybe there’s a PDB API to break on every new stack frame and
maybe you can use inspect to do the proper assignment overrides.
Perhaps you should take a look at Dlang. Using opDispatch and a with statement
and compile time code generation, you may be able to accomplish what you’re
trying to do entirely in D.
> On May 24, 2019, at 4:05 AM, Yanghao Hua wrote:
>
>> On Fri, May 24, 2019 at 1:59 AM Steven D'Aprano wrote:
On Mon, Jun 17, 2019 at 12:54 PM Andrew Barnert wrote:
> On Jun 17, 2019, at 07:47, Guido van Rossum wrote:
>
> On Mon, Jun 17, 2019 at 7:23 AM Rhodri James wrote:
>
>> On 16/06/2019 03:34, Guido van Rossum wrote:
>> > I don't actually know how viable this proposal is, but given that it's
>> >
On Jun 17, 2019, at 07:47, Guido van Rossum wrote:
>
>> On Mon, Jun 17, 2019 at 7:23 AM Rhodri James wrote:
>> On 16/06/2019 03:34, Guido van Rossum wrote:
>> > I don't actually know how viable this proposal is, but given that it's
>> > being debated at some length, I'd like to put in my
> It's because Python doesn't actually have assignment to variables, it
> has binding to names. So there's no "there" there to provide a
> definition of assignment. In a class definition, the "local
> variables" are actually attributes of the class object. That class
> object provides the
On Mon, Jun 17, 2019 at 7:23 AM Rhodri James wrote:
> On 16/06/2019 03:34, Guido van Rossum wrote:
> > I don't actually know how viable this proposal is, but given that it's
> > being debated at some length, I'd like to put in my opinion that *if*
> > we're going to define an operator that's
On 16/06/2019 03:34, Guido van Rossum wrote:
I don't actually know how viable this proposal is, but given that it's
being debated at some length, I'd like to put in my opinion that *if*
we're going to define an operator that's (roughly) synonymous with
issubclass(), it should be '<:', which is
What is the difference between your code and OP code?
___
Python-ideas mailing list -- python-ideas@python.org
To unsubscribe send an email to python-ideas-le...@python.org
https://mail.python.org/mailman3/lists/python-ideas.python.org/
Message archived
