Carl Banks wrote:
You can have __add__ return a closure for the first addition, then
perform the operation on the second one. Example (untested):
class Closure(object):
def __init__(self,t1,t2):
self.t1 = t1
self.t2 = t2
def __add__(self,t3):
# whole
Just for the hell of it ...
I can easily define __plus__() with three parameters. If the last one is
optional the + operation works as expected. Is there a way to pass the
third argument to +
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Steven D'Aprano wrote:
If you want iterator operations similar to itertools, why does this
mean you need to replace anything? Just create your own iterators.
Or use pre-processing and post-processing to get what you want.
Can you show an example of what you would like to happen?
Steven,
Christian Heimes wrote:
If you *really* need to overwrite __iter__ on your instance rather
than defining it on your class, you need to proxy the method call:
class MyObject(object):
def __iter__(self):
return self.myiter()
obj = MyObject()
obj.myiter = myiter
That should
Steve Holden wrote:
y = s1*2 + s2(align=10)
which should iterate as
Time=1,'a'
Time=2,'a'
Time=10,'b'
I have no difficulty passing align to the object (using __call__)
and use it while I furnish my own __iter__() method. However I don't
quite see how I can do this with bare
Hello all
When I create an Object and set its __iter__ method from outside
s = Sequence #one of my own classes
s.__iter__ = new.instancemethod(f,s,Sequence)
I get different results, depending on whether I call
for x in y.__iter__():
print x
or
for x in y:
print x
The first case
Terry Reedy wrote:
On 1/22/2010 2:29 PM, Martin Drautzburg wrote:
This has probably been asekd a million times, but if someone could
give a short answer anyways I's be most grateful.
What is it that allows one to write A.x? If I have a variable A,
I know you can do this with classes
Steven D'Aprano wrote:
I think this really is the correct solution for your problem. In
Python, the standard place to have such public constants is at the
module level, not the function or class. I think you're worrying
unnecessarily about namespace pollution -- the module namespace is
Carl Banks wrote:
I see. Well, Python is a poor choice for defining an internal DSL
(i.e., DSL using the general language's syntax), because it's
(deliberately) rigid in both grammar and semantics.
I had this impression too.
Paul McGuire should be by to recommend PyParsing shortly.
I
On 22 Jan., 11:56, Roald de Vries r...@roalddevries.nl wrote:
Hi Martin,
On Jan 21, 2010, at 8:43 AM, Martin Drautzburg wrote:
Hello all,
When passing parameters to a function, you sometimes need a paramter
which can only assume certain values, e.g.
def move (direction
Mark Dickinson wrote:
On Jan 21, 10:57 pm, Martin Drautzburg martin.drautzb...@web.de
wrote:
Here is a complete expample using a decorator, still a bit noisy
def move(aDirection):
print moving + aDirection
#Here comes the decorator
def scope(aDict):
def save(locals):
[...]
Have you
This has probably been asekd a million times, but if someone could give
a short answer anyways I's be most grateful.
What is it that allows one to write A.x? If I have a variable A, then
what to I have to assign to it to A.x becomes valid?
Or even further: what do I have to do so I can write
Martin Drautzburg wrote:
with scope():
# ...
# use up, down, left, right here
# up, down, left, right no longer defined after the with block exits.
Just looked it up again. It's a cool thing. Too bad my locals() hack
would still be required. The result would be less noisy
Thanks for all the answers. Let me summarize
(1) I fail to see the relevance of
def move( direction ):
... print( move + str( direction ) )
...
move( up )
move up
not only in the context of my question. And I don't see an abuse of the
language either. Maybe this could pass as a Zen
Here is a complete expample using a decorator, still a bit noisy
def move(aDirection):
print moving + aDirection
#Here comes the decorator
def scope(aDict):
def save(locals):
Set symbols in locals and remember their original state
setSymbols={}
unsetSymbols=[]
Hello all,
When passing parameters to a function, you sometimes need a paramter
which can only assume certain values, e.g.
def move (direction):
...
If direction can only be up, down, left or right, you can solve
this by passing strings, but this is not quite to the
I am trying to cPickle/unpickle a C++ extension class with some private
data members. I wrote __getstate__() and __setstate__ in C++ (I have
to, due to the private data). Pickling writes the following file:
ccopy_reg
_reconstructor
p1
(cpyramid
MidiBytes
Alex Martelli wrote:
Martin Drautzburg [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
mydata = data( )
mydata.foo = 'foo'
mydata.bar = 'bar'
print mydata.foo
print mydata.bar
I am aware of all this.
Okay let me rephrase my question: is there a way of using dot
notation without having to create
Gabriel Genellina wrote:
En Sun, 22 Apr 2007 12:47:10 -0300, Martin Drautzburg
[EMAIL PROTECTED] escribió:
I was thinking that it would be nice if a web application could talk
to real objects. The client side does not need to know the internals
of an object, it acts as a view for server
George Sakkis wrote:
Yes, there is: use an ORM to do the SQL generation for you. Check out
SQLAlchemy, it will buy you much more than what you asked for.
Might look, though in general I don't like OR mappers much. Having SQL
generated feels as strange as having python code generated. Too much
Peter Otten wrote:
def SQL(sql):
... print sql
...
a = SQL(module)
module # that one was obvious
class A:
... b = SQL(class)
... def method(self, c=SQL(default arg)):
... d = SQL(method)
...
You are my hero. Indeed very cool!
--
I would like to validate sql strings, which are spread all over the
code, i.e. I run (prepare) them against a database to see if it happy
with the statements. Spelling errors in sql have been a major pain for
me.
The statements will not be assembled from smaller pieces, but they will
not
This may be pretty obvious for most of you:
When I have an object (an instance of a class Foo) I can access
attributes via dot notation:
aFoo.bar
however when I have a dictionary
aDict = {bar:something}
I have to write
aDict[bar]
What if I want to create a
Tim Golden wrote:
2) Don't use XML if you don't need to.
I would call this advice a golden rule the violation of which has
caused serious pain in some of the projects I am working on.
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
azrael wrote:
Some time ago I posted a question about the favourite IDE. I finally
found it. WING IDE i the best I've ever seen for python.
Yes WingIde is cool but it is not free. A fairly good alternative is
the pydev plugin for eclipse.
--
Is it possible to convert an object into a string that identifies the
object in a way, so it can later be looked up by this string.
Technically this should be possible, because things like
__main__.Foo instance at 0xb7cfb6ac
say everything about an object. But how can I look up the real object,
Gabriel Genellina wrote:
En Sun, 22 Apr 2007 08:07:27 -0300, Martin Drautzburg
[EMAIL PROTECTED] escribió:
Is it possible to convert an object into a string that identifies the
object in a way, so it can later be looked up by this string.
Technically this should be possible, because things
mydata = data( )
mydata.foo = 'foo'
mydata.bar = 'bar'
print mydata.foo
print mydata.bar
I am aware of all this.
Okay let me rephrase my question: is there a way of using dot notation
without having to create a class?
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Peter Otten wrote:
Martin Drautzburg wrote:
I would like to validate sql strings, which are spread all over the
code, i.e. I run (prepare) them against a database to see if it
happy with the statements. Spelling errors in sql have been a major
pain for me.
def validateSQL(filename=None
Daniel Nogradi wrote:
What if I want to create a datastructure that can be used in dot
notation without having to create a class, i.e. because those
objects have no behavior at all?
A class inheriting from dict and implementing __getattr__ and
__setattr__ should do the trick...
It
I am using repr() to pass arrays, dicts and combinations therof to
javascript as it already returns a valid javascript expression (a
string) right away. But for some reason it does not handle Umlaute
correctly and those characters finally appear as two strange characters
on the browser. I am using
Steve Holden wrote:
Unfortunately the overhead of supporting distribution is way too high to
want to invoke it between two objects living in the same process.
Well I was thinking along the lines of object and proxy-object where a
proxy object is a handle to a remote object. Sending a
Hello all,
I've seen various attempts to add distributed computing capabilities on top
of an existing language. For a true distributed system I would expect it to
be possible to instantiate objects of a remote class or to subclass a
remote class and other stuff like this. My impression is that
HackingYodel [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Does any single language do a better job in
Python's weaker areas? Would anyone care to suggest one to supplement
Python.
My first real OO language was Smalltalk. But the existing Smalltalk
implementations all have some severe shortcomings. Either they
I have run across a weired problem: I am using a wxTreeCtrl with a
model for each tree node. The tree expands lazily and each time a
node is expanded, its children (Views) are completely rebuilt,
creating new IDs. The children register their respecive models using
two self written classes Model
Just for curiosity: does python use a mark-and-sweep garbage collector
or simple reference counting? In the latter case it would not garbage
collect circular references, right ?
For mark-and-sweep, I assume there must be a toplevel Object from
which all other objects can be accessed or they will
In the wx demoy TreeCtrl.py I find the following code, that should
have no effect but seems to be needed nevertheless.
class TestTreeCtrlPanel(wx.Panel):
def __init__(self, parent, log):
[...}
self.tree = MyTreeCtrl(self, tID, wx.DefaultPosition, ...
isz = (16,16)
Withing a module I can assign a value to a global var by assigning to
it in the outermost scope. Fine.
But how can I do this if the attribute name itself is kept in a
variable. Once the module is loaded I can access the module's
namespace no problem, but inside the module the dictionary is not
38 matches
Mail list logo
