On Mar 2, 5:48 pm, "Luis M. González" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Thanks for your detailed reply!
> So after all, the www.rubyclr.com code is not a fair comparison.
> Because the c# code shows a class definition, and the ruby code shows
> a struct definition, which is not equivalent to a class.
>
On Mar 2, 8:29 pm, "MonkeeSage" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Feb 28, 1:26 pm, "Luis M. González" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > I've come across a code snippet inwww.rubyclr.comwhere they show how
> > easy it is to declare a class compared to equivalent code in c#.
> > I wonder if there is any
On Feb 28, 1:26 pm, "Luis M. González" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I've come across a code snippet in www.rubyclr.com where they show how
> easy it is to declare a class compared to equivalent code in c#.
> I wonder if there is any way to emulate this in Python.
I posted like 10 minutes ago, but
On Mar 2, 8:28 pm, Bjoern Schliessmann wrote:
> This is somehow contrary to my understanding of the Python names
> concept.
>
> What if I use a loop to define several classes based on data --
> they'll all have the same __name__ unless I change it manually.
Well that's not a typical way of defini
Arnaud Delobelle wrote:
> Don't see it as the first name a class is bound to, but rather as
> the name a class is defined as.
> If class_object.__name__ == 'Foo' it means that somewhere in your
> code there is a class definition:
>
> class Foo:
> # stuff
>
> Same for function: if function_ob
On Mar 2, 3:01 pm, Bjoern Schliessmann wrote:
> Steven D'Aprano wrote:
> > Overkill? Storage of a single attribute holding a (usually short)
> > string is overkill?
>
> No, but storing the first name a class is bound to in it is a bit
> of, IMHO.
Don't see it as the first name a class is bound to
Steven D'Aprano wrote:
> Overkill? Storage of a single attribute holding a (usually short)
> string is overkill?
No, but storing the first name a class is bound to in it is a bit
of, IMHO.
> When you do that, you wouldn't expect the __name__ of
> some.module.function to change to f, and it does
On Thu, 01 Mar 2007 10:44:48 +0100, Bjoern Schliessmann wrote:
> Mh. I suspect there's also more to it than I see now, but this
> __name__ seems quite useless to me. What if I rebind the class'
> name after definition? Or is it really just for some manual
> introspection? If it is, it seems a bit
Luis M. González wrote:
> This is the closest we got so far to the intended result.
> If there was a way to enter attributes without quotes, it would be
> almost identical.
Ok, below is the Python code so that the following works::
class Person(Struct): "name birthday children"
Note that
*
On Mar 1, 3:03 pm, "Arnaud Delobelle" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mar 1, 4:01 pm, Steven Bethard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Arnaud Delobelle wrote:
> [...]
> > This does pretty much the same thing as the recipe I posted:
>
> Not at all. My new_struct create returns a new class which is s
Arnaud Delobelle wrote:
http://aspn.activestate.com/ASPN/Cookbook/Python/Recipe/502237
[snip]
> Although I don't see the necessity of a metaclass: you could have
>
> class Record(object):
> def __init__(self, *vals):
> for slot, val in zip(self.__slots__, vals):
>
On Mar 1, 7:37 pm, Steven Bethard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Arnaud Delobelle wrote:
> > On Mar 1, 4:01 pm, Steven Bethard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> Arnaud Delobelle wrote:
> > [...]
> >> This does pretty much the same thing as the recipe I posted:
>
> > Not at all. My new_struct create re
Arnaud Delobelle wrote:
> On Mar 1, 4:01 pm, Steven Bethard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Arnaud Delobelle wrote:
> [...]
>> This does pretty much the same thing as the recipe I posted:
>
> Not at all. My new_struct create returns a new class which is similar
> to a C struct (notice the __slots__
On Mar 1, 4:01 pm, Steven Bethard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Arnaud Delobelle wrote:
[...]
> This does pretty much the same thing as the recipe I posted:
Not at all. My new_struct create returns a new class which is similar
to a C struct (notice the __slots__). The recipe you refer to is
nothi
Arnaud Delobelle wrote:
> On Feb 28, 7:26 pm, "Luis M. González" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> I've come across a code snippet inwww.rubyclr.comwhere they show how
>> easy it is to declare a class compared to equivalent code in c#.
>> I wonder if there is any way to emulate this in Python.
>>
>> Th
On Feb 28, 7:26 pm, "Luis M. González" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I've come across a code snippet inwww.rubyclr.comwhere they show how
> easy it is to declare a class compared to equivalent code in c#.
> I wonder if there is any way to emulate this in Python.
>
> The code is as follows:
>
> Perso
On 28 Feb 2007 13:53:37 -0800, Luis M. González <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hmmm... not really.
> The code above is supposed to be a shorter way of writing this:
>
> class Person:
> def __init__(self, name, birthday, children):
> self.name = name
> self.birthday = birthday
>
In <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Bjoern Schliessmann wrote:
> Michele Simionato wrote:
>> On Mar 1, 9:40 am, Marc 'BlackJack' Rintsch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>> In <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Bjoern Schliessmann
>
But what's it (__name__) good for?
>>>
>>> As objects don't know to which name they are bound, th
Michele Simionato wrote:
> On Mar 1, 9:40 am, Marc 'BlackJack' Rintsch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> In <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Bjoern Schliessmann
>>> But what's it (__name__) good for?
>>
>> As objects don't know to which name they are bound, that's a good
>> way to give some information in stack traces o
On Mar 1, 9:40 am, Marc 'BlackJack' Rintsch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Bjoern Schliessmann wrote:
>
> > But what's it (__name__) good for?
>
> As objects don't know to which name they are bound, that's a good way to
> give some information in stack traces or when doing int
In <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Bjoern Schliessmann wrote:
> Bruno Desthuilliers wrote:
>
>> class Toto(object):
>> pass
>>
>> print Toto.__name__
>
> Okay, I revoke my statement and assert the opposite.
>
> But what's it (__name__) good for?
As objects don't know to which name they are bound, t
Bruno Desthuilliers wrote:
> class Toto(object):
> pass
>
> print Toto.__name__
Okay, I revoke my statement and assert the opposite.
But what's it (__name__) good for?
Regards,
Björn
--
BOFH excuse #179:
multicasts on broken packets
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python
Bjoern Schliessmann a écrit :
(snip)
> In Python, classes have no name.
class Toto(object):
pass
print Toto.__name__
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Luis M. González wrote:
> I've come across a code snippet in www.rubyclr.com where they show
> how easy it is to declare a class compared to equivalent code in
> c#. I wonder if there is any way to emulate this in Python.
>
> The code is as follows:
>
> Person = struct.new( :name, :birthday, :ch
Luis M. González wrote:
> On Feb 28, 6:21 pm, Steven Bethard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> How about something like::
>>
>> class Person(Record):
>> __slots__ = 'name', 'birthday', 'children'
>>
>> You can then use the class like::
>>
>> person = Person('Steve', 'April 25', [])
>
On Feb 28, 6:21 pm, Steven Bethard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Luis M. González wrote:
> > I've come across a code snippet inwww.rubyclr.comwhere they show how
> > easy it is to declare a class compared to equivalent code in c#.
> > I wonder if there is any way to emulate this in Python.
>
> > The
Luis M. González wrote:
> I've come across a code snippet in www.rubyclr.com where they show how
> easy it is to declare a class compared to equivalent code in c#.
> I wonder if there is any way to emulate this in Python.
>
> The code is as follows:
>
> Person = struct.new( :name, :birthday, :chi
Luis M. González a écrit :
> I've come across a code snippet in www.rubyclr.com where they show how
> easy it is to declare a class compared to equivalent code in c#.
> I wonder if there is any way to emulate this in Python.
>
> The code is as follows:
>
> Person = struct.new( :name, :birthday, :
28 matches
Mail list logo
