On Tuesday 01 May 2007 09:23:53 Phil Thompson wrote:
> On Monday 30 April 2007 10:29 pm, Danny Pansters wrote:
> > On Monday 30 April 2007 14:50:29 Giovanni Bajo wrote:
> > > On 30/04/2007 9.11, Mark Summerfield wrote:
> > > > But I agree with the general point that using "import *" is
> > > > reas
On Monday 30 April 2007 10:29 pm, Danny Pansters wrote:
> On Monday 30 April 2007 14:50:29 Giovanni Bajo wrote:
> > On 30/04/2007 9.11, Mark Summerfield wrote:
> > > But I agree with the general point that using "import *" is reasonable
> > > when you have a large library like PyQt4---providing tha
On Monday 30 April 2007 14:50:29 Giovanni Bajo wrote:
> On 30/04/2007 9.11, Mark Summerfield wrote:
> > But I agree with the general point that using "import *" is reasonable
> > when you have a large library like PyQt4---providing that library has
> > sensible export behaviour. For example, I _ass
On 30/04/2007 9.11, Mark Summerfield wrote:
But I agree with the general point that using "import *" is reasonable
when you have a large library like PyQt4---providing that library has
sensible export behaviour. For example, I _assume_ that the PyQt4
libraries will only export things with names
On Sun 29-Apr-07, Giovanni Bajo wrote:
> On 29/04/2007 6.25, Andreas Pakulat wrote:
> > Right, the motivation for the Qt.py package is simply convenience for
> > porting PyQt3 code. Which doesn't mean you should use it in new PyQt4
> > programs. Using something like this creates enough convience wh
On Sunday 29 April 2007 12:36:44 +0200, Giovanni Bajo wrote:
> Being blind about this and thinking that "star-imports are bad no matter
> what" is just shooting oneself in the foot. The "star-import is bad"
> coding-standard rule shouldn't be taken literally (like any other
> coding-standard rule)
On 29.04.07 11:05:52, Phil Thompson wrote:
> On Sunday 29 April 2007 5:25 am, Andreas Pakulat wrote:
> > On 28.04.07 21:13:38, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > > Quoting Andreas Pakulat <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > > > On 28.04.07 23:31:53, Pradnyesh Sawant wrote:
> > > > > Hello,
> > > > > I've written a
On 29/04/2007 6.25, Andreas Pakulat wrote:
Right, the motivation for the Qt.py package is simply convenience for
porting PyQt3 code. Which doesn't mean you should use it in new PyQt4
programs. Using something like this creates enough convience while
preserving a clean global namespace:
from PyQ
On Sunday 29 April 2007 5:25 am, Andreas Pakulat wrote:
> On 28.04.07 21:13:38, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > Quoting Andreas Pakulat <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > > On 28.04.07 23:31:53, Pradnyesh Sawant wrote:
> > > > Hello,
> > > > I've written a small pyqt4 code, which on running on an ubuntu 6.10
>
On 28.04.07 21:13:38, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Quoting Andreas Pakulat <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> > On 28.04.07 23:31:53, Pradnyesh Sawant wrote:
> > > Hello,
> > > I've written a small pyqt4 code, which on running on an ubuntu 6.10
> > > system gives me the foll error:
> > > $ python2.4 updLbl.py
Quoting Andreas Pakulat <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> On 28.04.07 23:31:53, Pradnyesh Sawant wrote:
> > Hello,
> > I've written a small pyqt4 code, which on running on an ubuntu 6.10
> > system gives me the foll error:
> > $ python2.4 updLbl.py
> > Traceback (most recent call last):
> > File "updLbl.py"
On 28.04.07 23:31:53, Pradnyesh Sawant wrote:
> Hello,
> I've written a small pyqt4 code, which on running on an ubuntu 6.10
> system gives me the foll error:
> $ python2.4 updLbl.py
> Traceback (most recent call last):
> File "updLbl.py", line 1, in ?
>import PyQt4.Qt as qt
This is wrong, yo
Hello,
I've written a small pyqt4 code, which on running on an ubuntu 6.10
system gives me the foll error:
$ python2.4 updLbl.py
Traceback (most recent call last):
File "updLbl.py", line 1, in ?
import PyQt4.Qt as qt
File "/usr/lib/python2.4/site-packages/PyQt4/Qt.py", line 4, in ?
from Py
13 matches
Mail list logo
