On 8/11/06, tomer filiba <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> why is thread.raise_exc(id, excobj) a bad API?
It breaks seemingly innocent code in subtle ways. Worse, the breakage
will always be a race condition, so it'll be especially hard to
reproduce and debug.
class Foo:
...
def close(self):
On 8/11/06, Josiah Carlson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Slawomir Nowaczyk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > But it should not be done lightly and never when the code is not
> > specifically expecting it.
>
> If you don't want random exceptions being raised in your threads, then
> don't use this method
On 9/13/06, John S. Yates, Jr. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> It is a mistake on Microsoft's part to fail to strip the BOM
> during conversion to UTF-8.
John, you're mistaken about the reason this BOM is here.
In Notepad at least, the BOM is intentionally generated when writing
the file. It's not
For what it's worth: in .NET, everything defaults to UTF-8, whether
reading or writing. No BOM is generated when creating a new file.
http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/library/system.io.file.createtext.aspx
Java defaults to a "default character encoding", which on Windows is
the system's ANSI e
On 9/15/06, Jim Jewett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> There should be only one reference to a string until is constructed,
> and after that, its data should be immutable. Recoding that results
> in different bytes should not be in-place. Either it returns a new
> string (no problem) or it doesn't c
On 11/15/06, Fredrik Lundh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> George Sakkis wrote:
> > The ending sentences though are more convincing: "...but it's a part
> > of Python, and it's too late to make such fundamental changes now.
> > The functions have to remain to avoid massive code breakage". That
> > I c
On 12/15/06, Anders J. Munch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> GvR wrote:
> >
> > Finally, I have a dream: a GUI that will let you do this
> > interactively, sort of like query-replace in Emacs. But this message
> > is already too long, so I'll stop for now. Thanks for reading this
> > far. :-)
>
> Soun
On Tue, Apr 1, 2008 at 9:37 PM, "Martin v. Löwis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I think it's fairly obvious why the 2.x .keys() has to change. It's
> just too wasteful to actually build the list of all keys of a dictionary
> (or even of all values, as you have to create all the tuples as well),
>
On Wed, Apr 2, 2008 at 5:08 PM, Mike Klaas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> ...and the majority of these cases would work fine with views (input
> to sorted(), etc).
Suppose "the majority" here means 36 of the 46 cases. Then what
you're saying is, if I write .items() without thinking, there's about
On Wed, Apr 2, 2008 at 5:48 PM, "Martin v. Löwis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In your code, how many (in absolute numbers) applications of .items()
> would break when .items() becomes a view?
Sorry for the slow response. Good question. In 25k lines of code
(not mine but mostly written by peop
On Tue, Apr 15, 2008 at 10:30 PM, Greg Ewing
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Terry Reedy wrote:
> > import unirep
> > print(*map(unirep.russian, objects))
>
> That's okay if the objects are strings, but what about
> non-string objects that contain strings?
>
> We'd need another protocol, such as
On 2/20/07, Raymond Hettinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> * A dict is also one of Python's most basic APIs (along with lists). Ideally,
> we should keep those two APIs as simple as possible (getting rid of
> setdefault()
> and unneeded methods is a step in the right direction). IMO, the views w
On 2/22/07, Guido van Rossum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> If someone would like to volunteer a small PEP on the b"..." literal I
> would appreciate it.
I'll do this, unless someone tells me not to. A few questions.
The grammar for string literals is already changing in py3k (removing
the toleran
On 2/23/07, Thomas Wouters <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 2/21/07, Guido van Rossum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Patch anyone?
>
> See attachement. It's preliminary -- it just calls the global name 'bytes'
> currently (and not even using the 'right' AST concretion mechanism) which
> means you ca
On 3/14/07, Guido van Rossum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I think we're far enough along with the new I/O PEP and trial
> implementation that I'm uncomfortable with the PEP living in Google
> docs only (http://docs.google.com/Doc?id=dfksfvqd_1cn5g5m). Does
> someone have half an hour of time availa
On 4/10/07, Raymond Hettinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> * Eliminate implicit string concatenation: "abc" "def"
> in favor of an explicit + operation. That simplifies
> the grammar just a bit and the compiler already is
> smart enough to do constant fold this operation at
> compile time. [...]
On 4/11/07, Phillip J. Eby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> But there's another Python principle here, I think... complexity of
> computation should be represented by complexity of syntax. We don't
> generally like to use properties for expensive computation, or methods for
> simple field access, for
On 4/18/07, Jim Jewett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 4/18/07, Guido van Rossum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On 4/18/07, Jim Jewett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > > Today, string.letters works most easily with ASCII supersets, and is
> > > effectively limited to 8-bit encodings. Once everythi
On 4/19/07, Jim Jewett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 4/19/07, Jason Orendorff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Collation can be done right: provide a function text.sort_key()
> > that converts a str into an opaque thing that has the desired
> > ordering.
>
On 4/25/07, Collin Winter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I can see use-cases for this level of formalism, but I'm a strong -1
> on making any part of the stdlib effectively off-limits for people
> without advanced math degrees. Why can't this be shipped as a
> third-party module?
I agree. That last
On 4/26/07, Guido van Rossum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> - Where should PartiallyOrdered and TotallyOrdered live?
Could someone please post some sample code using either of
these? I don't see what they're good for.
Here's my failed attempt:
def my_max(a : TotallyOrdered, b : TotallyOrdered):
On 4/30/07, Guido van Rossum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The correct
> approach is for TotallyOrdered to be a metaclass (is this the
> typeclass thing in Haskell?).
Mmmm. Typeclasses don't *feel* like metaclasses. Haskell types
aren't objects.
A typeclass is like an interface, but more express
On 5/1/07, Phillip J. Eby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> At 09:13 AM 5/1/2007 -0700, Talin wrote:
> >I don't care for the idea of testing against a specially named argument.
> >Why couldn't you just have a different decorator, such as
> >"overload_chained" which triggers this behavior?
>
> The PEP li
On 5/1/07, Phillip J. Eby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> At 02:22 PM 5/1/2007 -0400, Jason Orendorff wrote:
> >I think I would prefer to *always* pass the next method
> >to @around methods, which always need it, and *never*
> >pass it to any of the others. What use cas
On 5/7/07, Guido van Rossum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I don't know how this will work out yet. I'm not convinced that having
> both mutable and immutable bytes is the right thing to do; but I'm
> also not convinced of the opposite. I am slowly working on the
> string/unicode unification, and so
On 5/13/07, Talin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The fact that programming languages resemble a particular human language
> is a pedagogical convenience, but it need not be so, and wasn't always
> that way.
"Crucial usability feature", not "pedagogical convenience".
Choosing good names for things i
On 5/14/07, Guido van Rossum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Isn't normalization also going to be an issue with using non-ASCII in
> general? Does it mean that Python will have to use a normalization
> before comparing identifiers as equal? That's terrible, as it will
> vastly increase the amount need
On 5/13/07, Greg Ewing <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I don't think this scenario is all that unlikely. A
> program is initially written by a Russian programmer
> who uses his own version of "a" as a variable name.
> Later an English-speaking programmer makes some
> changes, and uses an ascii "a". No
On 5/14/07, Guido van Rossum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Does the tokenizer do this for all string literals, too? Otherwise you
> could still get surprises with things like x.foo vs. getattr(x,
> "foo"), if the name foo were normalized but the string "foo" were not.
It does not; so yes, you could
On 5/14/07, Josiah Carlson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Have you been able to find substantial Java source in which non-ascii
> identifiers were used? I have been curious about its prevalence, but
> wouldn't even know how to start searching for such code.
No, I haven't.
The most substantial use
On 5/16/07, Collin Winter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > -> unittest - very useful to give a better overview of the result of
> > unit test. People pointed us at a Visual C# MVP tutorial
> > http://www.atmarkit.co.jp/fdotnet/nagile/nagile02/nagile02_03.html
>
> I don't know what "a better overvie
Martin, this message suggests an addition to PEP 3131.
On 5/16/07, tomer filiba <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> === RTL/LTR ===
> the only practical way to use RTL languages in code is to have an RTL
> programming language, where "if" is spelled "אם", "for" as "עבור",
> "in" as "בתוך", and so on, and
On 5/18/07, Guido van Rossum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> While reviewing PEPs, I stumbled over PEP 335 ( Overloadable Boolean
> Operators) by Greg Ewing.
-1. "and" and "or" affect the flow of control. It's a matter
of taste, but I feel the benefit is too small here to add
another flow-control q
On 5/19/07, Greg Ewing <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Raymond Hettinger wrote:
> > FWIW, the peephole optimizer takes advantage of the current meaning
> > of and/or to generate faster code.
>
> Can you give some examples of the sort of optimisations
> that are done?
Look in Python/peephole.c, functi
On 5/17/07, "Martin v. Löwis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> That is my reasoning, too. People seem to want to be conservative,
> so it's safer to reject formatting characters for the moment.
> If people come up with a need, they still can be added.
How about this: *require* the LEFT-TO-RIGHT MARK a
This discussion is off the rails again.
I'm at least sympathetic to the spoofing argument, because theoretical
security concerns have a way of becoming serious practical concerns
overnight.
But I'm not sure what to make of the rest. Other languages have had
this feature for many years. The "num
PEP 3100 still isn't clear on the fate of these guys, except that
reduce() is gone.
How about moving all three to the functools module instead?
-j
___
Python-3000 mailing list
[email protected]
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-3000
Un
On 6/1/07, Collin Winter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 6/1/07, Jason Orendorff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > PEP 3100 still isn't clear on the fate of these guys, except that
> > reduce() is gone.
>
> I'm not sure what isn't clear: reduce() is
On 8/7/07, "Martin v. Löwis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> My concern is that people need to access existing databases. It's
> all fine that the code accessing them breaks, and that they have
> to actively port to Py3k. However, telling them that they have to
> represent the keys in their dbm disk f
On 8/9/07, Joel Bender <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Jason Orendorff wrote:
> > Hooks would help with that, or even eliminate the need altogether.
>
> IMHO, having a __bytes__ method would go a long way.
Well, it would go halfway--you also need to deserialize.
__bytes__ alone
On 8/9/07, "Martin v. Löwis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Too true. Offhand, why not provide hooks for serializing and
> > deserializing keys?
>
> Perhaps YAGNI? We already support pickling values (dbshelve),
> and I added support for encoding/decoding strings as either
> keys or values (though
On 9/19/07, Bill Janssen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Way more programs (especially simple ones) deal with txet
> > than with binary data.
>
> I'd love to see stats on that, Guido. I'm sure it's true in your
> immediate vicinity, given what you work on, but I don't believe it's
> true in general
One situation where a sorteddict would win is finding upper and lower
bounds. This especially matters if you want to iterate over a
specific range of keys: "show me all entries between 1 Jan 2007 and 1
Feb 2007" is O(N) in the number of entries in that range, not the
entire data set.
I think peop
43 matches
Mail list logo
