"Guido van Rossum" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
|Do we need a PEP?
In my view, no. And I am a fan of PEPs. I personally saw unbound method
wrapping as more of a CPython implementation detail than an essential part
of the language definition. This in spite of i
Guido van Rossum wrote:
> It looks like we're in agreement to drop unbound methods and have a
> reasonable set or arguments around it (e.g. keep staticmethod, no
> changes to methods of builtin types, etc.). Do we need a PEP? It's
> essentially a 2-line change in funcobject.c (func_descr_get()) --
Phillip J. Eby wrote:
> If you are configuring it per-class and
> accessing it per-instance, and reusing an existing function, you have to
> make it a staticmethod.
I don't understand that. Can you provide an example?
> > some subclasser later finds that he wants access to
> > 'self'?
>
> Then
It looks like we're in agreement to drop unbound methods and have a
reasonable set or arguments around it (e.g. keep staticmethod, no
changes to methods of builtin types, etc.). Do we need a PEP? It's
essentially a 2-line change in funcobject.c (func_descr_get()) -- plus
fixing up half a dozen or s
At 01:14 PM 11/23/2007 +1300, Greg Ewing wrote:
>Guido van Rossum wrote:
> > Not quite. You can evolve an API from an instancemethod into a
> > staticmethod without changing the call sites.
>
>But is there ever any need to do that, rather than leave
>it as an instance method?
Yes. :) See below.
Guido van Rossum wrote:
> Not quite. You can evolve an API from an instancemethod into a
> staticmethod without changing the call sites.
But is there ever any need to do that, rather than leave
it as an instance method?
Personally it would never have occurred to me to do that.
If you want to be a
Joseph Armbruster wrote:
> Christian,
>
> When will the third party library versions be finalized for Py3k? For the
> time
> being I am building with:
>
> bzip2-1.0.3
> db-4.4.20
> openssl-0.9.8g
> sqlite-source-3.3.4
> tcl8.4.12
> tix-8.4.0
> tk8.4.12
>
> I had an slight issue with the PCbui
Christian,
When will the third party library versions be finalized for Py3k? For the time
being I am building with:
bzip2-1.0.3
db-4.4.20
openssl-0.9.8g
sqlite-source-3.3.4
tcl8.4.12
tix-8.4.0
tk8.4.12
I had an slight issue with the PCbuild9 solution with OpenSSL, I will open a
bug and submit
I've updated PEP 366 with a proposed implementation, as well as a few
changes to the proposed semantics to make the implementation feasible
(the old proposal called for imp.new_module to calculate a value when it
didn't have access to all of the relevant information).
The updated text is below,
On 21/11/2007, Paul Moore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 21/11/2007, "Martin v. Löwis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > Is it only me who thinks that the current daily summaries are a bit
> > > frequent? Would it be possible to reduce the frequency to, say, once a
> > > week?
> >
> > Only if the p
Just for your information: I've back-ported the PCbuild9 directory from
py3k to the trunk. You now can build Python 2.6 and 3.0 with the new
Visual Studio 2008. As far as I've heard from other it works with the
free Express Edition.
MSDN subscribers with the Standard or Professional version can al
Guido van Rossum wrote:
> Given that the error is of limited value and that otherwise the
> unbound method behaves exactly the same as the original function
> object, I'd like to see if there are strenuous objections against
> dropping unbound method objects altogether (or at least not using them
>
An extension module I use makes extensive use of the PyGILState API's
in callback functions for C APIs. Some of the functions that use the
PyGILState APIs are used in the tp_dealloc of methods. This seems
cause problems when objects are cleaned up during interpreter
shutdown: when an obje
13 matches
Mail list logo
