On 5/6/2019 5:39 PM, Eric V. Smith wrote:
Last fall Larry Hastings made a suggestion for adding a way to make
so-called "print-based debugging" easier with f-strings. Basically the
approach is that f-strings would be able to produce the text of the
expression and the value of that expression, w
Last fall Larry Hastings made a suggestion for adding a way to make
so-called "print-based debugging" easier with f-strings. Basically the
approach is that f-strings would be able to produce the text of the
expression and the value of that expression, without repeating the
expression in the f-s
On 5/6/19 3:43 AM, Jeroen Demeyer wrote:
On 2019-05-06 00:04, Petr Viktorin wrote:
- Single bound method class for all kinds of function classes: This
would be a cleaner design, yes, but I don't see a pressing need. As
PEP 579 says, "this is a compounding issue", not a goal. As I recall,
that is
PyType_FromSpec() looks like a better approach for ABI compatibility.
My notes on types and ABI:
https://pythoncapi.readthedocs.io/type_object.html
Victor
Le lun. 6 mai 2019 à 09:57, Jeroen Demeyer a écrit :
>
> Hello,
>
> I have a simple question for which there doesn't seem to be a good
> answ
On Mon, 6 May 2019 15:55:03 +0200
Jeroen Demeyer wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I have a simple question for which there doesn't seem to be a good
> answer: is the layout of PyTypeObject considered to be part of the
> stable ABI?
>
> Officially, the answer is certainly "no" (see PEP 384).
>
> However, u
On 5/6/19 4:24 AM, Jeroen Demeyer wrote:
Hello Petr,
Thanks for your time. I suggest you (or somebody else) to officially
reject PEP 580.
I'll do that shortly.
I hope that you are not taking this personally. PEP 580 is a good
design. PEP 590 even says that it's built on your ideas.
I start
Hello,
I have a simple question for which there doesn't seem to be a good
answer: is the layout of PyTypeObject considered to be part of the
stable ABI?
Officially, the answer is certainly "no" (see PEP 384).
However, unofficially the answer might be "yes". At least, the last time
that an i
Hello Petr,
Thanks for your time. I suggest you (or somebody else) to officially
reject PEP 580.
I start working on reformulating PEP 590, adding some elements from PEP
580. At the same time, I work on the implementation of PEP 590. I want
to implement Mark's idea of having a separate wrappe
On 2019-05-06 00:04, Petr Viktorin wrote:
- Single bound method class for all kinds of function classes: This
would be a cleaner design, yes, but I don't see a pressing need. As
PEP 579 says, "this is a compounding issue", not a goal. As I recall,
that is the only major reason for CCALL_DEFARG.
