On 8 Dec 2006, at 16:38, Josiah Carlson wrote:
> My statement in the email you replied to above was to say that if we
> wanted it to return a group, then we could include subsequent .group
> (0)
> with the same semantics as the original match object.
And my reply was simply to point out that tha
On 7 Dec 2006, at 21:47, Josiah Carlson wrote:
> Alastair Houghton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> On 7 Dec 2006, at 02:01, Josiah Carlson wrote:
>>> Alastair Houghton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>> On 7 Dec 2006, at 01:01, Josiah Carlson wrote:
&
On 7 Dec 2006, at 18:54, Martin v. Löwis wrote:
> Alastair Houghton schrieb:
>> How about we remove the word "foolish" from the debate?
>
> We should table the debate. If you really want that feature,
> write a PEP. You want it, some people are opposed; a PEP is
&
On 7 Dec 2006, at 07:15, Fredrik Lundh wrote:
> Michael Urman wrote:
>
>> The idea that slicing a match object should produce a match object
>> sounds like a foolish consistency to me.
>
> well, the idea that adding m[x] as a convenience alias for m.group(x)
> automatically turns m into a list-sty
On 7 Dec 2006, at 02:01, Josiah Carlson wrote:
> Alastair Houghton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> On 7 Dec 2006, at 01:01, Josiah Carlson wrote:
>>> If we don't want
>>> slicing, or if prodicing a slice would produce a semantically
>>> questiona
On 7 Dec 2006, at 01:01, Josiah Carlson wrote:
> *We* may not be confused, but it's not about us (I'm personally
> happy to
> use the .group() interface); it's about relative newbies who,
> generally
> speaking, desire/need consistency (see [1] for a paper showing that
> certain kinds of incon
On 7 Dec 2006, at 00:39, Mike Klaas wrote:
> Keep in mind when implementing that m[3:4] should contain only the
> element at index 3, not both 3 and 4, as you've seemed to imply twice.
Yes, you're quite right. I was writing off the top of my head and
I'm still a relative newbie to Python codi
On 6 Dec 2006, at 20:29, Josiah Carlson wrote:
> The problem is that either we return a list (easy), or we return
> something that is basically another match object (not quite so easy).
> Either way, we would be confusing one set of users or another. By not
> including slicing functionality by de
On 5 Dec 2006, at 15:51, Fredrik Lundh wrote:
> Alastair Houghton wrote:
>
>> What's more, I think it will be confusing for Python newbies because
>> they'll see someone doing
>>
>>m[3]
>>
>> and assume that m is a list-like object, then co
On 5 Dec 2006, at 09:02, Ben Wing wrote:
> Fredrik Lundh wrote:
>> Ka-Ping Yee wrote:
>> taking everything into account, I think we should simply map
>> __getitem__
>> to group, and stop there. no len(), no slicing, no sequence or
>> mapping
>> semantics. if people want full sequence behavi
On Oct 7, 2006, at 3:36 PM, M.-A. Lemburg wrote:
> Georg Brandl wrote:
>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>> I don't know if Apple has picked up on it (or if the version they
>>> currently
>>> distribute is affected - 2.3.5 built Oct 5 2005).
> Note that the bug refers to a UCS4 Python build. Most Li
On Oct 4, 2006, at 8:14 PM, Martin v. Löwis wrote:
> If it breaks a few systems, that already is some systems too many.
> Python should never crash; and we have no control over the floating
> point exception handling in any portable manner.
You're quite right, though there is already plenty o
On 4 Oct 2006, at 02:38, Josiah Carlson wrote:
> Alastair Houghton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> There is, of course, the option of examining their representations in
> memory (I described the general technique in another posting on this
> thread). From what I understand o
On 4 Oct 2006, at 06:34, Martin v. Löwis wrote:
> Alastair Houghton schrieb:
>> On 3 Oct 2006, at 17:47, James Y Knight wrote:
>>
>>> On Oct 3, 2006, at 8:30 AM, Martin v. Löwis wrote:
>>>> As Michael Hudson observed, this is difficult to implement, though:
>
On 3 Oct 2006, at 17:47, James Y Knight wrote:
> On Oct 3, 2006, at 8:30 AM, Martin v. Löwis wrote:
>> As Michael Hudson observed, this is difficult to implement, though:
>> You can't distinguish between -0.0 and +0.0 easily, yet you should.
>
> Of course you can. It's absolutely trivial. The only
15 matches
Mail list logo
