Armin Ronacher wrote:
Basically *the* problematic situation with iterable strings is something like
a `flatten` function that flattens out every iterable object except of strings.
To flesh out the span of your "something like", recently I had a WSGI-based app
that to some request mistakenly r
Mike Klaas wrote:
Another thing to consider is that the def() pattern is only possible
when the bound variable has no dots. A common pattern for me is to
replace an instances method with a lambda to add monitoring hooks or
disable certain functionality:
inst.get_foo = lambda: FakeFoo()
Go
Josiah Carlson wrote:
> Boris Borcic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Of course, and that's why in my initial post I was talking of transparent
>> reversible transforms and central control of "styles" through the standard.
>> Means not to fall into the tra
Josiah Carlson wrote:
> Boris Borcic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Guido van Rossum wrote:
>>> You must be misunderstanding.
>> I don't think so. You appeared to say that the language changes too much
>> because
>> everyone wants different cha
> as a new standard to address the problem of too many conflicting
> standard. Get it? :-)
>
> --Guido
>
> On 7/14/06, Boris Borcic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Guido van Rossum wrote:
>> ...
>>> This is an illustration of the dilemma of maintaining
[Fredrik Lundh]
def counter(num):
num = mutable_int(num)
def inc():
num += 1
return num
return inc
>>
>> feel free to replace that += with an .add(1) method call; the point
>> wasn't the behaviour of
Guido van Rossum wrote:
...
>
> This is an illustration of the dilemma of maintaining a popular
> language: Everybody hates change (me too!) but everybody also has one
> thing that's bothering them so much they absolutely want it to be
> changed. If you were to implement all those personal pet pee
Terry Reedy wrote:
> "Boris Borcic" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> I agree with you (and argued it in "scopes vs augmented assignment vs
>> sets"
>> recently) that mutating would be sufficient /if/ the compil
Fredrik Lundh wrote:
> Just van Rossum wrote:
>
>> Why couldn't at least augmented assignment be implicitly rebinding? It
>> has been suggested before (in the context of a rebinding operator), but
>> I'm wondering, is this also off the table?
>>
>> def counter(num):
>> def inc():
>>
Fredrik Lundh wrote:
> Boris Borcic wrote:
>
>>> in what language [is] the word "sum" an appropriate synonym for
>>> "concatenate" ?
>> any that admits a+b to mean ''.join([a,b]), I'd say.
>
> and what human language
Fredrik Lundh wrote:
>
> in what language the word "sum" an appropriate synonym for "concatenate" ?
any that admits a+b to mean ''.join([a,b]), I'd say.
- BB
___
Python-Dev mailing list
Python-Dev@python.org
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/pyt
..was not Guido's first intervention in the
> thread, but who cares about facts?)
I do, and I stand corrected.
Best regards, Boris Borcic
--
"On naît tous les mètres du même monde"
___
Python-Dev mailing list
Python-Dev@python.org
http://ma
Gareth McCaughan wrote:
> (Attention conservation notice: the following is concerned almost entirely
> with exegesis of an old python-dev thread. Those interested in improving
> Python
> and not in history and exegesis should probably ignore it.)
>
> On Tuesday 2006-07-11 1
Greg Ewing wrote:
> Boris Borcic wrote:
>
>> I believe that in this case native linguistic intuition made the decision...
>
> The reason has nothing to do with language. Guido didn't
> want sum() to become an attractive nuisance by *appearing*
> to be an obvious way
) with the result of /adding/ to
the cognitive dissonance of using + to concatenate strings (for all programming
newbies).
Best regards to all,
Boris Borcic
--
"On naît tous les mètres du même monde"
___
Python-Dev mailing list
Python
f the flurry of workarounds you've cited since, who knows why)
To pythondevers, my concluding message will go thus, in mixed metaphors :
beware
of not throwing away with the "bathwater" - the cultural intrusion of hordes of
Scheme immigrants who take closures for the first word of Crea
am wrong would be to show me examples
of
object methods of the standard library that are recursive, and cut out for
recursion.
Regards,
Boris Borcic
--
"On naît tous les mètres du même monde"
___
Python-Dev mailing list
Python-Dev@py
lexically nested scopes.
I see. Thanks for the background. Background for backround, let me just say
that
python hadn't yet grown a lambda when I first played with it. May I read your
last statement as acknowledging that I am not so much asking for a door to be
created, than asking for a
Terry Reedy wrote:
> "Boris Borcic" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>> being transformed to profit from simplifications I expected sets to allow.
>> There, itemwise augmented assigments in loops very naturally transform
Josiah Carlson wrote:
> Boris Borcic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Hello,
>>
>> Armin Rigo wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> On Wed, Jun 07, 2006 at 02:07:48AM +0200, Thomas Wouters wrote:
>>>> I just submitted http://python.org/sf/1501934 a
manifestation of a bug in
the BDFL's famed time machine ? (I am saying this because Guido recently argued
that sets should integrate as if they had been designed into Python from the
beginning, what the above flagrantly contradicts imho).
Cheers,
Boris Borcic
--
"On naît tous les mèt
21 matches
Mail list logo
