e archived at
> https://mail.python.org/archives/list/python-dev@python.org/message/TW5I4Z3XKCSZC6IRXHNFVPZVLHEKI7O3/
> Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
>
--
CALVIN SPEALMAN
SENIOR QUALITY ENGINEER
calvin.speal...@redhat.com M: +1.336.210.5107
[image:
To unsubscribe send an email to python-dev-le...@python.org
> https://mail.python.org/mailman3/lists/python-dev.python.org/
> Message archived at
> https://mail.python.org/archives/list/python-dev@python.org/message/RGIAE2HMYQLPXWH5O5TNBNRXDQQ4UKAK/
> Code of Conduct: http://python.o
On Mon, Oct 4, 2021 at 12:48 PM Antoine Pitrou wrote:
> On Mon, 4 Oct 2021 12:18:35 -0400
> Calvin Spealman wrote:
> > On Mon, Oct 4, 2021 at 12:07 PM Guido van Rossum
> wrote:
> >
> > > The question was about which style to *recommend* (a la PEP-8).
> > >
ython.org
> https://mail.python.org/mailman3/lists/python-dev.python.org/
> Message archived at
> https://mail.python.org/archives/list/python-dev@python.org/message/DASEBDJ6CK6U4YHRKPJ7CNQQHVWEWOLQ/
> Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
>
--
CALVIN SPEA
/archives/list/python-dev@python.org/message/4B256YKUPW5P2M44GG5H6FBL3PSV6ODP/
> Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
>
--
CALVIN SPEALMAN
SENIOR QUALITY ENGINEER
calvin.speal...@redhat.com M: +1.336.210.5107
[image: https://red.ht/sig] <https://red.ht/sig>
TRIED. TEST
int(sample_string_1.lstrip("namespace/something-plugin"))
> xx-extra:dev
>
> print(sample_string_1.lstrip("namespace/something-plug"))
> xx-extra:dev
>
> print(sample_string_1.lstrip("namespace/something-plu"))
> xx-extra:dev
>
> print(sample_strin
r new
developers and I want to make that a better experience, not a more
confusing one. Maybe that version number could include some other unique
identify, maybe based on Python's own executable. A hash maybe? I don't
know if anything like that already exists to uniquely identify a Python
opefully
> this will make things smoother for those who are new to the PEP process.
> ___
> Python-Dev mailing list
> Python-Dev@python.org
> https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev
> Unsubscribe:
> https://mail.python.org/mai
In the spirit of "There should be one-- and preferably only one --obvious
way to do it." this makes perfect sense.
The distinction between "your own machine and other peoples machines" is
not always clear, nor planned for, nor understood by developers to be an
important distinction to make up-fron
if two lines is cumbersome, you're in for a cumbersome life a programmer.
On Apr 22, 2013 7:31 AM, "Ram Rachum" wrote:
> Hi everyone,
>
> Take a look at this question:
>
>
> http://stackoverflow.com/questions/16122435/python-3-how-do-i-use-bytes-to-bytes-and-string-to-string-encodings/16122472?no
All,
Congradulations. This is a big one!
On Wed, Jun 27, 2012 at 2:10 AM, Georg Brandl wrote:
> On behalf of the Python development team, I'm happy to announce the
> first beta release of Python 3.3.0.
>
> This is a preview release, and its use is not recommended in
> production settings.
>
>
-- Forwarded message -- (whoops from my phone)
On Jun 21, 2012 6:32 AM, "Armin Ronacher"
wrote:
>
> Due to an user error on my part I was not using os.readlink correctly.
> Since links can be relative to their location I think it would make sense
> to provide an os.path.resolve he
On Thu, Jun 7, 2012 at 10:41 AM, Yury Selivanov wrote:
> Hello,
>
> The new revision of PEP 362 has been posted:
> http://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0362/
While the actual implementation is more complex, the PEP is a lot more
clear and direct than it first was. Great job!
I'm really looking for
On Sun, Jun 3, 2012 at 7:49 AM, Maciej Fijalkowski wrote:
> Hi
>
> I was reading a bit about the regex module and I would like to present some
> other solution into speeding up the re module for Python.
>
> So, as a bit of background - pypy has a re compatible module. It's also
> JITted and it's a
On Sun, May 20, 2012 at 4:28 PM, Benjamin Peterson wrote:
> 2012/5/20 Nick Coghlan :
>> PEP 3135 defines the new zero-argument form of super() as implicitly
>> equivalent to super(__class__, ), and up until 3.2 has
>> behaved accordingly: if you accessed __class__ from inside a method,
>> you woul
On Feb 28, 2012 7:14 PM, wrote:
>>
>> Why is readding u'' a feature and not a bug?
>
>
> There is a really simple litmus test for whether something is a bug:
> does it deviate from the specification?
>
> In this case, the specification is the grammar, and the implementation
> certainly doesn't dev
On Dec 9, 2011 3:04 AM, "Stefan Behnel" wrote:
>
> Hi everyone,
>
> I think Py3.3 would be a good milestone for cleaning up the stdlib
support for XML. Note upfront: you may or may not know me as the maintainer
of lxml, the de-facto non-stdlib standard Python XML tool. This (lengthy)
post was trig
I revert my objections. I still would like to see this in use "in the
wild" and I might even use it thusly, myself.
On Fri, Mar 5, 2010 at 9:50 AM, Jesse Noller wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 5, 2010 at 7:45 AM, Calvin Spealman wrote:
>> A young library solving an old problem in a way
A young library solving an old problem in a way that conflicts with
many of the other implementations available for years and with zero
apparent users in the wild is not an appropriate candidate for a PEP.
On Fri, Mar 5, 2010 at 1:03 AM, Brian Quinlan wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I recently submitted a d
FWIW; I think a 3.0.2 would be useful socially (even volunteer projects have
marketting issues to consider). It says "we are committed to making 3.x
work", while the quick jump to 3.1 with only a limited minor fix release to
3.0 says "we stumbled into this and have to just brush this under the rug.
On Thu, Feb 12, 2009 at 9:06 AM, Christian Heimes wrote:
> Neal Becker schrieb:
>> If the argument to pool.map (f, args)
>> is
>> f = functional.partial (my_func, some_keyword_arg=whatever)
>>
>> I get:
>>
>> Traceback (most recent call last):
>> File "/usr/lib/python2.5/site-packages/multiproce
All of this debate is moot without the foundation of a common library
on which we would be building these coroutines. Any proposal of a
specific coroutine syntax is worthless without a time and community
tested coroutine implementation, which would be subject to the same
rigerous inclusion requirem
I would favor this not being constrained. I don't want every use of **
to cause a pattern match to verify each key. I would even be fine
without the check for being strings. Define what it should be, but let
the implementation be lax. It is no different from any other place
where you need to know i
http://bugs.python.org/issue1706256
Took me a couple days to catch up on this thread so here is the link
for any interested. Could it be possible to reevaluate this?
On Sat, Jan 31, 2009 at 2:40 PM, Leif Walsh wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 30, 2009 at 7:38 PM, Calvin Spealman wrote:
>>
I am just replying to the end of this thread to throw in a reminder
about my partial.skip patch, which allows the following usage:
split_one = partial(str.split, partial.skip, 1)
Not looking to say "mine is better", but if the idea is being given
merit, I like the skipping arguments method better
On Tue, Jan 20, 2009 at 12:46 PM, Gerald Britton
wrote:
> I wonder if this is a bug?
I don't think so, but its interesting nonetheless.
passing a generator expression to list() involves two loops: the list
construction and the generator expression. So, a StopIteration from
whatever the GE is ite
On Tue, Jan 20, 2009 at 12:00 PM, Vitor Bosshard wrote:
>
>
> - Mensaje original
>> De: Gerald Britton
>> Para: Vitor Bosshard
>> CC: python-3...@udmvt.ru; python-dev@python.org
>> Enviado: martes, 20 de enero, 2009 13:40:07
>> Asunto: Re: [Python-Dev] PEP 3142: Add a "while" clause to
ne, but it is a more consistent syntax. It has the obvious problem
of looking like it might allow an alternative expression, like the
if-expression.
prime = (p for p in sieve() if p < 1000 else break)
On Mon, Jan 19, 2009 at 11:47 AM, Calvin Spealman wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 19, 2009 at 11:
g used
all that often. Not nearly often enough to warrant replacing it with a
special syntax! Only 178 results from Google CodeSearch, while chain,
groupby, and repeat get 4000, 3000, and 1000 respectively. Should
those be given their own syntax?
> On Mon, Jan 19, 2009 at 11:29 AM, Calvin Speal
I am really unconvinced of the utility of this proposal and quite
convinced of the confusing factor it may well add to the current
syntax. I would like to see more applicable examples. It would replace
uses of takewhile, but that isn't a really often used function. So, is
there any evidence to supp
I would like to see that kind of coherence. I think anything that gets
in the way of someone getting in is in danger of holding someone off
from contributing something, be it wiki edits, bug reports, or
packages. One might also ask about the mailman lists here.
On Sun, Jan 18, 2009 at 2:21 PM, ana
Did the original PEP discussion cover debates about the shortcut
working for all assignment operators (like += and x[i] =) and the
difference between it being one-shot (doesnt affect x for the rest of
the function) or simply the unrolling into nonlocal x; x= y as it is?
On Mon, Dec 8, 2008 at 5:07
Wow, how long has this been? OK, so these aren't really the summaries.
It is half-done summaries, which I've posted to the wiki for community
collaboration. Anyone with a better understanding a conversation or
simply the knowledge that I don't know what I'm talking about half the
time, the summary
On Mon, Nov 3, 2008 at 6:29 AM, Gerhard Häring <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Stefan Behnel wrote:
>>
>> Michael Foord wrote:
>>>
>>> Moving more C extensions to an implementation based on ctypes would be
>>> enormously useful for PyPy, IronPython and Jython, but ctypes is not yet
>>> as portable as
Has anyone made the argument for keeping the GIL to discourage
threading? I'm only throwing this out there and I'm sure we'd want to
improve things no matter what, but I would like to voice the concern
anyway. We all know there are people who think threading is the answer
to all things, and who don
On Thu, Oct 30, 2008 at 8:50 AM, Barry Warsaw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On Oct 30, 2008, at 01:02 PM, Victor Stinner wrote:
> >If Python would be more reactive, more developer will be attracted. The
> >communication is very important in an op
You need to bring this sort of thing up in python-ideas before here,
first of all. Also, there isnt a strong case for including a module
that is only used by one project somewhere. Promote it on its own,
outside of this other project. Let other people use it and get
feedback from real use. When its
per() patch to at least become staticmethod smart.
On Jun 11, 2008, at 1:48 PM, Antoine Pitrou wrote:
Calvin Spealman socialserve.com> writes:
Traceback (most recent call last):
File "", line 1, in
File "", line 3, in A
File "", line 5, in d
File &q
I'd like to make a claim about the following example, that
update_wrapper should be improved to preserve the behavior of known,
built-in decorators. In this case, I'm talking about staticmethod.
The order I list here feels natural, but it obviously doesn't work.
The only reason it doesn't s
Yes, I realize now that I was on the wrong box running the wrong
version, so ignore me if I'm stupid and its irrelevant!
On Jan 4, 2008 9:02 AM, Calvin Spealman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Jan 4, 2008 8:07 AM, Christian Heimes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> &g
On Jan 4, 2008 8:07 AM, Christian Heimes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hello!
>
> Bug http://bugs.python.org/issue1481296 describes a problem where
> long(float('nan')) causes a seg fault on Mac OS X. On other platforms it
> returns 0L, e.g.
>
> Python 2.5.1 (r251:54863, Oct 5 2007, 13:36:32)
> [GC
I just had an issue brought up by another developer who had a
trailing comma on an assignment causing a 1-tuple he did not expect.
We were talking about it and came to the conclusion that it is at
least worth bringing up the idea of enforcing a SyntaxError in the
case of this. 1-tuple synta
I think that should not change. None is different than 0. It makes
sense to use it as a "use the default value" kind of place holder.
Silently using 1 when you pass 0 is a very different thing.
Maybe the slice was calculated and the developer should know about it
being 0, because in this cas
I got into a discussion about this, which made me think it would make
sense to formalize a distinction between "iterable" and "iterator". To
nearly any python developer I talk with, we can define them as:
iterable - An object which can be passed to the built-in iter()
function, which returns an it
I completely intend to finish the backlog of summaries, but I've
reached the point that I know it is futile to continue thinking I'll
be able to fit in the time for the summaries in an on-going and
reliable manner. When I took on the responsibility, it was looking
like time would be fine. Since the
I lost the key I originally gave for commiting my summaries. Who do I
talk to about fixing that?
--
Read my blog! I depend on your acceptance of my opinion! I am interesting!
http://ironfroggy-code.blogspot.com/
___
Python-Dev mailing list
Python-Dev@py
ROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 4/29/07, Calvin Spealman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Draft Attempt Number Duo:
> >
> > PEP: XXX
> > Title: New Super
>
> Checked in as PEP 3133.
>
> --
> --Guido van Rossum (home page: http://www.python.org/~guido/)
>
--
On 5/1/07, Kristján Valur Jónsson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hm, I fail to see the importance of a special regression test for that
> peculiar file then with its special magical OS properties. Why not focus
> our attention on real, user generated files?.
(Try to stick to the posting conventions
On 4/30/07, Armin Rigo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi Calvin,
>
> On Mon, Apr 30, 2007 at 08:34:56AM -0400, Calvin Spealman wrote:
> > If you want, you can also grab the reference
> > implementation from my blog: http://ironfroggy-code.blogspot.com/
>
> This r
On 4/30/07, Tim Delaney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I've been working on improved super syntax for quite a while now - my
> original approach was 'self.super' which used _getframe() and mro crawling
> too. I hit on using bytecode hacking to instantiate a super object at the
> start of the method t
On 4/30/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> James> I did not intend to imply that it should be impossible to pass
> James> different arguments, only that passing the same ones should be
> James> foolproof and not require repeating yourself.
>
> Then some other argument
On 4/30/07, Delaney, Timothy (Tim) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Guido van Rossum wrote:
>
> >> 1. When a method is defined, the class is bound to it via an
> attribute
> >> (which in my version is called func_class).
>
> > In Py3k all the func_XXX attrs are renamed __XXX__, so this would be
> > __c
ment a sys._getframe() and a
IronPython currently doesn't, but seems to plan on it (there is a
placeholder, at present). I am not sure if notes on this belongs in
the PEP or not.
Draft Three follows for all. I think I'm turning off e-mail for the
rest of this evening, so I'll ca
On 4/29/07, Jim Jewett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 4/29/07, Tim Delaney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I've been intending to write up a PEP for fixing super, but I haven't had
> > time to get to it.
>
> Calvin Spealman has the most recent draft.
On 4/29/07, Collin Winter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 4/29/07, Calvin Spealman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On 4/29/07, Collin Winter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > What if the instance isn't called "self"? PEP 3099 states that "
On 4/29/07, Collin Winter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 4/29/07, Calvin Spealman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > The PEP defines the proposal to enhance the super builtin to work implicitly
> > upon the class within which it is used and upon the instance the current
On 4/29/07, Armin Rigo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi Calvin,
>
> On Sat, Apr 28, 2007 at 10:43:04PM -0400, Calvin Spealman wrote:
> > The proposal adds a dynamic attribute lookup to the super type, which will
> > automatically determine the proper class and insta
On 4/29/07, "Martin v. Löwis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Calvin Spealman schrieb:
> > On 4/29/07, "Martin v. Löwis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> Right. It shouldn't fail if the file is absent (it shouldn't
> >> pass in that
On 4/29/07, Collin Winter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 4/29/07, Calvin Spealman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [snip]
> > I still wasn't really aware of any alternative suggestions that need
> > to be included in this.
>
> Here are two off the top of my
On 4/29/07, "Martin v. Löwis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Right. It shouldn't fail if the file is absent (it shouldn't
> pass in that case, either, but regrtest has no support for INCONCLUSIVE
> test outcomes).
Perhaps that could become part of the improvements made through
test.test_support.Test
On 4/29/07, Calvin Spealman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Draft Attempt Number Duo:
>
> PEP: XXX
> Title: New Super
> Version: $Revision$
> Last-Modified: $Date$
> Author: Calvin Spealman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Status: Draft
> Type: Standards Track
> Conte
Draft Attempt Number Duo:
PEP: XXX
Title: New Super
Version: $Revision$
Last-Modified: $Date$
Author: Calvin Spealman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Status: Draft
Type: Standards Track
Content-Type: text/x-rst
Created: 28-Apr-2007
Python-Version: 2.6
Post-History: 28-Apr-2007, 29-Apr-2007
Ab
On 4/29/07, "Martin v. Löwis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > The
> > original test failed, my new one does not.
>
> Then this change is incorrect: the test should fail in 2.5.0.
I think I don't get why the test _must_ fail. If it fails, I assumed
something was broken. If it failed because it was t
On 4/29/07, Collin Winter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> What if the instance isn't called "self"? PEP 3099 states that "self
> will not become implicit"; it's talking about method signatures, but I
> think that dictum applies equally well in this case.
I don't use the name self. I use whatever the
On 4/29/07, "Martin v. Löwis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> As I said - I'm not convinced that is indeed correct. Before accepting
> >> a replacement test I would like confirmation that this test will fail
> >> on 2.5.0. You might not get ERROR_SHARING_VIOLATION in all cases of
> >> open files wi
Yes, I bad wordly things did. Fix will I.
On 4/29/07, Talin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Calvin Spealman wrote:
> > Comments welcome, of course. Bare with my first attempt at crafting a PEP.
>
> See below for comments; In general, I'm having problems understanding
&
On 4/29/07, "Martin v. Löwis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Windows there is no guarantee that there will be a pagefile.sys on
> > the C drive, or even that there exists a C drive. The test checking for
> > the result of os.stat('C:\\pagefile.sys') is broken. Create a temporary
> > file, open
On 4/29/07, "Martin v. Löwis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I'm sorry, but somehow I could not parse this. My understanding was
> > that the unittest was meant to make sure an os.stat call would be
> > successful on an open file, and that pagefile.sys was simply used as a
> > known open file, whic
On 4/28/07, "Martin v. Löwis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I have a patch myself that creates an open file and uses that as the
> > test. My reasoning is that pagefile.sys was chosen as a file that
> > should always exist and be open, so its safe to test against, so we
> > should just be testing
Comments welcome, of course. Bare with my first attempt at crafting a PEP.
PEP: XXX
Title: Super As A Keyword
Version: $Revision$
Last-Modified: $Date$
Author: Calvin Spealman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Status: Draft
Type: Standards Track
Content-Type: text/x-rst
Created: 30-Apr-2007
Python-Versio
On 4/28/07, Jean-Paul Calderone <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sat, 28 Apr 2007 09:32:57 -0400, Raghuram Devarakonda <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> >On 4/28/07, Calvin Spealman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
If no one has any further comments over the weekend and Monday, I'll
post it as the final summary that evening/night.
=
Announcements
=
=
Summaries
=
---
About SSL tests
---
An open bug about missing SSL tests (#451607) was brought
On 4/27/07, Khalid A. Bakr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Okay. It seems I mixed up WindowsError with the
> exception e in my post; at least it is now known that
> e is not a number. The patch is short and is as
> follows:
>
> Index: Lib/test/test_os.py
> =
Could we use and add this macro to object.h? It could be a much
cleaner and safer way of dealing with new references you want to clean
up in the same scope. The first one will make sure to decref your new
reference when you are done with it. The second one will make sure to
set a borrowed reference
Now that I should be able to actually keep up with my summary duties,
I need to figure out how to tackle the changing landscape of the
development lists. The old summaries were no problem, before my time.
When the python-3000 list was created, nearly everything was just
conceptual, floaty talk that
On 4/24/07, Talin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Calvin Spealman wrote:
> > I have not gotten any replies about this. No comments, suggestions for
> > not skipping any missed threads, or corrections. Is everyone good with
> > this or should I give it another day or two?
&g
I have not gotten any replies about this. No comments, suggestions for
not skipping any missed threads, or corrections. Is everyone good with
this or should I give it another day or two?
On 4/22/07, Calvin Spealman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> There were a good number of skipped threads,
I posted about this on python-ideas, and didn't get any objections
about the idea itself, so I took the opportunity to dive into the C
API and get my hands dirty. I posted the idea and patch as a report on
SF (1706256). For anyone interested at least to look over, I'm also
just including the small
There were a good number of skipped threads, but I've been out of the
loop with a lot of busy things keeping me away from such things. Now
that I'm getting back into it, I'll keep up with things again. So, let
me know if any of the skipped threads should be brought in.
Corrections and comments welc
I'll take this opportunity to pipe in with a response, since Guido
summed up the many issues nicely and its a good bouncing point to
mention my own thoughts.
On 2/12/07, Guido van Rossum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> My perspective:
>
> - There's a lot of support for the basic idea, and only a few
On 1/18/07, Nick Coghlan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Calvin Spealman wrote:
> > Added a check in test_long.LongTest.test_misc() that long("123\0", 10)
> > fails properly and adapted the patch to int_new to long_new. I get
> > this weird feeling th
me
> up with a patch for long too.
>
> Getting the size won't help (exactly), since the problem is the diff
> between strlen() and the size. You can see this in the int() fix.
>
> Let me know if you have any questions. It would be great if you could
> produce a patch.
>
>
Is it a more general problem that null-terminated strings are used
with data from strings we specifically allow to contain null bytes?
Perhaps a migration of *FromString() to *FromStringAndSize()
functions, or taking Python string object pointers, would be a more
general solution to set as a goal,
I am really looking into get into hacking on CPython and I'm keenly
interested in your security work (my top reason for hoping i can make
PyCon. keeping fingers crossed!), so if you need help with this to
focus on other things, I'd be delighted to try my hand at the task. Do
you have some docs up a
ctual work, rather than debating and theory-talk,
is going on there.
Sincerly,
Your new summary writer,
Calvin Spealman
=
Summaries
=
-
[NPERS] Re: a feature i'd like to see in python #2: indexing of mat
Broytmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2005-September/056782.html
>
> On Fri, Dec 29, 2006 at 02:40:05AM -0500, Calvin Spealman wrote:
> > To this end, should a cachedproperty builtin be included to do this
>
>The issue was dis
A very common pattern in using properties is as follows:
class Foo(object):
@property
def c(self):
if not hasattr(self, '_c'):
self._c = some_operation(self.a, self.b)
return self._c
Basically, the common usage is to only calculate a properties value
once, and
I know I can not do this, but what are the chances on changing the
rules so that we can? Basically, since the if __debug__: lines are
processed before runtime, would it be possible to allow them to be
used to control the inclusion or omission or entire blocks (except,
else, elif, etc.) with them be
On 12/7/05, Greg Ewing <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Thomas Lotze wrote:
>
> > Apparently, when applied to a class instance, hasattr calls getattr and
> > decides that the attribute doesn't exist if the call raises any exception.
> > - Wouldn't it make sense to only report a missing attribute if an
On 11/15/05, Scott David Daniels <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Since I am fiddling with int/long conversions to/from string:
>
> Is the current behavior intentional (or mandatory?):
>
> v = int(' 5 ')
> works, but:
> v = int(' 5
On 10/16/05, Josiah Carlson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Calvin Spealman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > On 10/14/05, Josiah Carlson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >
> > > Calvin Spealman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
On 10/14/05, Josiah Carlson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Calvin Spealman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > On 10/11/05, Eyal Lotem <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > locals()['x'] = 1 # Quietly fails!
> > > Replaced b
On 10/16/05, Guido van Rossum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 10/16/05, Nick Coghlan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On and off, I've been looking for an elegant way to handle properties using
> > decorators.
> >
> > It hasn't really worked, because decorators are inherently single function,
> > and
On 10/11/05, Eyal Lotem <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> locals()['x'] = 1 # Quietly fails!
> Replaced by:
> frame.x = 1 # Raises error
What about the possibility of making this hypothetic frame object an
indexable, such that frame[0] is the current scope, frame[1] is the
calling scope, et
Sorry, Nick. GMail, for some reason, doesn't follow the reply-to
properly for python-dev. Forwarding to list now...
On 10/9/05, Nick Coghlan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Jim Fulton wrote:
> > Based on the discussion, I think I'd go with defaultproperty.
> >
> > Questions:
> >
> > - Should this be
On 10/6/05, Phillip J. Eby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> At 10:09 PM 10/5/2005 -0700, Neal Norwitz wrote:
> >The general idea is to allocate the stack in one big hunk and just
> >walk up/down it as functions are called/returned. This only means
> >incrementing or decrementing pointers. This should
On 9/13/05, Andrew Durdin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 9/6/05, Antoine Pitrou <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > One could use "class decorators". For example if you want to define the
> > method foo() in a file-like class, you could use code like:
>
> I like the sound of this. Suppose there we
On 9/9/05, Guido van Rossum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> While I laugh at the naive view of people who write things like
> "Interface equality and neutrality would be a good thing in the
> language" and seriously (? I didn't see a smiley) use this argument to
> plead for not making print() a built-
On 9/6/05, Guido van Rossum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 9/5/05, Calvin Spealman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > There is a lot of debate over this issue, obviously. Now, I think
> > getting rid of the print statement can lead to ugly code, because a
> > wri
On 9/1/05, Guido van Rossum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [Charles Cazabon]
> > >> Perhaps py3k could have a py2compat module. Importing it could have the
> > >> effect of (for instance) putting compile, id, and intern into the global
> > >> namespace, making print an alias for writeln,
>
> [Greg
100 matches
Mail list logo
