On Sat, 8 Oct 2005 20:04:13 -0400, jamesr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Congragulations heartily given. I missed the ternary op in c... Way to
>go! clean and easy and now i can do:
>
>if ((sys.argv[1] =='debug') if len(sys.argv) > 1 else False):
> pass
>
>and check variables IF AND ONLY if they
On Fri, 30 Sep 2005 17:26:27 +0200, Antoine Pitrou <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>Hi,
>
>> I've never heard
>> someone complain that the GIL is in the way for these types of apps.
>
>I've never said so either.
>I was just saying that it can be useful to mix cooperative threading and
>preemptive thre
On Fri, 01 Jul 2005 19:22:20 -0400, "Phillip J. Eby" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>At 03:59 PM 7/1/2005 -0700, Ralf W. Grosse-Kunstleve wrote:
> [snip]
>
>This extends to any number of arguments:
>
> class grouping:
> def __init__(self, x, y, z):
> self.__dict__.update(locals(
On Mon, 13 Jun 2005 01:25:51 -0400, "Phillip J. Eby" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>At 09:01 PM 6/12/2005 -0700, Guido van Rossum wrote:
>>If we have to do this, PEP 315 has my +0.
>>
>>It is Pythonically minimal and the motivation rings true: I've often
>>written code like this in the past:
>>
>>
On Sun, 08 May 2005 14:16:40 +1000, Nick Coghlan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Ron Adam wrote:
>> I agree, re-using or extending 'for' doesn't seem like a good idea to me.
>
>I agree that re-using a straight 'for' loop is out, due to performance and
>compatibility issues with applying finalisation se
On Mon, 02 May 2005 07:46:31 -0600, Shane Hathaway <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Anders J. Munch wrote:
>> in opening('file1') as f1:
>> ...
>> in opening('file2') as f2:
>> ...
>> except IOError:
>> print "file1 not available, I'll try again later"
>>
>> I
On Sat, 9 Apr 2005 00:13:40 -0500 (CDT), Ka-Ping Yee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On Fri, 8 Apr 2005, Eyal Lotem wrote:
> > I would like to experiment with security based on Python references as
> > security capabilities.
>
> This is an interesting and worthwhile thought. Several people
> (includi
On Sat, 26 Mar 2005 22:49:33 +0100, Eric Nieuwland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On 26 mrt 2005, at 21:36, Josiah Carlson wrote:
> > Eric Nieuwland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> Given the ideas so far, would it possible to:
> >>
> >> def meta(cls):
> >>...
> >>
> >> @meta
> >> class X(...):
> >
On Thu, 17 Mar 2005 09:01:27 -0800, Josiah Carlson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Nick Coghlan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > Josiah Carlson wrote:
> > >
> > > [snip]
> > >
> > > I think properties are the most used case where this kind of thing would
> > > be nice. Though the only thing th
On Tue, 11 Jan 2005 01:32:52 +, David Wilson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On Mon, Jan 10, 2005 at 05:17:49PM +0100, Philippe Biondi wrote:
>
> > I've done a small patch to use linux AF_NETLINK sockets (see below).
> > Please comment!
>
> As of 2.6.10, a very useful new netlink family was merge
On Tue, 11 Jan 2005 08:54:42 +0100, "\"Martin v. Löwis\"" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>Philippe Biondi wrote:
> > I've done a small patch to use linux AF_NETLINK sockets (see below).
> > Please comment!
>
> I have a high-level comment - python-dev is normally the wrong place
> for patches; please
On Tue, 4 Jan 2005 12:18:15 -0800, Guido van Rossum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>[me]
> > > Actually, unbound builtin methods are a different type than bound
> > > builtin methods:
>
> [Jim]
> > Of course, but conceptually they are similar. You would still
> > encounter the concept if you got an u
On Tue, 04 Jan 2005 20:02:06 GMT, Jp Calderone <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On Tue, 4 Jan 2005 10:28:03 -0800, Guido van Rossum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >In my blog I wrote:
> >
> > Let's get rid of unbound methods. When class C defines a method f, C
On Tue, 4 Jan 2005 10:28:03 -0800, Guido van Rossum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>In my blog I wrote:
>
> Let's get rid of unbound methods. When class C defines a method f, C.f
> should just return the function object, not an unbound method that
> behaves almost, but not quite, the same as that func
14 matches
Mail list logo
