On 2012-06-22, at 5:26 PM, Guido van Rossum wrote:
> I am accepting the PEP. Congrats Yuri! (And others who feel they deserve it.
> :-)
Great! Larry will merge the implementation then.
Larry, Brett and I worked on the PEP together (~200 emails in private
discussions),
so everybody deserves ;)
I am accepting the PEP. Congrats Yuri! (And others who feel they deserve it. :-)
On Fri, Jun 22, 2012 at 2:04 PM, Yury Selivanov wrote:
> On 2012-06-22, at 4:58 PM, Ethan Furman wrote:
>> That looks strange to me -- I suggest putting brackets around each one, like:
>>
>> replace(*, [name=,] [ki
On 2012-06-22, at 4:58 PM, Ethan Furman wrote:
> That looks strange to me -- I suggest putting brackets around each one, like:
>
> replace(*, [name=,] [kind=,] [default=,]
> [annotation=]) -> Parameter
Isn't it too much? The PEP clearly indicates '=' is just
a notation for an optional paramet
Yury Selivanov wrote:
On 2012-06-22, at 3:47 PM, Ethan Furman wrote:
Guido van Rossum wrote:
On Fri, Jun 22, 2012 at 12:24 PM, Yury Selivanov
wrote:
On 2012-06-22, at 3:18 PM, Guido van Rossum wrote:
On Fri, Jun 22, 2012 at 12:10 PM, Yury Selivanov
wrote:
Yes, I meant optional. Would 'n
On 2012-06-22, at 3:25 PM, Christian Heimes wrote:
> Am 22.06.2012 21:10, schrieb Yury Selivanov:
>> I think that if a function lacks an annotation, that should be reflected
>> in the same way for its signature.
>>
>> Currently:
>>
>>if hasattr(signature, 'return_annotation'):
>>
>> If we u
On 2012-06-22, at 4:20 PM, Terry Reedy wrote:
> On 6/22/2012 3:24 PM, Yury Selivanov wrote:
>> On 2012-06-22, at 3:18 PM, Guido van Rossum wrote:
>
>>> Hardly, because that's not valid syntax. I'd write name(arg1, *,
>>> arg2=).
>>
>> Like
>>
>> replace(*, name=, kind=, default=,
>>
On 6/22/2012 3:24 PM, Yury Selivanov wrote:
On 2012-06-22, at 3:18 PM, Guido van Rossum wrote:
Hardly, because that's not valid syntax. I'd write name(arg1, *,
arg2=).
Like
replace(*, name=, kind=, default=,
annotation=) -> Parameter
or
replace
On 2012-06-22, at 3:18 PM, Guido van Rossum wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 22, 2012 at 12:10 PM, Yury Selivanov
> wrote:
>> Guido,
>>
>> On 2012-06-22, at 2:52 PM, Guido van Rossum wrote:
>>> Of these, only (1) is a blocker for PEP acceptance -- I'd either like
>>> to see this defended vigorously (maybe i
On 2012-06-22, at 3:47 PM, Ethan Furman wrote:
> Guido van Rossum wrote:
>> On Fri, Jun 22, 2012 at 12:24 PM, Yury Selivanov
>> wrote:
>>> On 2012-06-22, at 3:18 PM, Guido van Rossum wrote:
>>>
On Fri, Jun 22, 2012 at 12:10 PM, Yury Selivanov
wrote:
> Yes, I meant optional. Would
Am 22.06.2012 21:32, schrieb Larry Hastings:
>
> On 06/22/2012 12:21 PM, Christian Heimes wrote:
>> The PEP is already complex enough and went to several incarnations. It
>> was a wise decision to focus on the features that could be implemented
>> before the first beta is released. Kudos for pulli
Guido van Rossum wrote:
On Fri, Jun 22, 2012 at 12:24 PM, Yury Selivanov
wrote:
On 2012-06-22, at 3:18 PM, Guido van Rossum wrote:
On Fri, Jun 22, 2012 at 12:10 PM, Yury Selivanov
wrote:
Yes, I meant optional. Would 'name(arg1, *, [arg2])' be better?
Hardly, because that's not valid synta
On 06/22/2012 12:21 PM, Christian Heimes wrote:
The PEP is already complex enough and went to several incarnations. It
was a wise decision to focus on the features that could be implemented
before the first beta is released. Kudos for pulling it off, Larry!
Guys, guys! I have done next-to-not
On Fri, Jun 22, 2012 at 12:24 PM, Yury Selivanov
wrote:
> On 2012-06-22, at 3:18 PM, Guido van Rossum wrote:
>
>> On Fri, Jun 22, 2012 at 12:10 PM, Yury Selivanov
>> wrote:
>>> Guido,
>>>
>>> On 2012-06-22, at 2:52 PM, Guido van Rossum wrote:
> ...
>>> 'empty' will also work. When python-dev col
Am 22.06.2012 21:10, schrieb Yury Selivanov:
> I think that if a function lacks an annotation, that should be reflected
> in the same way for its signature.
>
> Currently:
>
> if hasattr(signature, 'return_annotation'):
>
> If we use Signature.empty:
>
> if signature.return_annotation i
On Fri, Jun 22, 2012 at 12:21 PM, Christian Heimes wrote:
> Am 22.06.2012 20:52, schrieb Guido van Rossum:
>> (5) Too bad there's no proposal for adding signatures to builtin
>> functions/methods, but understood.
>
> Larry et al. did an experiment with a mutable __signature__ attribute to
> PyCFun
On 2012-06-22, at 3:18 PM, Guido van Rossum wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 22, 2012 at 12:10 PM, Yury Selivanov
> wrote:
>> Guido,
>>
>> On 2012-06-22, at 2:52 PM, Guido van Rossum wrote:
...
>> 'empty' will also work. When python-dev collectively decided to
>> go with missing attributes, 'empty' didn't
Am 22.06.2012 20:52, schrieb Guido van Rossum:
> (5) Too bad there's no proposal for adding signatures to builtin
> functions/methods, but understood.
Larry et al. did an experiment with a mutable __signature__ attribute to
PyCFunction. He immediately backed out and removed the attribute as I
expl
On Fri, Jun 22, 2012 at 12:10 PM, Yury Selivanov
wrote:
> Guido,
>
> On 2012-06-22, at 2:52 PM, Guido van Rossum wrote:
>
>> This looks great, much better than the version I reviewed half a year
>> ago! Thanks you and others (especially Yuri) for all your efforts in
>> guiding the discussion and i
Guido,
On 2012-06-22, at 2:52 PM, Guido van Rossum wrote:
> This looks great, much better than the version I reviewed half a year
> ago! Thanks you and others (especially Yuri) for all your efforts in
> guiding the discussion and implementing as the discussion went along;
> also thanks to Nick fo
This looks great, much better than the version I reviewed half a year
ago! Thanks you and others (especially Yuri) for all your efforts in
guiding the discussion and implementing as the discussion went along;
also thanks to Nick for participating to intensely.
Quick review notes:
(1) I don't like
I'll review it right now.
On Fri, Jun 22, 2012 at 11:31 AM, Larry Hastings wrote:
>
>
> Here's PEP 362:
>
> http://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0362/
>
> It adds easy introspection abilities to Python callables. After a whirlwind
> of activity over the past several weeks we think it's ready.
>
>
Here's PEP 362:
http://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0362/
It adds easy introspection abilities to Python callables. After a
whirlwind of activity over the past several weeks we think it's ready.
All it needs now is an official pronouncement from some seasoned veteran
of the Python commu
22 matches
Mail list logo
