2009/3/3 Jeffrey Yasskin :
> Unfortunately, I think overloading functions on Number or Iterable
> would be really useful, and constraining it to only look at base
> classes would be unfortunate.
That could well be the case. So the question is, I guess, how would
you write such a function now? Beca
On Mon, Mar 2, 2009 at 1:14 PM, Paul Moore wrote:
> 2009/3/2 Jeffrey Yasskin :
>> I tend to think it's a bug in ABCs. You seem to have thought of
>> several possible ways to fix it, and I don't have strong preferences
>> between them.
>
> I've discussed ways of fixing simplegeneric, but not of fix
Nick Coghlan wrote:
Terry Reedy wrote:
OK, that suggests that the new feature should only be committed, if
ever, to 2.7 after 3.1, when it can also be committed to 3.2 at the same
time.
Not really - there's already stuff in 3.0 that wasn't backported the
first time around.
Irrelevant. It
Terry Reedy wrote:
> Nick Coghlan wrote:
>> Terry Reedy wrote:
> As for the actual feature, I don't think it should hold up releases.
Fair enough.
>>> Given that the purpose of 2.7 is
>>> a) maintenance of existing code (which can include minor new features
>>> for existing facilities), an
Nick Coghlan wrote:
Terry Reedy wrote:
As for the actual feature, I don't think it should hold up releases.
Fair enough.
Given that the purpose of 2.7 is
a) maintenance of existing code (which can include minor new features
for existing facilities), and
b) easing conversion of code to 3.1
I am
At 09:14 PM 3/2/2009 +, Paul Moore wrote:
2009/3/2 Jeffrey Yasskin :
> I tend to think it's a bug in ABCs. You seem to have thought of
> several possible ways to fix it, and I don't have strong preferences
> between them.
I've discussed ways of fixing simplegeneric, but not of fixing the
iss
2009/3/2 Jeffrey Yasskin :
> I tend to think it's a bug in ABCs. You seem to have thought of
> several possible ways to fix it, and I don't have strong preferences
> between them.
I've discussed ways of fixing simplegeneric, but not of fixing the
issue with ABCs. I'm not sure the ABC "issue" is fi
Terry Reedy wrote:
>>> As for the actual feature, I don't think it should hold up releases.
>>
>> Fair enough.
>
> Given that the purpose of 2.7 is
> a) maintenance of existing code (which can include minor new features
> for existing facilities), and
> b) easing conversion of code to 3.1
> I am p
On Mon, Mar 2, 2009 at 2:41 AM, Paul Moore wrote:
> ...
> More generally, there is NO WAY to determine the list of classes for
> which issubclass(C, x) is true.
>
> This could be considered a limitation of, or a bug in, ABCs, I don't
> have a particular opinion on that, but it does mean that no co
2009/3/2 P.J. Eby :
> By the way guys, are you aware of:
>
> http://pypi.python.org/pypi/simplegeneric
Yes. It has been mentioned, and I am certainly aware of both it and
RuleDispatch.
> There might be a bit of name confusion by exposing pkgutils' internal
> simplegeneric there. Perhaps it shou
Paul Moore wrote:
2009/3/2 Benjamin Peterson :
2009/3/1 Paul Moore :
Is it worth getting simplegeneric exposed in 3.1
(http://bugs.python.org/issue5135)? If it's going to be in 2.7, I'd
like to see it hit 3.1. The patch is against trunk (for 2.7) at the
moment, I'm not sure what the process wou
At 10:41 AM 3/2/2009 +, Paul Moore wrote:
2009/3/2 Benjamin Peterson :
> 2009/3/1 Paul Moore :
>>
>> Is it worth getting simplegeneric exposed in 3.1
>> (http://bugs.python.org/issue5135)? If it's going to be in 2.7, I'd
>> like to see it hit 3.1. The patch is against trunk (for 2.7) at the
>
2009/3/2 Benjamin Peterson :
> 2009/3/1 Paul Moore :
>>
>> Is it worth getting simplegeneric exposed in 3.1
>> (http://bugs.python.org/issue5135)? If it's going to be in 2.7, I'd
>> like to see it hit 3.1. The patch is against trunk (for 2.7) at the
>> moment, I'm not sure what the process would be
13 matches
Mail list logo
