Samuele Pedroni wrote:
> Ian Bicking wrote:
>
>>I just don't want people to feel discouraged when they try to contribute
>>to the Python community and a PEP 13 could help direct people towards
>>areas where their contributions are more likely to be useful.
>
>
> but people have a lot of optio
On 1/8/06, Tim Peters <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [Martin]
> >> But now: who is going to write it? "Guido should write it" clearly won't
> >> work. And no, I'm explicitly not volunteering either.
>
> [Thomas]
> > Well, the PEP will be mostly boilerplate anyway (unless there's a sudden
> > influx o
[Martin]
>> But now: who is going to write it? "Guido should write it" clearly won't
>> work. And no, I'm explicitly not volunteering either.
[Thomas]
> Well, the PEP will be mostly boilerplate anyway (unless there's a sudden
> influx of old ideas) so I'm sure I can whip something up before next
>
On Mon, Jan 09, 2006 at 12:31:46AM +0100, "Martin v. Löwis" wrote:
> Ian Bicking wrote:
> > I just don't want people to feel discouraged when they try to contribute
> > to the Python community and a PEP 13 could help direct people towards
> > areas where their contributions are more likely to be
Ian Bicking wrote:
> I just don't want people to feel discouraged when they try to contribute
> to the Python community and a PEP 13 could help direct people towards
> areas where their contributions are more likely to be useful.
but people have a lot of options, probably more effective, rangin
Ian Bicking wrote:
> I just don't want people to feel discouraged when they try to contribute
> to the Python community and a PEP 13 could help direct people towards
> areas where their contributions are more likely to be useful. Also I
> think it is unfair to use python-list to clarify things
Thomas Wouters wrote:
>>[T]he editorialization that Python isn't going to be a functional language
>>is both rather inaccurate, misses the real reason for statements, and
>>needlessly alienates people who like functional programming
>
>
>>So... maybe Guido or python-dev should write/vet the justi
On Sun, Jan 08, 2006 at 02:43:17PM -0600, Ian Bicking wrote:
> [T]he editorialization that Python isn't going to be a functional language
> is both rather inaccurate, misses the real reason for statements, and
> needlessly alienates people who like functional programming
> So... maybe Guido or py
Ian Bicking wrote:
> Tim Peters wrote:
>
>>[Thomas Wouters]
>>
>>
>>>My point isn't that it isn't archived somewhere (mailinglists, wiki, FAQ,
>>>the minds of many, many people, not just Python developers) but that it
>>>isn't easily findable and it isn't easily accessible in a single location. I
Tim Peters wrote:
> [Thomas Wouters]
>
>>My point isn't that it isn't archived somewhere (mailinglists, wiki, FAQ,
>>the minds of many, many people, not just Python developers) but that it
>>isn't easily findable and it isn't easily accessible in a single location. I
>>thought PEP's where supposed
On Sun, Jan 08, 2006 at 06:31:35PM +0100, "Martin v. Löwis" wrote:
> Thomas Wouters wrote:
> > My point isn't that it isn't archived somewhere (mailinglists, wiki, FAQ,
> > the minds of many, many people, not just Python developers) but that it
> > isn't easily findable and it isn't easily accessib
Martin v. Löwis wrote:
> But they might suffer from misunderstandings, such as your
> misunderstanding in how local variables work and whether
> 'self' is looked up in a dictionary.
>
> So it's being dumb - just being uninformed.
Sorry: "*not* being dumb" is what I wanted to say.
Regards,
Martin
Thomas Wouters wrote:
> My point isn't that it isn't archived somewhere (mailinglists, wiki, FAQ,
> the minds of many, many people, not just Python developers) but that it
> isn't easily findable and it isn't easily accessible in a single location.
Why would a single Wiki page not be accessible in
Ralf W. Grosse-Kunstleve wrote:
> The outside world is trying to tell you something; and they are not all dumb
> as
> you suggest in your other posting.
But they might suffer from misunderstandings, such as your
misunderstanding in how local variables work and whether
'self' is looked up in a dic
[Thomas Wouters]
> My point isn't that it isn't archived somewhere (mailinglists, wiki, FAQ,
> the minds of many, many people, not just Python developers) but that it
> isn't easily findable and it isn't easily accessible in a single location. I
> thought PEP's where supposed to be that, and if I h
On Sun, Jan 08, 2006 at 01:35:16PM +0100, "Martin v. Löwis" wrote:
> Thomas Wouters wrote:
> > Yet if it isn't recorded, people will keep bringing it up. How about a
> > 'rejected ideas' PEP for ideas that are right out no matter how people
> > argue?
> Recorded it is, in the mailing list archive.
At 08:09 AM 1/8/2006 -0800, Ralf W. Grosse-Kunstleve wrote:
>--- Thomas Wouters <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > The main difference isn't the lookup of 'self', it's the attribute
> retrieval
> > of 'x' from 'self'.
>
>I see. Thanks!
>If you put 'self' into a special category (with corresponding C
On Sun, Jan 08, 2006 at 08:09:22AM -0800, Ralf W. Grosse-Kunstleve wrote:
> --- Thomas Wouters <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > The main difference isn't the lookup of 'self', it's the attribute retrieval
> > of 'x' from 'self'.
> I see. Thanks!
> If you put 'self' into a special category (with corr
--- Fredrik Lundh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Please try the code below to see the performance impact.
>
> oh, please. do you seriously think that if you don't have to type "self"
> yourself, Python will suddenly be able to turn all instance variables into
> local function variables without an
--- Thomas Wouters <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The main difference isn't the lookup of 'self', it's the attribute retrieval
> of 'x' from 'self'.
I see. Thanks!
If you put 'self' into a special category (with corresponding C code), couldn't
you use the same "indexing" tricks as for local variabl
Ralf W. Grosse-Kunstleve wrote:
> --- Fredrik Lundh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>>Please try the code below to see the performance impact.
>>
>>oh, please. do you seriously think that if you don't have to type "self"
>>yourself, Python will suddenly be able to turn all instance variables into
>
On Sun, Jan 08, 2006 at 07:35:53AM -0800, Ralf W. Grosse-Kunstleve wrote:
> IIUC, "self" is first looked up in the local dictionary.
No. Local variables are stored in a tuple (more or less,) and indexed by,
er, index. Loading a local variable onto the stack is a fairly fast
operation.
> Please t
--- Guido van Rossum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 1/6/06, Armin Rigo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Fri, Jan 06, 2006 at 12:56:01AM +0300, Alexander Kozlovsky wrote:
> > > There are three different peculiarity in Python 2.x
> > > in respect of 'self' method argument:
> >
> > Yuk! This has b
Ralf W. Grosse-Kunstleve wrote:
> > what dictionary lookup ?
>
> IIUC, "self" is first looked up in the local dictionary.
no, self is a local variable. self.x means that "x" is looked up in the in-
stance dictionary, though.
> Please try the code below to see the performance impact.
oh, please
--- Fredrik Lundh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Ralf W. Grosse-Kunstleve wrote:
>
> > ***Please*** make Python more selfish. Note that this is also an obvious
> avenue
> > for significant performance increases. If self is implicit you don't have
> to do
> > the dictionary lookup for "self" all the
Ralf W. Grosse-Kunstleve wrote:
> ***Please*** make Python more selfish. Note that this is also an obvious
> avenue
> for significant performance increases. If self is implicit you don't have to
> do
> the dictionary lookup for "self" all the time as is the case now.
what dictionary lookup ?
Thomas Wouters wrote:
> > Only in the most severe cases does it make sense to create a PEP
> > specifically to be rejected.
>
> Yet if it isn't recorded, people will keep bringing it up. How about a
> 'rejected ideas' PEP for ideas that are right out no matter how people
> argue? A single PEP, wit
--- Alexander Kozlovsky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> What do you think about this?
I (who writes Python code for a living) love it! See also:
http://cci.lbl.gov/~rwgk/python/adopt_init_args_2005_07_02.html
***Please*** make Python more selfish. Note that this is also an obvious avenue
for signifi
Thomas Wouters wrote:
> Yet if it isn't recorded, people will keep bringing it up. How about a
> 'rejected ideas' PEP for ideas that are right out no matter how people
> argue?
Recorded it is, in the mailing list archive.
However, a central place might be better, preferably with referrals to
pron
On Sat, Jan 07, 2006 at 05:12:06PM -0800, Guido van Rossum wrote:
> On 1/6/06, Kay Schluehr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Then simply reject the PEP and the discussion can be stopped on
> > comp.lang.python too.
> Only in the most severe cases does it make sense to create a PEP
> specifically to
Ian Bicking wrote:
> would have to be translated to this this:
>
>inst = Foo()
>f = Foo.bar
>meth = bind(f, inst)
>print meth(1, 2)
+1 for an explicit "bind unbound method operation", although I
would spell it as
inst = Foo()
f = Foo.bar
meth = f.bind(inst)
print
Guido van Rossum wrote:
> On 1/6/06, Kay Schluehr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>Then simply reject the PEP and the discussion can be stopped on
>>comp.lang.python too.
>
>
> Only in the most severe cases does it make sense to create a PEP
> specifically to be rejected.
>>Or why do you think it
On 1/6/06, Kay Schluehr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Then simply reject the PEP and the discussion can be stopped on
> comp.lang.python too.
Only in the most severe cases does it make sense to create a PEP
specifically to be rejected.
> Or why do you think it should be discussed there
> again and
Guido van Rossum wrote:
>>Yuk! This has been discussed again and again already. *Please* move
>>this discussion to comp.lang.python.
>
>
> Yes please. This won't change.
Then simply reject the PEP and the discussion can be stopped on
comp.lang.python too. Or why do you think it should be dis
On 1/6/06, Armin Rigo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 06, 2006 at 12:56:01AM +0300, Alexander Kozlovsky wrote:
> > There are three different peculiarity in Python 2.x
> > in respect of 'self' method argument:
>
> Yuk! This has been discussed again and again already. *Please* move
> this
Hello!
Ian Bicking wrote:
> (As an aside directed at the original PEP, I think discussion of leaving
> self out of expressions, e.g., ".x" for "self.x", should be separate
> from the rest of this PEP).
Yes, I'm fully agree.
Nick Coghlan wrote:
> The main concern I have is with the answer to th
Hi Alexander,
On Fri, Jan 06, 2006 at 12:56:01AM +0300, Alexander Kozlovsky wrote:
> There are three different peculiarity in Python 2.x
> in respect of 'self' method argument:
Yuk! This has been discussed again and again already. *Please* move
this discussion to comp.lang.python.
A bientot,
Nick Coghlan wrote:
>Eliminate the need for explicit class and self
>slots in class and instance methods by
>implicitly providing those slots on all functions.
> How many positional arguments does the function
> have if I retrieve it from the class, rather than from
> an instance?
To
Nick Coghlan wrote:
[...]
> Under the proposal being discussed, things become far less clear:
>
> class Foo:
> def __init__(x): # 1: Implicit self
> .x = x # 2: Brief form of: self.x = x
> def bar(a, b): # 3: Two arguments...
>
> Example 1 (Python 2.x):
> ---
>
> class Foo:
> def __init__(self, x): # 1: Explicit 'self' argument
> self.x = x # 2: 'self' must be used explicitly
> def bar(self, a, b): # 3: There are three arguments...
> p
Just one short comment of your ( well written ) rationale and PEP. Ruby
might be hyped at the moment but at least in the german labour market
and the biggest german freelancer mediation Ruby is quite inexistent.
Even when the nerdish blogosphere is setting different priorities SAP
and Intel mad
Alexander Kozlovsky wrote:
> Hello!
>
> I have some proposal for Python 3.0 (interesting one, from my point
> of view). I'm sorry for my English, it is not very good.
Your English seems fine. About the only thing I noticed is that you have the
meaning of 'function arguments' vs 'function paramet
I wrote:
> 5. Each function have two constant attributes, __class__ and __self__,
>both of them have value 'None'
Of course, this attributes have names 'im_class' and 'im_self',
as before, but can be used with any function.
I have not sleep enough last night :)
Best regards,
Alexander
Hello!
I have some proposal for Python 3.0 (interesting one, from my point
of view). I'm sorry for my English, it is not very good.
Abstract
There are three different peculiarity in Python 2.x
in respect of 'self' method argument:
1. Each method must have explicit 'self' argument in i
44 matches
Mail list logo
