On Jun 28, 2016 2:56 PM, "Guido van Rossum" wrote:
>
> Awesome. That addresses my last concerns. PEP 520 is now accepted.
> Congratulations!
Yay! Thank you and to all those that gave such good feedback.
-eric (phone)
___
Python-Dev mailing list
Python
On 06/28/2016 01:55 PM, Guido van Rossum wrote:
Awesome. That addresses my last concerns. PEP 520 is now accepted.
Congratulations!
And more Congratulations!!
--
~Ethan~
___
Python-Dev mailing list
Python-Dev@python.org
https://mail.python.org/mail
Awesome. That addresses my last concerns. PEP 520 is now accepted.
Congratulations!
On Tue, Jun 28, 2016 at 1:43 PM, Eric Snow wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 28, 2016 at 11:43 AM, Guido van Rossum wrote:
>> On Tue, Jun 28, 2016 at 10:30 AM, Eric Snow
>> wrote:
>>> I suppose I'm having a hard time lettin
On Tue, Jun 28, 2016 at 11:43 AM, Guido van Rossum wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 28, 2016 at 10:30 AM, Eric Snow
> wrote:
>> I suppose I'm having a hard time letting go of the attractiveness of
>> "read-only == complete". However, given that you've been pretty clear
>> what you think, I'm more at ease a
On Tue, Jun 28, 2016 at 10:30 AM, Eric Snow wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 26, 2016 at 5:55 PM, Guido van Rossum wrote:
>>> On Fri, Jun 24, 2016 at 4:37 PM, Nick Coghlan wrote:
>>> > This version looks fine to me.
>>
>> Same to me, mostly.
>
> I've updated the PEP per everyone's comments [1], except I sti
On Sun, Jun 26, 2016 at 5:55 PM, Guido van Rossum wrote:
>> On Fri, Jun 24, 2016 at 4:37 PM, Nick Coghlan wrote:
>> > This version looks fine to me.
>
> Same to me, mostly.
I've updated the PEP per everyone's comments [1], except I still
haven't dropped the read-only __definition_order__ constra
Hi,
On 24 June 2016 at 23:52, Eric Snow wrote:
> Pending feedback, the impact on Python implementations is expected to
> be minimal. If a Python implementation cannot support switching to
> `OrderedDict``-by-default then it can always set ``__definition_order__``
> to ``None``.
That's wishful t
On Fri, Jun 24, 2016 at 3:46 PM, Eric Snow
wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 24, 2016 at 4:37 PM, Nick Coghlan wrote:
> > This version looks fine to me.
>
> \o/
>
Same to me, mostly.
> > The definition order question has been dropped from PEP 487, so this
> > cross-reference doesn't really make sense any
This version looks fine to me.
On 24 June 2016 at 14:52, Eric Snow wrote:
> Background
> ==
>
> When a class is defined using a ``class`` statement, the class body
> is executed within a namespace. Currently that namespace defaults to
> ``dict``. If the metaclass defines ``__prepare__()
On Fri, Jun 24, 2016 at 5:56 PM, Random832 wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 24, 2016, at 17:52, Eric Snow wrote:
>> - 2 open questions (__slots__? drop read-only requirement?)
>
> It's worth noting that __slots__ itself doesn't have a read-only
> requirement. It can be a tuple, any iterable of strings, or a
On Fri, Jun 24, 2016, at 17:52, Eric Snow wrote:
> - 2 open questions (__slots__? drop read-only requirement?)
It's worth noting that __slots__ itself doesn't have a read-only
requirement. It can be a tuple, any iterable of strings, or a single
string (which means the object has a single slot).
On Fri, Jun 24, 2016 at 4:37 PM, Nick Coghlan wrote:
> This version looks fine to me.
\o/
> The definition order question has been dropped from PEP 487, so this
> cross-reference doesn't really make sense any more :)
Ah, so much for my appeal to authority.
> I'd characterise this section at t
- a clearer motivation section
- include "dunder" names
- 2 open questions (__slots__? drop read-only requirement?)
-eric
---
PEP: 520
Title: Preserving Class Attribute Definition Order
Version: $Revision$
Last-Modified: $Date$
Author: Eric Snow
Status: Draft
Ty
13 matches
Mail list logo