On Jul 17, 2006, at 11:25 AM, Armin Rigo wrote:
> Hi Bob,
>
> On Thu, Jul 13, 2006 at 12:58:08AM -0700, Bob Ippolito wrote:
>>> @main
>>> def whatever():
>>> ...
>>
>> It would probably need to be called something else, because main is
>> often the name of the main function...
>
> Ah, but the
Hi Bob,
On Thu, Jul 13, 2006 at 12:58:08AM -0700, Bob Ippolito wrote:
> > @main
> > def whatever():
> > ...
>
> It would probably need to be called something else, because main is
> often the name of the main function...
Ah, but there is theoretically no name clash here :-)
@main
Hi Jeroen,
On Thu, Jul 13, 2006 at 02:02:22PM +0200, Jeroen Ruigrok van der Werven wrote:
> He doesn't specifically need the builtin types to be extendable. It's
> just nice to be able to define a single class in multiple modules.
There are various simple ways to do this; the one I'm using from t
On 7/13/06, Jeroen Ruigrok van der Werven <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > If it's pure python, why don't people just copy everything under
> > site-packages after installing? They could/should run compileall
> > after that to recompile the .pyc files. With 2.5 on 64-bit machines,
> > C extension
> "Greg" == Greg Ewing <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Greg> Jeroen Ruigrok van der Werven wrote:
>> It's just nice to be able to define a single class
>> in multiple modules.
Greg> It *seems* nice until you want to track down which
Greg> source file the definition of some method comes
Greg> from.
Jeroen Ruigrok van der Werven wrote:
> It's just nice to be able to define a single class
> in multiple modules.
It *seems* nice until you want to track down which
source file the definition of some method comes
from.
Those used to the "one huge global namespace" of
C and C++ likely don't see thi
Fredrik Lundh wrote:
> (and while we're at it, wouldn't a standard multiargument dispatch be
> nice replacement for the instance-oriented lookup we're using today?
> dispatching on a single value is so last century ;-)
That's highly debatable, and as I'm sure you
remember, has been highly debated
On Jul 13, 2006, at 5:02 AM, Jeroen Ruigrok van der Werven wrote:
> Hi Bob,
>
> On 7/13/06, Bob Ippolito <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Adding open classes would make it easier to develop DSLs, but you'd
>> only be able to reasonably do one per interpreter (unless you mangled
>> the class in a "wi
Somebody whose name doesn't matter (it's not about him) wrote:
> When some of us first saw what PEP 3000 suggested we were thinking:
> shit, there goes Python. [...]
And later in the same message the same person wrote:
> Things that struck me as peculiar is the old:
>
> if __name__ == "__main__":
Fredrik Lundh wrote:
> Nick Coghlan wrote:
>
>>> The person whose 'complaints' I was stating says that DSLs (Domain
>>> Specific Languages for those who, like me, were confused about the
>>> acronym) are a big part of what he is after and one per interpreter is
>>> fine by him. He also realises th
Nick Coghlan wrote:
>> The person whose 'complaints' I was stating says that DSLs (Domain
>> Specific Languages for those who, like me, were confused about the
>> acronym) are a big part of what he is after and one per interpreter is
>> fine by him. He also realises that the application(s) he need
Jeroen Ruigrok van der Werven wrote:
> Hi Bob,
>
> On 7/13/06, Bob Ippolito <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Adding open classes would make it easier to develop DSLs, but you'd
>> only be able to reasonably do one per interpreter (unless you mangled
>> the class in a "with" block or something).
>
>
Hi Bob,
On 7/13/06, Bob Ippolito <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Adding open classes would make it easier to develop DSLs, but you'd
> only be able to reasonably do one per interpreter (unless you mangled
> the class in a "with" block or something).
The person whose 'complaints' I was stating says t
>> He clearly wasn't fully master of the environment in which his
>> customers ran his software, so I think it's understandable that he
>> was caught by surprise by this change.
Fredrik> a programmer that's surprised that code that relies on
Fredrik> undocumented behaviour mig
Bob Ippolito wrote:
>> What do you mean by "open classes"? Python
>> classes already seem pretty open to me, by
>> the standards of other languages!
>
> I'm guessing he's talking about being like Ruby or Objective-C where
> you can add methods to any other class in the runtime.
wouldn't a standar
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> He clearly wasn't fully master of the environment in which his
> customers ran his software, so I think it's understandable that he was
> caught by surprise by this change.
a programmer that's surprised that code that relies on undocumented behaviour
might behave differ
On Jul 13, 2006, at 2:02 AM, Greg Ewing wrote:
> Jeroen Ruigrok van der Werven wrote:
>
>> - Open classes would be nice.
>
> What do you mean by "open classes"? Python
> classes already seem pretty open to me, by
> the standards of other languages!
I'm guessing he's talking about being like Ruby
Neal> I agree, but some of this responsibility has to fall to users.
Neal> Sometimes these breakages are bugs, pure and simple. Our tests
Neal> don't catch everything. This is why it's really, really important
Neal> to get as many alpha/beta testers as possible. Had the issues
Armin> On Tue, Jul 11, 2006 at 06:05:21PM -0700, Brett Cannon wrote:
>> It is the last point in the first paragraph on time.strftime()
>> discussing what changed in Python 2.4 as to what the change was.
>> It's also in Misc/NEWS . Basically the guy didn't read the release
>> n
Jeroen Ruigrok van der Werven wrote:
> - Open classes would be nice.
What do you mean by "open classes"? Python
classes already seem pretty open to me, by
the standards of other languages!
--
Greg
___
Python-Dev mailing list
Python-Dev@python.org
http
Aaron Bingham wrote:
>Ka-Ping Yee wrote:
>
>
>
>>Why not simply:
>>
>> def __main__():
>> ...
>>
>>or even pass in the command-line arguments:
>>
>> def __main__(*args):
>> ...
>>
>>Having to 'import sys' to get at the command-line arguments always
>>seemed awkward to me. 'impor
Wolfgang Langner wrote:
> @main
> def whatever():
> ...
This seems like replacing one unpythonic feature
with another. (I *still* can't get used to that
@ syntax -- it looks like an intruder from
Rubyland...)
--
Greg
___
Python-Dev mailing list
Pyt
Ka-Ping Yee wrote:
>On Thu, 13 Jul 2006, Wolfgang Langner wrote:
>
>
>>On 7/13/06, Jeroen Ruigrok van der Werven <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Things that struck me as peculiar is the old:
>>>
>>>if __name__ == "__main__":
>>>whatever()
>>>
>>>This is so out of tune with the rest o
On Jul 13, 2006, at 12:37 AM, Wolfgang Langner wrote:
> On 7/13/06, Jeroen Ruigrok van der Werven <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Things that struck me as peculiar is the old:
>>
>> if __name__ == "__main__":
>> whatever()
>>
>> This is so out of tune with the rest of python it becomes a nuisan
On 7/13/06, Neal Norwitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 7/12/06, Jeroen Ruigrok van der Werven <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Thank you very much for your feedback. It helps.
With apologies in advance if my own level of understanding is, of
course, lacking of advanced constructs.
> If it's pure p
On Thu, 13 Jul 2006, Wolfgang Langner wrote:
> On 7/13/06, Jeroen Ruigrok van der Werven <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Things that struck me as peculiar is the old:
> >
> > if __name__ == "__main__":
> > whatever()
> >
> > This is so out of tune with the rest of python it becomes a nuisance.
>
On 7/13/06, Jeroen Ruigrok van der Werven <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Things that struck me as peculiar is the old:
>
> if __name__ == "__main__":
> whatever()
>
> This is so out of tune with the rest of python it becomes a nuisance.
It is not beautiful but very useful.
In Python 3000 we can
On 7/12/06, Jeroen Ruigrok van der Werven <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 7/5/06, Neal Norwitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > For example, we heard grumblings about the releases coming too often.
> > Once we went to an 18 month release schedule, there was minimal
> > complaining. It should be fair
On 7/5/06, Neal Norwitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> For example, we heard grumblings about the releases coming too often.
> Once we went to an 18 month release schedule, there was minimal
> complaining. It should be fairly safe to assume this silence means
> people think we are doing a good job.
On 7/12/06, Anthony Baxter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Thursday 13 July 2006 14:46, Guido van Rossum wrote:> Thanks for confirming memory! So it was an intentional regression;> "bugs happen" doesn't apply in this case. And an unfortunate> regression at that -- not because one guy writes a silly
On Thursday 13 July 2006 14:46, Guido van Rossum wrote:
> Thanks for confirming memory! So it was an intentional regression;
> "bugs happen" doesn't apply in this case. And an unfortunate
> regression at that -- not because one guy writes a silly blog entry
> about it, but because it breaks real c
On 7/12/06, Brett Cannon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 7/12/06, Guido van Rossum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > On 7/12/06, Armin Rigo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > I guess I'm going to side with Greg Black on his blog entry.
> >
> > I seem to recall that that particular one wass *not* an ac
On 7/12/06, Guido van Rossum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 7/12/06, Armin Rigo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:> I guess I'm going to side with Greg Black on his blog entry.I seem to recall that that particular one wass *not* an accidental
bug. I believe I fell over exactly the problem that Greg Blackcom
On 7/12/06, Armin Rigo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I guess I'm going to side with Greg Black on his blog entry.
I seem to recall that that particular one wass *not* an accidental
bug. I believe I fell over exactly the problem that Greg Black
complained about (or almost the same; maybe my problem
On 7/12/06, Armin Rigo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hi Brett,On Tue, Jul 11, 2006 at 06:05:21PM -0700, Brett Cannon wrote:> It is the last point in the first paragraph on time.strftime() discussing> what changed in Python 2.4 as to what the change was. It's also in
> Misc/NEWS . Basically the guy d
On 7/12/06, Armin Rigo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Only two breakages is certainly nice, and I know that we all try quite
> hard to minimize that; that's probably still two breakages too much.
I agree, but some of this responsibility has to fall to users.
Sometimes these breakages are bugs, pur
Hi Brett,
On Tue, Jul 11, 2006 at 06:05:21PM -0700, Brett Cannon wrote:
> It is the last point in the first paragraph on time.strftime() discussing
> what changed in Python 2.4 as to what the change was. It's also in
> Misc/NEWS . Basically the guy didn't read the release notes or the docs to
>
>> Python 2.3:
>>
>> >>> import time
>> >>> time.strftime("%Y-%m-%d", (2005, 6, 4) + (0,)*6)
>> '2005-06-04'
Martin> Is there any specific reason you couldn't write
Martin> "%d-%02d-%02d" % (2005, 6, 4)
Martin> (i.e. not use strftime at all)?
Sure, but that was
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> The way I used to format dates using time.strftime does indeed no longer
> work.
>
> Python 2.3:
>
> >>> import time
> >>> time.strftime("%Y-%m-%d", (2005, 6, 4) + (0,)*6)
> '2005-06-04'
Is there any specific reason you couldn't write
"%d-%02d-%02d" % (200
Brett> That whole entry is a little overblown.
Well, sure. Think of it as a bug report with attitude. ;-)
Brett> That was done to fix buffer overflow issues when libc
Brett> implementations didn't do bound checks on the arguments to
Brett> strftime() and would index too far...
On 7/11/06, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Michael> Well here's one I stumbled across the other day. I don't knowMichael> if it's legit, but it's still bad PR:Michael>
http://www.gbch.net/gjb/blog/software/discuss/python-sucks.htmlMichael> For the impatient, he's not
Michael> Well here's one I stumbled across the other day. I don't know
Michael> if it's legit, but it's still bad PR:
Michael> http://www.gbch.net/gjb/blog/software/discuss/python-sucks.html
Michael> For the impatient, he's not at all bothered about the lack of
Michael> obscu
On 7/5/06, Neal Norwitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 7/4/06, Guido van Rossum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > From actual users of
> > the language I get more complaints about the breakneck speed of
> > Python's evolution than about the brokenness of the current language.
>
> Guido,
>
> I'm
"A.M. Kuchling" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Mon, Jul 10, 2006 at 05:13:53PM +0200, Armin Rigo wrote:
>> didn't draw much applause. It certainly gave me the impression that
>> many changes in Python are advocated and welcomed by only a small
>> fraction of users.
>
> The benefits of changes a
Not to mention the cost to documentation and books everywhere --
updating our own docs is only the tip of the iceberg. And then
updating the users' brains is an even bigger job... (Though at least
it is highly parallellizable. :-)
--Guido
On 7/10/06, A.M. Kuchling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On
On Mon, Jul 10, 2006 at 05:13:53PM +0200, Armin Rigo wrote:
> didn't draw much applause. It certainly gave me the impression that
> many changes in Python are advocated and welcomed by only a small
> fraction of users.
The benefits of changes are usually clear, but I don't think the costs
of chan
Hi,
On Tue, Jul 04, 2006 at 04:49:13PM -0700, Neal Norwitz wrote:
> On 7/4/06, Guido van Rossum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > From actual users of
> > the language I get more complaints about the breakneck speed of
> > Python's evolution than about the brokenness of the current language.
I'
On 7/4/06, Guido van Rossum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> From actual users of
> the language I get more complaints about the breakneck speed of
> Python's evolution than about the brokenness of the current language.
Guido,
I'm really interested in your perspective here. I assume you hear far
48 matches
Mail list logo
