On Tue, Oct 3, 2017 at 1:11 AM, Koos Zevenhoven wrote:
> On Oct 3, 2017 01:00, "Guido van Rossum" wrote:
>
> Mon, Oct 2, 2017 at 2:52 PM, Koos Zevenhoven wrote
>
> I don't mind this (or Nathaniel ;-) being academic. The backwards
>> incompatibility issue I've just described applies to any exte
On Wed, Oct 4, 2017 at 4:04 PM, Nick Coghlan wrote:
> On 4 October 2017 at 22:45, Koos Zevenhoven wrote:
> > On Wed, Oct 4, 2017 at 3:33 PM, Nick Coghlan wrote:
> >> That's not a backwards compatibility problem, because the only way to
> >> encounter it is to update your code to rely on the new
On 4 October 2017 at 22:45, Koos Zevenhoven wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 4, 2017 at 3:33 PM, Nick Coghlan wrote:
>> That's not a backwards compatibility problem, because the only way to
>> encounter it is to update your code to rely on the new extended
>> protocol - your *existing* code will continue to
On Wed, Oct 4, 2017 at 3:33 PM, Nick Coghlan wrote:
> On 4 October 2017 at 20:22, Koos Zevenhoven wrote:
> > On Wed, Oct 4, 2017 at 8:07 AM, Nick Coghlan wrote:
> >>
> >> On 3 October 2017 at 03:13, Koos Zevenhoven wrote:
> >> > Well, it's not completely unrelated to that. The problem I'm talk
On 4 October 2017 at 20:22, Koos Zevenhoven wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 4, 2017 at 8:07 AM, Nick Coghlan wrote:
>>
>> On 3 October 2017 at 03:13, Koos Zevenhoven wrote:
>> > Well, it's not completely unrelated to that. The problem I'm talking
>> > about
>> > is perhaps most easily seen from a simple co
On Wed, Oct 4, 2017 at 8:07 AM, Nick Coghlan wrote:
> On 3 October 2017 at 03:13, Koos Zevenhoven wrote:
> > Well, it's not completely unrelated to that. The problem I'm talking
> about
> > is perhaps most easily seen from a simple context manager wrapper that
> uses
> > composition instead of i
On 3 October 2017 at 03:13, Koos Zevenhoven wrote:
> Well, it's not completely unrelated to that. The problem I'm talking about
> is perhaps most easily seen from a simple context manager wrapper that uses
> composition instead of inheritance:
>
> class Wrapper:
> def __init__(self):
>
On Oct 3, 2017 01:11, "Koos Zevenhoven" wrote:
On Oct 3, 2017 01:00, "Guido van Rossum" wrote:
Mon, Oct 2, 2017 at 2:52 PM, Koos Zevenhoven wrote
I don't mind this (or Nathaniel ;-) being academic. The backwards
> incompatibility issue I've just described applies to any extension via
> compo
On Oct 3, 2017 01:00, "Guido van Rossum" wrote:
Mon, Oct 2, 2017 at 2:52 PM, Koos Zevenhoven wrote
I don't mind this (or Nathaniel ;-) being academic. The backwards
> incompatibility issue I've just described applies to any extension via
> composition, if the underlying type/protocol grows new
Mon, Oct 2, 2017 at 2:52 PM, Koos Zevenhoven wrote
> I don't mind this (or Nathaniel ;-) being academic. The backwards
> incompatibility issue I've just described applies to any extension via
> composition, if the underlying type/protocol grows new members (like the CM
> protocol would have gain
On Oct 3, 2017 00:02, "Guido van Rossum" wrote:
On Mon, Oct 2, 2017 at 10:13 AM, Koos Zevenhoven wrote:
> Hi all, It was suggested that I start a new thread, because the other
> thread drifted away from its original topic. So here, in case someone is
> interested:
>
> On Oct 2, 2017 17:03, "Koo
On Mon, Oct 2, 2017 at 10:13 AM, Koos Zevenhoven wrote:
> Hi all, It was suggested that I start a new thread, because the other
> thread drifted away from its original topic. So here, in case someone is
> interested:
>
> On Oct 2, 2017 17:03, "Koos Zevenhoven wrote:
>
> On Mon, Oct 2, 2017 at 6:
12 matches
Mail list logo
