[Skip]
> I then proposed the
> even wackier idea to simply allow all currently unsupported iterables
> (sets
> and arrays seem the most obvious candidates to me) to be marshalled as
> lists
Doesn't the appropriate conversion depend on the contract between the
sender and receiver (i.e. an array of
In c.l.py Paul Rubin wrote:
Paul> In the old days, it was possible to post stuff to Python's
Paul> sourceforge pages without logging in. That was turned off for
Paul> various reasons that weren't bogus, but that didn't strike me as
Paul> overwhelmingly compelling. Maybe that cou
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> In c.l.py Paul Rubin wrote:
>
> Paul> In the old days, it was possible to post stuff to Python's
> Paul> sourceforge pages without logging in. That was turned off for
> Paul> various reasons that weren't bogus, but that didn't strike me as
> Paul> overwh
Hi Neil,
Hi Tim,
Hi Simon,
your responsive and valuable answers cleared up most of the open
questions and gave a very positive impression to my project leader about
the python community and python itself.
Thank you very much!
I'm trying to get more into the GC implementation before asking more
>> I then proposed the even wackier idea to simply allow all currently
>> unsupported iterables (sets and arrays seem the most obvious
>> candidates to me) to be marshalled as lists
Raymond> Doesn't the appropriate conversion depend on the contract
Raymond> between the sender
>> Any thoughts about maybe relaxing the login restriction?
Nick> If the submitter is anonymous, not only can we not follow up with
Nick> any questions, neither does the submitter get notified of status
Nick> changes on their tracker.
You're preaching to the choir. I'm made the
On 12/7/05, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >> I then proposed the even wackier idea to simply allow all currently
> >> unsupported iterables (sets and arrays seem the most obvious
> >> candidates to me) to be marshalled as lists
>
> Raymond> Doesn't the appropriate
On 12/7/05, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> You're preaching to the choir. I'm made the same argument over and over on
> c.l.py, but there is a vocal minority there that believes the current state
> of affairs is a barrier that prevents submissions.
I definitely don't want anonymou
Guido> Anyway, now that we've moved to our own Subversion, the trackers
Guido> are the lsat part of the Python infrastructure that remains on
Guido> SF. There's a perfectly capable replacement ready to wait on
Guido> python.org. Maybe we should finally switch to roundup so we can
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> In c.l.py Paul Rubin wrote:
>
> Paul> In the old days, it was possible to post stuff to Python's
> Paul> sourceforge pages without logging in. That was turned off for
> Paul> various reasons that weren't bogus, but that didn't strike me as
> Paul> overw
Hi,
I've noticed some behaviour of hasattr when used on properties which I'm
inclined to call a bug, or at least unexpected behaviour:
Python 2.4.2 (#1, Oct 29 2005, 13:11:33)
[GCC 3.3.6 (Gentoo 3.3.6, ssp-3.3.6-1.0, pie-8.7.8)] on linux2
[...]
>>> class Foo(object):
... def get(self):
...
[Nick]
>> Can we put a warning on the anonymous submission page pointing out
>> the problems with using it for non-trivial bug reports?
[Skip]
> I don't think we have any control over the boilerplate SF displays.
There must be some control. There's a "Outlook users please see the
list of frequ
"Martin v. Löwis" wrote:
> Nick Coghlan wrote:
>> As Fredrik pointed out a while back, the PyObject approach doesn't
>> *have* to involve manual decref operations - PyObject's come with a
>> ready made arena structure, in the form of PyList.
>
> That doesn't really work: PyList_Append (which you
"Delaney, Timothy (Tim)" wrote:
> > Nick Coghlan wrote:
> >> As Fredrik pointed out a while back, the PyObject approach doesn't
> >> *have* to involve manual decref operations - PyObject's come with a
> >> ready made arena structure, in the form of PyList.
> >
> > That doesn't really work: PyList_
On 12/7/05, Delaney, Timothy (Tim) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "Martin v. Löwis" wrote:
>
> > Nick Coghlan wrote:
> >> As Fredrik pointed out a while back, the PyObject approach doesn't
> >> *have* to involve manual decref operations - PyObject's come with a
> >> ready made arena structure, in the
Thomas Lotze wrote:
> Apparently, when applied to a class instance, hasattr calls getattr and
> decides that the attribute doesn't exist if the call raises any exception.
> - Wouldn't it make sense to only report a missing attribute if an
> AttributeError is raised?
That would be an improvement
On 12/7/05, Greg Ewing <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Maybe descriptors need a fourth slot for hasattr
> customisation?
>
> The logic would then be
>
>if there is a descriptor for the attribute:
> if the descriptor's hasattr slot is populated:
>return the result of calling it
>
On Tue, 2005-12-06 at 19:58 -0500, Raymond Hettinger wrote:
> Any real-world use cases or compelling contrived examples?
>
> ISTM, that the code calling it.stop() would already be in position to
> break-out of the iteration directly or set a termination flag. Instead
> of:
>
> it = itertools
Nick Coghlan wrote:
> If the submitter is anonymous, not only can we not follow up with any
> questions, neither does the submitter get notified of status changes on their
> tracker.
Would not simply requesting an email address along with
the report provide enough information for questioning an
[Matthew F. Barnes]
> The ability to remotely terminate a for-loop also struck me as
somewhat
> interesting:
>
> def estimate(item, iterable):
> . . .
> if good_enough:
> iterable.stop()
> return result
>
> for x in iterable:
> . . .
>
On 12/7/05, Greg Ewing <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Thomas Lotze wrote:
>
> > Apparently, when applied to a class instance, hasattr calls getattr and
> > decides that the attribute doesn't exist if the call raises any exception.
> > - Wouldn't it make sense to only report a missing attribute if an
21 matches
Mail list logo
