On Wed, 15 Dec 2004 22:57:00 +0100, Martin v. Löwis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Paul Moore wrote:
> > For a starter, what steps do you actually take to build a release? I
> > assume that the first step is to build Python, by clicking on "build"
> > in VS.NET
On Thu, 6 Jan 2005 21:28:26 +1100, Anthony Baxter
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> My take on this:
>
> struct.pack/struct.unpack is already one of my least-favourite parts
> of the stdlib. Of the modules I use regularly, I pretty much only ever
> have to go back and re-read the struct (an
On Fri, 7 Jan 2005 19:40:18 -0800 (PST), Ilya Sandler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Eg. I just looked at xdrlib.py code and it seems that almost every
> invocation of struct._unpack would shrink from 3 lines to 1 line of code
>
> (i = self.__pos
> self.__pos = j = i+4
> data
On Wed, 12 Jan 2005 00:33:22 +0100, Alex Martelli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> But adaptation is not transmission! It's PERFECTLY acceptable for an
> adapter to facade: to show LESS information in the adapted object than
> was in the original. It's PERFECTLY acceptable for an adapter to say
> "th
On Wed, 12 Jan 2005 00:33:22 +0100, Alex Martelli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> By imposing transitivity, you're essentially asserting that, if a
> programmer forgets to code and register an A -> C direct adapter, this
> is never a problem, as long as A -> B and B -> C adapters are
> registered, bec
On Wed, 12 Jan 2005 21:50:14 -0600, Ian Bicking <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Phillip J. Eby wrote:
> > At 04:07 PM 1/12/05 -0600, Ian Bicking wrote:
> >
> >> It also seems quite reasonable and unambiguous that a path object
> >> could be adapted to a IReadableFile by opening the file at the given
>
On Thu, 13 Jan 2005 10:26:54 -0500, Phillip J. Eby
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> At 09:34 AM 1/13/05 -0500, Clark C. Evans wrote:
> >On Thu, Jan 13, 2005 at 10:35:39AM +0000, Paul Moore wrote:
> >| One thing I feel is key is the fact that adaptation is a *tool*, and
> &g
On Thu, 13 Jan 2005 13:43:53 -0800, Paramjit Oberoi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, 13 Jan 2005 20:40:56 +0100, Alex Martelli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > So please explain what's imperfect in wrapping a str into a StringIO?
>
> If I understand Philip's argument correctly, the problem i
On Fri, 14 Jan 2005 20:06:22 -0500, Phillip J. Eby
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >My feeling here was not that people thought that stateless adapters
> >were in general intrinsically better -- just when the adaptation was
> >going to be done implicitly (e.g. by type declarations).
>
> Yes, exactly.
On Thu, 27 Jan 2005 01:07:06 -0700, Fernando Perez <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I really would like to see such a class in the stdlib, as it's something that
> pretty much everyone ends up rewriting. I certainly don't claim my
> implementation to be a good reference (it isn't). But perhaps it can
On Thu, 27 Jan 2005 09:49:48 +, Paul Moore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On the subject of "things everyone ends up rewriting", what needs to
> be done to restart discussion on PEP 309 (Partial Function
> Application)? The PEP is marked "Accepted" and var
On Mon, 31 Jan 2005 14:02:20 -0800, Brett C. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 2.5 was released just before the time this summary covers so most stuff was
> on bug
> fixes discovered after the release.
Give Guido the time machine keys back!
I assume you meant 2.4, or is this a blatant attempt to get
On Wed, 09 Feb 2005 17:25:14 -0800, Brett C. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> All valid points, but I also don't want people to suddenly start posting
> one-liners or bug posts.
>
> I guess it comes down to a signal-to-noise ratio and if the level of signal we
> are currently getting will hold. If we
On Sat, 26 Feb 2005 16:50:06 +1000, Nick Coghlan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Moving a discussion from the PEP309 SF tracker (Patch #941881) to here, since
> it's gone beyond the initial PEP 309 concept (and the SF tracker is a lousy
> place to have a design discussion, anyway).
>
> The discussion
On Sat, 26 Feb 2005 13:20:46 -0500, Raymond Hettinger
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> It is better to teach how to write a closure than to introduce a new
> construct that has its own problems and doesn't provide a real
> improvement over what we have now.
You make some good points. But this all remi
On Sun, 27 Feb 2005 09:31:26 +0100, "Martin v. Löwis"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Raymond Hettinger wrote:
> > Are you sure about that? Contriving examples is easy, but download a
> > few modules, scan them for use cases, and you may find, as I did, that
> > partial() rarely applies. The argumen
On Sun, 27 Feb 2005 19:05:18 +0100, "Martin v. Löwis"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Again, this I cannot understand. I do believe that there is no better
> way to implement the PEP. The PEP very explicitly defines what precisely
> functional.partial is, and the implementation follows that specificat
On Thu, 10 Mar 2005 21:19:16 +1000, Nick Coghlan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Raymond Hettinger wrote:
> > Any objections to extending itemgetter() and attrgetter() to be able to
> > extract multiple fields at a time?
> >
> > # SELECT name, rank, serialnum FROM soldierdata
> > map(attrgette
On Fri, 11 Mar 2005 11:30:38 +0100, BJörn Lindqvist <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Not sure this is pertinent but anyway: "any" and "all" are often used
> as variable names. "all" especially often and then almost always as a
> list of something. It would not be good to add "all" to the list of
> word
On Sat, 12 Mar 2005 10:53:06 -0500, Jeremy Hylton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I seem to have a problem with the install on XP SP1. Python itself is
> installed, but IDLE won't start. The error says: "IDLE's subprocess
> didn't make connection. Either IDLE can't start a subprocess or
> personal
On Mon, 14 Mar 2005 17:57:42 -0800, Guido van Rossum
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Unfortunately this started when I claimed in my blog that sum() was a
> replacement for 80% of all reduce() uses.
That's probably where the error lies, then. When it was introduced,
sum() was for summing numbers. Whe
On Fri, 18 Mar 2005 07:57:25 +0100, "Martin v. Löwis"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The guarantee that "we" want to make is certainly stronger: if the
> threads all read from the same file, each will get a series of "chunks".
> The guarantee is that it is possible to combine the chunks in a way to
>
On Thu, 17 Mar 2005 18:21:33 -0800, Brett C. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> 2.4.1 should be out soon
>
> Python 2.4.1c1 is out. Very shortly c2 will be released. Assuming no major
> issues come up, 2.4 final will be out.
You probably mean somethi
On Mon, 21 Mar 2005 17:32:36 +1200, Greg Ewing
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On 18 March 2005, Donovan Baarda said:
> >>The read method's current behaviour needs to be documented, so its actual
> >>behaviour can be used to differentiate between an empty non-blocking read,
> >>and EOF. This means
On Wed, 23 Mar 2005 12:13:56 +0100, Stan Pinte <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I would welcome any help regarding:
>
> -how can I get/give more info on what's happening?
> -how to solve that stuff?
>
> thanks a lot in advance.
>
> here is the problem:
>
> I have a python (actually pythondotnet) pr
On Wed, 23 Mar 2005 10:33:53 -0600 (CST), Ka-Ping Yee
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> It dawned on me that you could use this idea to make the whole
> filter/lambda experience vastly more pleasant. I whipped up a quick
> implementation:
>
> >>> from placeholder import _
> >>> numbers = [5, 9
On 4/19/05, Ralph Hilton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> i'm a beginning python programmer.
>
> I want to get the date for yesterday
>
> nowTime = time.localtime(time.time())
> print nowTime.
> oneDay = 60*60*24 # number seconds in a day
> yday = nowTime - oneDay # <-- generates an error
> print yd
On 4/19/05, Brian Sabbey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Guido van Rossum wrote:
> >> @acquire(myLock):
> >> code
> >> code
> >> code
> >
> > It would certainly solve the problem of which keyword to use! :-) And
> > I think the syntax isn't even ambiguous -- the trailing colon
> > distingu
On 4/20/05, Samuele Pedroni <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >def do():
> >print "setup"
> >try:
> >yield None
> >finally:
> >print "tear down"
> >
> > doesn't quite work (if it did, all you would need is syntactic sugar
> > for "for
> > du
On 4/25/05, Michael Chermside <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I've been following this conversation, and it sounds to me as if we
> are stumbling about in the dark, trying to feel our way toward something
> very useful and powerful. I think Jim is right, what we're feeling our
> way toward is macros.
On 4/25/05, Tim Delaney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Guido van Rossum wrote:
>
> > but for backwards compatibility with the existing argument-less next()
> > API I'm introducing a new iterator API next_ex() which takes an
> > exception argument. If that argument is None, it should behave just
> >
On 4/26/05, Jim Jewett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I'm not sure I understand this. The preferred way would be
> to just stick the keyword before the call. Using 'collapse', it
> would look like:
>
> def foo(b):
> c=a
> def bar():
> a="a1"
> collapse foo("b1")
>
On 4/29/05, Shane Hathaway <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I think this concept can be explained clearly. I'd like to try
> explaining PEP 340 to someone new to Python but not new to programming.
> I'll use the term "block iterator" to refer to the new type of
> iterator. This is according to my lim
On 5/3/05, Nicolas Fleury <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> We could avoid explaining to a newbie why the following code doesn't
> work if "opening" could be implemented in way that it works.
>
> for filename in filenames:
> block opening(filename) as file:
> if someReason: break
My initia
On 5/4/05, Alex Martelli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On May 4, 2005, at 01:57, Paul Moore wrote:
> >
> > I can't think of a reasonable condition which wouldn't involve reading
> > the file - which either involves an inner loop (and we already can't
On 5/5/05, Steven Bethard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I wonder if it would be possible to update PEP 310 with your ideas,
> or perhaps start a new PEP? I'd like to see a competitor for PEP 340 that
> addresses some of the issues that came up, e.g. that the block-statement
> doesn't look like a lo
On 5/5/05, Nick Coghlan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Well, Michael Hudson and Paul Moore are the current authors of PEP 310, so
> updating it with any of my ideas would be their call.
I'm willing to consider an update - I don't know Michael's view. I
currently find mys
On 5/5/05, Steven Bethard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 5/5/05, Paul Moore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > And does your proposal allow for "continue EXPR" as supported by PEP
> > 340? I can't see that it could, given that your proposal treats block
&g
On 5/6/05, Greg Ewing <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Seems to me it should be up to the block iterator whether
> a break statement gets caught or propagated, since it's
> up to the block iterator whether the construct behaves
> like a loop or not.
>
> This could be achieved by having a separate exce
On 5/6/05, Steven Bethard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Well, busy-work or not, I took the 20 minutes to split them up, so I
> figured I might as well make them available. It was actually really
> easy to split them apart, and I think they both read better this way,
> but I'm not sure my opinion co
On 5/8/05, Jp Calderone <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> If such a construct is to be introduced, the ideal spelling would seem to
> be:
>
> for [VAR in] EXPR:
> BLOCK1
> finally:
> BLOCK2
While I have not been following this discussion at all (I don't have
the energy or ti
On 5/11/05, Nick Coghlan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I've posted draft 1.4 of my PEP 310/PEP 340 merger PEP (PEP 650, maybe?):
> http://members.iinet.net.au/~ncoghlan/public/pep-3XX.html
I've been skipping the discussion, but this is starting to look pretty
good. I'll give it a proper read soon.
On 5/11/05, Guido van Rossum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I realize that the pushback was against looping, but whereas in the
> PEP 340 proposal general exception handling comes out naturally, it
> feels as an ugly wart in the modified PEP 310 proposal.
>
> Plus I think the use cases are much weak
On 5/13/05, Guido van Rossum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Tastes differ. I think the generator wins; more so when there's more
> state to remember.
[...]
> > > Straight up-or-down votes in the full senate are appreciated at this
> > > point.
> >
> > +1 for the PEP 340 variant.
I am also +1 for th
On 5/14/05, Fredrik Lundh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Nick Coghlan wrote:
>
> > PEP 343 (like PEP 310 before it) makes it possible to define the correct
> > resource management *once*, and then invoke it via a 'with' (or 'do')
> > statement.
This is probably the main point for me - encapsulate t
On 5/14/05, Brett C. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Nick's was obviously directly against looping, but, with no offense to Nick,
> how many other people were against it looping? It never felt like it was a
> screaming mass with pitchforks but more of a "I don't love it, but I can deal"
> crowd.
Agr
On 5/15/05, Steven Bethard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Having done the python-dev summary on this topic,
You have my deepest sympathy :-)
> So in some sense, PEP 340 was the reason for the lack of "enthusiasm";
> with the semantics laid out, people were forced to deal with a specific
> implement
On 5/17/05, Nick Coghlan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Guido van Rossum wrote:
> > [Greg Ewing]
> >
> >>I still think it's conceptually cleaner if the object
> >>you use to access the resource is created by the
> >>__enter__ method rather than being something pre-
> >>existing, but I'm willing to co
On 5/19/05, Greg Ewing <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Michael Hudson wrote:
>
> > This is, to me, neat and clear. I don't find the idea that iterators
> > are tied to exactly 1 for loop an improvement (even though they
> > usually will be).
>
> To fix this in a fully backward-compatible way, we
>
On 5/21/05, Raymond Hettinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> A root difference is that I believe we have both a compliant
> implementation (using Context.create_decimal) and a practical context
> free extension in the form of the regular Decimal constructor.
Please forgive an intrusion by someone wh
On 6/1/05, Guido van Rossum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I hope that I've got the rewrite of PEP 343 to include generator
> extensions right now. I've chosen the 'with' keyword. Please review
> here; I think this is ready for review by the unwashed masses. :-)
>
> http://www.python.org/peps/pep-
On 2/16/06, Fredrik Lundh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Talin wrote:
> > I definately don't want to start a flame war, although I suspect I already
> > have :/
>
> I think most about everything has already been said wrt lambda already,
> but I guess we could have a little war on spelling issues ;-)
On 2/16/06, Guido van Rossum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 2/16/06, Nick Coghlan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > The PEP itself requests that a string be returned from get_data(), but
> > doesn't
> > require that the file be opened in text mode. Perhaps the PEP 302 emulation
> > should use binar
On 2/17/06, Raymond Hettinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> Over lunch with Alex Martelli, he proposed that a subclass of dict
> >> with this behavior (but implemented in C) would be a good addition to
> >> the language
>
> I would like to add something like this to the collections module,
+1
>
On 2/19/06, Steve Holden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > You are missing the rationale of the PEP process. The point is
> > *not* documentation. The point of the PEP process is to channel
> > and collect discussion, so that the BDFL can make a decision.
> > The BDFL is not bound at all to the PEP pr
On 3/7/06, Jeremy Hylton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 3/6/06, Alex Martelli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > On Mar 6, 2006, at 9:17 AM, Jim Jewett wrote:
> > ...
> > > I think that adding parentheses would help, by at least signalling
> > > that the logic is longer than just the next (sin
On 3/7/06, Phillip J. Eby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> At 06:29 AM 3/7/2006 +0100, Fredrik Lundh wrote:
> >see subject and http://python.org/sf/1368955
> >
> >comments ?
>
> would be nice if you could just call UUID() to create a generic UUID in a
> platform-appropriate way. PEAK's uuid module doe
On 3/7/06, Andrew Koenig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> As it turns out, Python has similar ways of decomposing data structures:
>
> (x, y) = foo
>
> or
>
> def bar((x, y)):
> # etc.
>
> and I have sometimes wished I could write
>
> z as (x, y) = foo
>
> or
>
>
On 3/9/06, Nick Coghlan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Steven Elliott wrote:
> > I'm interested in how builtins could be more efficient. I've read over
> > some of the PEPs having to do with making global variables more
> > efficient (search for "global"):
> > http://www.python.org/doc/essays/pe
On 3/14/06, Raymond Hettinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> FWIW, I've been working on a way to simplify the use of queues with daemon
> consumer threads
>
> Sometimes, I launch one or more consumer threads that wait for a task to
> enter a
> queue and then work on the task. A recurring problem is
On 3/14/06, Guido van Rossum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Isn't this a job for threading.BoundedSpemaphore()?
Not sure I see how. What I think Raymond's after (and certainly what I
want) is to queue N tasks, set a counter to N, then wait until the
counter goes to zero.
I suppose
counter = Se
On 3/17/06, Josiah Carlson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Considering your quote, I have thusfar not seen any opinion dissenting
> from what I stated as 'obvious' behavior.
FWIW, I have no objections to the behaviour you state as "obvious",
but I didn't find it immediately obvious (although admitted
On 3/17/06, Thomas Heller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Travis E. Oliphant wrote:
> > Would it be possible to add at least the C-struct array interface to the
> > Python arrayobject in time for Python 2.5?
>
> I'm very much for that.
>
> > Is someone on this list willing to help make it happen?
>
>
On 3/20/06, Barry Warsaw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, 2006-03-20 at 13:30 -0500, Terry Reedy wrote:
> > "Guido van Rossum" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > >Barry, if you could create that mailing list, please?
> >
> > And please mirror it on gmane the same way as this list is.
>
>
On 3/29/06, Fredrik Lundh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> from a user perspective, adding this to the standard library is a no-brainer.
> the only reason not to add it would be if the release managers don't have
> time to sort out the build issues.
Agreed. As a SQL user, it feels like a no-brainer t
On 4/2/06, Anthony Baxter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sunday 02 April 2006 14:17, Anthony Baxter wrote:
> > I've created a searchbar plugin for the firefox search bar that
> > allows you to search bugs.
>
> I should clarify - it allows you to pull up a bug by bug ID, using the
> www.python.org/
On 4/5/06, Anthony Baxter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On behalf of the Python development team and the Python
> community, I'm happy to announce the first alpha release
> of Python 2.5.
Excellent! Downloading it now for a test run...
One (possibly very minor) point - the web page offers Windows
Can someone check http://www.python.org/sf/1465093 for me? It looks
like a fairly serious issue with the Windows binaries - pywin32 is a
pretty important package on Windows.
I've verified it on 2 machines, but can't work out what the issue
might be. I've assigned it to Martin, as the owner of the
On 4/6/06, "Martin v. Löwis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> What happens when you run
>
> D:\Apps\Python25\python.exe -Wi D:\Apps\Python25\Lib\compileall.py -f -x
> badsyntax D:\Apps\Python25\Lib
>
> and look at the status of the program? I think also excluding bad_coding
> might already help.
Statu
On 4/8/06, Brett Cannon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Anyway, here is a list of the packages that I think have outside
> maintenance (or at least have been at some point). Anyone who has
> info on them that I need, please let me know the details. Also, if I
> missed any, obviously speak up:
I thi
I've just managed to get Python built using the free MS compiler and
tools (yay! full instructions to follow somewhere - probably the wiki
and maybe as a patch to PCBuild\readme.txt)
There's one thing that puzzled me - test_sundry is marked as an
"unexpected skip". As it imports tty, which imports
On 4/13/06, Tim Peters <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [Paul Moore]
> You didn't say from where, or when, you got the Python source code.
> Someone recently added a bare "import tty" to test_sundry on the
> trunk, without realizing that would cause test_sundry to get
I've just added some instructions on how to build Python on Windows
with the free MS Toolkit C++ compiler. They are at
http://wiki.python.org/moin/Building_Python_with_the_free_MS_C_Toolkit.
Most of the credit for this goes to David Murmann, whose posting on
the subject to python-list pointed out
On 4/15/06, "Martin v. Löwis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Paul Moore wrote:
> > I've just added some instructions on how to build Python on Windows
> > with the free MS Toolkit C++ compiler. They are at
> > http://wiki.python.org/moin/Building_Python_wi
On 4/16/06, John J Lee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> OK, I suppose I should have asked "will 2.5's module traceback work with
> Python 2.4?". I guess the answer is something resembling "no", but of
> course (?) the question I'm really interested in is "how, without too much
> effort or ugliness, ca
On 4/17/06, tomer filiba <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> after several people (several > 10) contacted me and said "IMHO 'construct'
> is a good candidate for stdlib",
> i thought i should give it a try. of course i'm not saying it should be
> included right now, but in 6 months time, or such a
> time
On 4/18/06, Thomas Heller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> It is not yet too late (but the timeslot left is very small) to propose
> enhancements to ctypes. classmethods like 'from_string', 'from_buffer' or
> whatever would probably make sense.
A from_buffer classmethod would probably be good. I didn
On 4/20/06, M.-A. Lemburg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I wonder why people always seem to imply that installing
> packages has never worked before there was setuptools.
>
> There's really nothing wrong with the standard distutils
> two step process:
>
> 1. download and unzip the source file
>
> 2.
On 4/21/06, Ian Bicking <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Paul Moore wrote:
> > 2. Distributors will supply .egg files rather than bdist_wininst
> > installers (this is already happening).
>
> Really people should at least be uploading source packages in addition
> to eg
On 4/21/06, Greg Ewing <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> While we're on the subject of distutils revision, here
> are a few things I've encountered about distutils which
> seem less than desirable.
>
> * There doesn't seem to be a way of supplying options
>on the command line for anything except the
On 4/20/06, Fredrik Lundh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> - they're currently discussing whether to use stricter version requirements
> for individual components, to increase the chance that people end up using
> a combination that someone else has actually tested.
That makes me quite nervous. While
On 4/21/06, "Martin v. Löwis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> - Paul Moore has contributed a Python build procedure for the
> free version of the 2003 compiler. This one is without IDE,
> but still, it should allow people without a VS 2003 license
> to work on Pyth
On 4/22/06, Nick Coghlan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Alternatively, I could have a go at clearing it up for next week's alpha2, and
> we can ask Anthony to make an explicit request for review of those docs in the
> announcement. . .
I've just had a *very* quick scan through the 2.5a1 documentatio
On 4/22/06, Nick Coghlan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> So I'm going to express my gratitude by asking you to read the same docs all
> over again in a few days time :)
No problem. Remind me if I forget...
> I'll be making a pass through the docs (and PEP) this weekend using the
> definitions:
>
>
On 4/23/06, Phillip J. Eby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> At 01:19 PM 4/23/2006 +1000, Anthony Baxter wrote:
> >On Sunday 23 April 2006 11:43, Nick Coghlan wrote:
> > > Maybe we need something that's the equivalent of alien (rpm -> dpkg
> > > converter), so that given an egg, one can easily get a nat
On 4/23/06, Nick Coghlan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> - contextlib.contextmanager()
> - is actually used to define contexts according to the current docs
> - but returns a GeneratorContextManager object
You may just be trying to avoid overcomplicating things by adding too
much detail
> Aside from the What's New document, this has now been done. My modifications
> consisted of terminology changes in the contextlib docs and the language
> reference to match the 2.5a1 implementation, a Context Types addition to the
> library reference similar to that for Iterator Types, and a very
On 4/24/06, Nick Coghlan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[...]
> The __iter__ method isn't called __iterator__, so why would the __context__
> method need to be called "__contextmgr__"?
Because. Hmm, Oleg already responded to this, and to be
honest, I think the whole issue is a nitpick. Apologi
On 4/24/06, Nick Coghlan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I'm going to try a pass through the docs using "context specifier", which
> gives three separate terms:
[...]
> This removes the ambiguity between "context object" and "runtime context".
That might just work. At the very least, I'd much rather
On 4/24/06, Neil Hodgson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Martin v. Löwis:
>
> > Apparently, the status of this changed right now: it seems that
> > the 2003 compiler is not available anymore; the page now says
> > that it was replaced with the 2005 compiler.
> >
> > Should we reconsider?
>
>I expe
On 4/24/06, Nick Coghlan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I think I've now read enough on the subject that my value as an
> > unbiased reader is being lost...
>
> Your input really helped me figure out where the problem was, though. Trying
> to describe 3 different things using only 2 distinct terms
On 4/24/06, Phillip J. Eby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> At 10:26 AM 4/24/2006 +0100, Paul Moore wrote:
> >OK. At this point, the discussion seems to have mutated from a
> >"Phillip vs Nick" debate to a "Paul vs Nick" debate.
>
> I only stepped asid
On 4/24/06, Nick Coghlan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Paul Moore wrote:
> > I've proposed splitting it into
> > two, but that seems not to suit you (you've never responded to it
> > specifically, so I may be misreading your silence here).
>
> Wanting to
The current, alpha 2, documentation insists that objects with
__enter__ and __exit__ methods must also define __context__ in such a
way that it returns self.
I don't understand why that is necessary.
I can understand that it is convenient, in cases where __context__
doesn't need to create a new o
On 4/25/06, Nick Coghlan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> PEP 343 made a *deliberate, conscious design decision* to copy the semantics
> of iterators by making the context management protocol a superset of the
> context protocol (or rather, the context specification protocol in alpha 2).
OK. It's poss
On 4/25/06, Jim Jewett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Perhaps; part of the problem is with the SF workflow.
Yes. Brett should probably add that to the list of what's wanted from
a new tracker (good alerting of new items, and maybe some specific
"Request commit" functionality, tied to a listing of co
On 4/26/06, Guido van Rossum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Really? I thought that that was due to the magic in the decorator (and
> in the class it uses). In this case the use of magic is fine by me; I
> know I could reconstruct it from scratch if I had to (with only one or
> two bugs :-) but it's c
On 4/27/06, Guido van Rossum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 4/26/06, Thomas Wouters <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Of course, I only consider *my* reasons to be valid, and mine weren't
> > knee-jerk or tool-related. I don't think Python should be going "Oh, what
> > you wanted wasn't possible, but
On 4/27/06, Paul Moore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> However, I'd have to say that your timing sucks :-) Your initial
> message read to me as "Quick! I'm about to get lynched here - can I
> have the OK to shove this change in before a2 goes out?"
And this
On 5/1/06, Fredrik Lundh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> btw, talking about idioms used in the language reference, can any of the
> native speakers on this list explain if "A is a nicer way of spelling B" means
> that "A is preferred over B", "B is preferred over A", "A and B are the same
> word and w
1701 - 1800 of 1862 matches
Mail list logo
