Noam Raphael <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 10/31/05, Josiah Carlson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > About the users-changing-my-internal-data issue:
> ...
> > You can have a printout before it dies:
> > "I'm crashing your program because s
> That's fine. I wish that you read my answer, think about it a little,
> and just tell me in a yes or a no if you still consider it dead. I
> think that I have answered all your questions, and I hope that at
> least others would be convinced by them, and that at the end my
> suggestion would be ac
"Delaney, Timothy (Tim)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Reinhold Birkenfeld wrote:
>
> > And we have solved the "map, filter and reduce are going away! Let's
> > all weep together" problem with one strike!
>
> I'm not sure if you're wildly enthusiastic, or very sarcastic.
>
> I'm not sure whic
Noam Raphael <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Hello,
>
> While writing my PEP about unifying mutable and immutable, I came upon this:
>
> Is there a reason why the default __hash__ method returns the id of the
> objects?
A quick search in the list archives via google search
"site:mail.pytho
Noam Raphael <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 11/2/05, Josiah Carlson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I believe the current behavior of __eq__ is more desireable than
> > comparing contents, as this may result in undesireable behavior
> > (recursive compares on
Even when they are on the ball, the summaries generally occur one week
after the discussion/execution happens. That's not so much in the
'time-critical' aspect which, I would imagine, is about as important as
the 'low-volume' aspect.
- Josiah
Oleg Broytmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On
Noam Raphael <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 11/3/05, Josiah Carlson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > To summarize, I think that value-based equality testing would usually
> > > be what you want, and currently implementing it is a bit of a pain.
> >
> >
Noam Raphael <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On 11/5/05, Josiah Carlson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> ...
> > > 1. It doesn't add complexity, or a new builtin.
> >
> > It changes default behavior (which I specified as a portion of my
> > stat
th an alternative first.
> >
> The alternative is to drop the __hash__ method of user-defined classes
> (as Guido already decided to do), and to make the default __eq__
> method compare the two objects' __dict__ and slot members.
>
> See the thread about default equalit
Noam Raphael <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On 11/6/05, Josiah Carlson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> ...
> > >
> > > Sorry, I meant complexity to the Python user - it won't require him to
> > > learn more in order to write programs in Pyth
John Williams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> (This is kind of on a tangent to the original discussion, but I don't
> want to create yet another subject line about object comparisons.)
>
> Lately I've found that virtually all my implementations of __cmp__,
> __hash__, etc. can be factored into
winlinchu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Now, Python unified ints and long ints.
> For Python 3k, could be introduced a "Decimal" type
> (yes, Decimal, the library module!) in place of the
> actual float object. Of course, the Decimal type would
> be rewritten in C.
There is code which relies on st
I personally like Edward Loper's idea of just running your own event
handler which deals with drawing, suspend/resume, etc...
> If, however, Python contains an event loop that takes care of events as
> well as Python commands, redrawing won't happen until Python has
> executed all plot commands
Travis Oliphant <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> >Travis> More to the point, however, these scalar objects were allocated
> >Travis> using the standard PyObject_New and PyObject_Del functions which
> >Travis> of course use the Python memory manager. One us
Robert Kern <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> [1] There *is* an array type for general PyObjects in scipy_core, but
> that's not being used in the code that blows up and has nothing to do
> with the problem Travis is talking about.
I seemed to have misunderstood the discussion. Was the original us
Tim Peters <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > ...
>
> > In a specific program, analysis is much brighter. You *know* what
> > variables carry references to huge data structures, and you *know*
> > where these variables are assigned to.
>
> > ...
>
> Most people work with countless lines of library
Tim Peters <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> [Josiah Carlson]
> > I believe this particular argument is specious.
>
> Not at all, but it's not compelling on its own.
I like that better.
> > Using Python won't change requirements for knowing what is
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Ian> Do not use accessor methods, like ``obj.getFoo()`` and
> Ian> ``obj.setFoo(v)``, instead just expose a public attribute
> Ian> (``obj.foo``). If necessary you can use ``property`` to implement
> Ian> the same functionality that accessor methods woul
I've got a recipe in the Python cookbook which adds async subprocess
support[1], which can be wrapped to support handling IO to/from the
subprocess until a time limit occurs.
- Josiah
[1] - http://aspn.activestate.com/ASPN/Cookbook/Python/Recipe/440554
Guido van Rossum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wro
Reinhold Birkenfeld <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Ian Bicking wrote:
> > Guido van Rossum wrote:
> >> It doesn't matter. Many large projects are adopting the camelCase
> >> convention, either by choice or by accident. I did a brief review of
> >> Zope 3 and Chandler, and while neither is consistent
Michael Urman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On 12/19/05, Greg Ewing <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > That would be my preference. Comparison for canonical
> > ordering should be a distinct operation with its
> > own spelling.
>
> Such as sorted(stuff, key=id)?
I believe that ideally, canonical o
Jim Fulton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Jim Jewett wrote:
> > PEP 3000 now suggests that dropping default comparison has become more
> > than an idle what-if.
> >
> > Unfortunately, one very common use case of comparisons is to get a
> > canonical order. If the order is sensible, all the bett
Steve Holden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Fredrik Lundh wrote:
>
> >
> > - is it perhaps time to start investigating using "lighter" tools for the
> > core
> > documentation ?
> >
> +1
+1 for using ReST.
+0 for sticking with latex.
-1 for choosing something not ReST or latex.
+10 for any
"Fredrik Lundh" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Josiah Carlson wrote:
>
> > -1 for choosing something not ReST or latex.
>
> yeah, because using something that everyone else uses would of course
> not be the python way.
No, because ReST is significantl
"Fredrik Lundh" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Josiah Carlson wrote:
>
> > > yeah, because using something that everyone else uses would of course
> > > not be the python way.
> >
> > No, because ReST is significantly easier to learn and
"Fredrik Lundh" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Barry Warsaw wrote:
>
> > > Sure, and some people hate using whitespace for block structure.
> >
> > A more proper analogy would be people who hate braces and parentheses.
> > You have to type so many more < and > characters (not to mention &s
> > a
Tim Peters <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Like Phillip Eby, I use 2-tuples for this when I feel the need
> (usually during a backtracking graph search, to keep track of paths
> back to the root in a space-efficient way), and am happy with that.
Then there's the whole Python list with append() and p
root in a space-efficient way), and am happy with that.
>
> [Josiah Carlson]
> >>> Then there's the whole Python list with append() and pop(). It
> >>> takes a method resolution and function call, but at least in
> >>> Python 2.3, it is a hair
Noam Raphael <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On 12/29/05, Raymond Hettinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > What could be done is to add a test for excess dummy entries and trigger
> > a periodic resize operation. That would make the memory available for
> > other parts of the currently running sc
Noam Raphael <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 12/29/05, Fredrik Lundh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Noam Raphael wrote:
> >
> > > I'm not saying that practically it must be used - I'm just saying that
> > > it can't be called a heuristic, and that it doesn't involve any "fancy
> > > overkill size
Noam Raphael <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On 12/31/05, Raymond Hettinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > [Noam]
> > > For example, iteration over a set which once had
> > > 1,000,000 members and now has 2 can take 1,000,000 operations every
> > > time you traverse all the (2) elements.
> >
> > D
Thomas Wouters <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> centurion:~ > python < .
> Segmentation fault
>
> [...]
> >>> sys.setrecursionlimit(1<<30)
> >>> f = lambda f:f(f)
> >>> f(f)
> Segmentation fault
>
> There's more, all from Python itself. And sure, "well, don't do that then"
> is a perfectly valid res
Robert Kim Wireless Internet Advisor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> u guys are way over my head :)
> bob
You seem to be new to the python-dev mailing list. As a heads-up,
python-dev is for the development _of_ python. If you are using Python,
and want help or want to help others using Python, you
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bengt Richter) wrote:
> On Wed, 01 Feb 2006 12:33:36 +, "Gustavo J. A. M. Carneiro" <[EMAIL
> PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [...]
> > Hmm.. I'm beginning to think 13r16 or 16r13 look too cryptic to the
> >casual observer; perhaps a suffix letter is more readable, since we
> >don't
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bengt Richter) wrote:
> On Wed, 01 Feb 2006 09:47:34 -0800, Josiah Carlson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bengt Richter) wrote:
> >> On Wed, 01 Feb 2006 12:33:36 +, "Gustavo J. A. M. Carneiro" <[EMAIL
> >> P
Donovan Baarda <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Wed, 2006-02-01 at 13:55 -0500, Greg Wilson wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > I have a student who may be interested in adding syntactic support for
> > sets to Python, so that:
> >
> > x = {1, 2, 3, 4, 5}
> >
> > and:
> >
> > y = {z for z in x if
Donovan Baarda <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Fri, 2006-02-03 at 09:00 -0800, Josiah Carlson wrote:
> [...]
> > Sets are tacked on. That's why you need to use 'import sets' to get to
> > them, in a similar fashion that you need to use 'i
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bengt Richter) wrote:
> Martin v. Lowis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >Bengt Richter wrote:
> >>>The typical way of processing incoming ints in C is through
> >>>PyArg_ParseTuple, which already has the code to coerce long->int
> >>>(which in turn may raise an exception for a rang
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bengt Richter) wrote:
> Are you just lecturing me personally (in which case off list would be more
> appropriate),
> or do you include the authors of the 17 files I count under /Lib
> that have
> isinstance(, int) in them?
> Or would you like to rephrase that with suitable qua
Donovan Baarda <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Fri, 2006-02-03 at 11:56 -0800, Josiah Carlson wrote:
> > Along the lines of "not every x line function should be a builtin", "not
> > every builtin should have syntax". I think that sets have particu
Guido van Rossum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> IMO asynchat and asyncore are braindead. The should really be removed
> from the standard library. The code is 10 years old and represents at
> least 10-year-old thinking about how to do this. The amount of hackery
> in Zope related to asyncore was out
"Fredrik Lundh" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Steve Holden wrote:
>
> > > What is the reason that people want to use threads when they can have
> > > poll/select-style message processing? Why does Zope require threads?
> > > IOW, why would anybody *want* a "threadsafe patch for asynchat"?
> > >
"Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> I just ran into a curious behavior with small floating points, trying
> to find the limits of them on my machine (XP). Does anyone know why the
> '0.0' is showing up for one case below but not for the other? According
> to my tests, the smallest representabl
Jiwon Seo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On 2/8/06, Guido van Rossum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On 2/8/06, Patrick Collison <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > And to think that people thought that keeping "lambda", but changing
> > > the name, would avoid all the heated discussion... :-)
> >
>
Jiwon Seo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 2/8/06, Josiah Carlson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Closures already exist in Python.
> >
> > >>> def foo(bar):
> > ... return lambda: bar + 1
> > ...
> > >>> a = foo(5)
> >
Mark Edgington <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Martin v. Löwis wrote:
> > That patch looks wrong. What does it mean to "run in a thread"?
> > All code runs in a thread, all the time: sometime, that thread
> > is the main thread.
> >
> > Furthermore, I can't see any presumed thread-unsafety in
"Alan Gauld" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> However I do dislike the name nice() - there is already a nice() in the
> os module with a fairly well understood function. But I'm sure some
> time with a thesaurus can overcome that single mild objection. :-)
Presumably it would be located somewhere lik
Eric Sumner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Forgive me if someone has already come up with this; I know I am
> coming to the party several months late. All of the proposals for
> decorators (including the accepted one) seemed a bit kludgey to me,
> and I couldn't figure out why. When I read PEP 343
501 - 548 of 548 matches
Mail list logo
