On Jun 24, 2007, at 2:01 AM, Talin wrote:
> The current design is a mid-point between Perl's interpolated
> strings (which can contain arbitrary expressions), and C-style
> printf. The guiding rule is to allow expressions which increase
> convenience and expressiveness, and which are likely
Chris McDonough wrote:
> Allowing attribute and/or item access within templating expressions
> has historically been the domain of full-on templating languages
> (which invariably also have a way to do repeats, conditionals,
> arbitrary method calls, etc).
>
> I think it should probably stay
On 6/20/07, Greg Falcon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 6/19/07, Chris McDonough <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Given that security is a concern at all, the only truly reasonable
> > way to "limit security issues" is to disallow item and attribute
> > access completely within the string templating
I haven't responded to this thread because I was hoping some of the
original proponents of the feature would come out to defend it.
(Remember, 3101 is a synthesis of a lot of people's ideas gleaned from
many forum postings - In some cases I am willing to defend particular
aspects of the PEP, an
On 6/23/07, Alexandre Vassalotti <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 6/23/07, Guido van Rossum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On 6/23/07, Alexandre Vassalotti <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > I think found a bug in the implementation of StringIO/BytesIO in the
> > > new io module. I would like to fix
On 6/23/07, Guido van Rossum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 6/23/07, Alexandre Vassalotti <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I think found a bug in the implementation of StringIO/BytesIO in the
> > new io module. I would like to fix it, but I am not sure what should
> > be the correct behavior. Any h
On 6/23/07, Alexandre Vassalotti <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I think found a bug in the implementation of StringIO/BytesIO in the
> new io module. I would like to fix it, but I am not sure what should
> be the correct behavior. Any hint on this?
BytesIO should behave the way Unix file
Hello,
I think found a bug in the implementation of StringIO/BytesIO in the
new io module. I would like to fix it, but I am not sure what should
be the correct behavior. Any hint on this?
And one more thing, the close method on StringIO/BytesIO objects
doesn't work. I will try to fix that too.
On 21 Jun 2007, at 21:21, Bill Janssen wrote:
>>> It should amount to "map(+, operands)".
>>
>> Or, to be pedantic, this:
>>
>> reduce(lambda x, y: x.__add__(y), operands)
>
> Don't you mean:
>
>reduce(lambda x, y: x.__add__(y), operands[1:], operands[0])
In the absence of a "start" val
