On 9/17/07, Ron Adam <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Greg Ewing wrote:
> > Thomas Wouters wrote:
> >> If you want to put more meaning in the argv list, use an option
> >> parser.
> >
> > I want to put *less* meaning in it, not more. :-)
> > And using an argument parser is often overkill for
> > simple
> "Marcin 'Qrczak' Kowalczyk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> When a codec encounters something it can't handle, whether it's a
>> valid character in a legacy encoding, a private use character in a
>> UTF, or an invalid sequence of code units, it throws an exception
>> specifying the charac
> "Marcin 'Qrczak' Kowalczyk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> > Well, for any scheme which attempts to modify UTF-8 by accepting
>> > arbitrary byte strings is used, *something* must be interpreted
>> > differently than in real UTF-8.
>> Wrong. In my scheme everything ends up in the PUA
Greg Ewing wrote:
> Ron Adam wrote:
>> Would it be possible to split out the (pre) parsing from optparse so
>> that instead of returning a list
>
> Whatever is done, anything putting itself forward as a light
> duty argument parser has to have a *very* simple API. Neither
> of the current ones
Guido van Rossum wrote:
> This may have passed in a thread where no-one was listening, so I'm
> repeating it here.
>
> I'm considering the following option: bytes would always be immutable,
> and for the few places (mostly in io.py) where a mutable bytes buffer
> would be handy, we use the array m
Terry Reedy wrote:
> "Sascha Peilicke" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> | is or has there been any discussion about stackless and py3k?
>
> No. C. Tismer has focused his current efforts on PyPy.
That seems like the right strategy to me. Rather than focusing on a
This may have passed in a thread where no-one was listening, so I'm
repeating it here.
I'm considering the following option: bytes would always be immutable,
and for the few places (mostly in io.py) where a mutable bytes buffer
would be handy, we use the array module. Then it would also make sense
On 9/17/07, Greg Ewing <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Guido van Rossum wrote:
> > I understand. But bytes are still in flux (see the repeated requests
> > for immutable bytes)
>
> Moreover, my feeling is that immutable byte should be
> the *default*, and if you want mutable bytes you
> should have to
Guido van Rossum wrote:
> I understand. But bytes are still in flux (see the repeated requests
> for immutable bytes)
Moreover, my feeling is that immutable byte should be
the *default*, and if you want mutable bytes you
should have to ask for it.
This would make bytes more symmetrical with strin
Ron Adam wrote:
> Would it be possible to split out the (pre) parsing from optparse so
> that instead of returning a list
Whatever is done, anything putting itself forward as a light
duty argument parser has to have a *very* simple API. Neither
of the current ones fits my brain, and I have to go
Guido van Rossum wrote:
> AFAIK there's nothing stopping you from subclassing in C.
That may be true -- I may have just incorrectly assumed
that the flag would prevent subclassing from working
properly in C as well.
> I thought we were talking about Python though.
That may be true as well. I thi
On 16-Sep-07, at 4:03 PM, Greg Ewing wrote:
> Paul Moore wrote:
>> On 15/09/2007, Gregory P. Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>>> similarly for the environment. os.environ dict
>>> should be bytes object keys and values
>>
>> You can't have bytes as keys - the type isn't hashable...
>
> Has th
Dnia 16-09-2007, N o godzinie 16:13 +0900, Stephen J. Turnbull
napisał(a):
> When a codec encounters something it can't handle, whether it's a
> valid character in a legacy encoding, a private use character in a
> UTF, or an invalid sequence of code units, it throws an exception
> specifying the c
> Yes. I'm recovering from moving from Japan to California, and will be
> busy until the beginning of October, I'll get started on it then. For
> this kind of thing, what is the deadline for submission of a patch?
> Before the alpha, early beta?
Either would work fine, unless somebody else does
Dnia 15-09-2007, So o godzinie 09:13 +0900, Stephen J. Turnbull
napisał(a):
> > Well, for any scheme which attempts to modify UTF-8 by accepting
> > arbitrary byte strings is used, *something* must be interpreted
> > differently than in real UTF-8.
>
> Wrong. In my scheme everything ends up i
I understand. But bytes are still in flux (see the repeated requests
for immutable bytes) and I don't want to commit to anything just yet.
On 9/17/07, Mathieu Fenniak <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 17-Sep-07, at 11:53 AM, Guido van Rossum wrote:
> >> "writeToStream" method that serializes the obj
On 17-Sep-07, at 11:53 AM, Guido van Rossum wrote:
>> "writeToStream" method that serializes the object -- a byte string
>> would write out <68656c6c6f>, a text string (hello), and so on for
>> other more complex types (dictionaries, labels, arrays, PDF data
>> streams). The type is also responsib
"Mathieu Fenniak" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
| method (for pickling subclass instances). I was going to upload this
| to the SF patch manager, but it appears to be closed to permit only
| project members access.
Because SF is only an archive now.
We are now usin
On 9/17/07, Mathieu Fenniak <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 17-Sep-07, at 9:00 AM, Guido van Rossum wrote:
> > Maybe I should apologize for pushing back so hard, but in my
> > experience most people who subclass a built-in type do it because they
> > can, not because they should -- the lamented "pa
On 17-Sep-07, at 9:00 AM, Guido van Rossum wrote:
Maybe I should apologize for pushing back so hard, but in my
experience most people who subclass a built-in type do it because they
can, not because they should -- the lamented "path" module being a
prime example in my view.
I'm still not convinc
Greg Ewing wrote:
> Thomas Wouters wrote:
>> If you want to put more meaning in the argv list, use an option
>> parser.
>
> I want to put *less* meaning in it, not more. :-)
> And using an argument parser is often overkill for
> simple programs.
Would it be possible to split out the (pre) pars
On 9/16/07, Mathieu Fenniak <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 16-Sep-07, at 7:56 PM, Guido van Rossum wrote:
> > So suppose my answer was "no, bytes won't be subclassable". How much
> > would you really lose by having to wrap a separate object around a
> > bytes object, rather than being able to subc
On 9/16/07, Greg Ewing <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Guido van Rossum wrote:
> > It is possible to compromise the integrity of a built-in type by
> > subclassing it if the type wasn't carefully written to expect
> > subclassing.
>
> Disallowing subclassing in Python may make sense, but
> it seems un
23 matches
Mail list logo
