Guido van Rossum wrote:
> > I expect this will happen. At the very least, you'll be able to just
> > use 'print' for that function's name if you include
> > from __future__ import print_function
Neal Norwitz wrote:
> There's a patch for this too. http://bugs.python.org/issue1633807
Excellent!
On 10/15/07, Guido van Rossum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> There's one thing that I forgot to add to PEP 3137. It's the removal
> of the basestring type. I think this is a reasonable thing to do.
> Christian Heimes has a patch that does this cleanly. Anyone objecting,
> please speak up now!
I don'
David A. Wheeler wrote:
> Any class defining __bool__ (formerly __nonzero__), or one implementing
> Sized (which implement __len__), would be a generalized boolean.
Considering that *all* objects have at least an implicit
implementation of __bool__ (that tests against None) I'm
not sure that th
On 10/16/07, David A. Wheeler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi, I'm a Python user who likes much in the upcoming Python 3000. I wish you
> well! I have a few comments, though, that I hope are constructive. Guido
> asked me to repost them to this mailing list for discussion. I'll send my
> diff
On 10/16/07, David A. Wheeler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi, I'm a Python user who likes much in the upcoming Python 3000. I wish you
> well! I have a few comments, though, that I hope are constructive. Guido
> asked me to repost them to this mailing list for discussion. I'll send my
> diff
On 10/16/07, Fred Drake <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Oct 16, 2007, at 4:29 PM, Guido van Rossum wrote:
> > I expect this will happen. At the very least, you'll be able to just
> > use 'print' for that function's name if you include
> >
> > from __future__ import print_function
> >
> > at the t
On Oct 16, 2007, at 4:29 PM, Guido van Rossum wrote:
> I expect this will happen. At the very least, you'll be able to just
> use 'print' for that function's name if you include
>
> from __future__ import print_function
>
> at the top of your module. Whether it's worth it to make the same
> funct
On 10/16/07, David A. Wheeler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In Python 2.6, could some print FUNCTION be added to the builtins, using a
> different name than "print" but with the Python 3000 semantics? Call it
> printfunc or whatever.
>
> Python 3000 is undergoing much pain so that print can becom
On 10/16/07, David A. Wheeler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I agree with Collin Winter: losing __cmp__ is a loss (see
> http://oakwinter.com/code/).
>
> Yes, it's possible to write all the comparison operations, but I think it's
> _clearer_ to create a single low-level operator that handles ALL t
On 10/16/07, David A. Wheeler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I agree with Collin Winter: losing __cmp__ is a loss (see
> http://oakwinter.com/code/).
>
> Yes, it's possible to write all the comparison operations, but I think
> it's _clearer_ to create a single low-level operator that handles ALL
>
David A. Wheeler wrote:
> In Python 2.6, could some print FUNCTION be added to the builtins, using a
> different name than "print" but with the Python 3000 semantics? Call it
> printfunc or whatever.
I like xprint(). It follows the example of range/xrange, it's short,
fast to type and easy to r
I agree with Collin Winter: losing __cmp__ is a loss (see
http://oakwinter.com/code/).
Yes, it's possible to write all the comparison operations, but I think it's
_clearer_ to create a single low-level operator that handles ALL the comparison
operators. It also avoids many mistakes; once you
In Python 2.6, could some print FUNCTION be added to the builtins, using a
different name than "print" but with the Python 3000 semantics? Call it
printfunc or whatever.
Python 3000 is undergoing much pain so that print can become a function. How
about making those benefits available sooner th
Hi, I'm a Python user who likes much in the upcoming Python 3000. I wish you
well! I have a few comments, though, that I hope are constructive. Guido asked
me to repost them to this mailing list for discussion. I'll send my different
comments as separate messages, so that they can be easily d
Guido van Rossum wrote:
> No-one spoke up. I'll check in Christian's patch now, and add this to the PEP.
Thanks!
The fixer for basestr -> str is available at http://bugs.python.org/file8548
Christian
___
Python-3000 mailing list
Python-3000@python.org
Guido van Rossum wrote:
> No-one spoke up. I'll check in Christian's patch now, and add this to the PEP.
Thanks!
The fixer for basestr -> str is available at http://bugs.python.org/file8548
Christian
___
Python-3000 mailing list
Python-3000@python.org
On 10/15/07, Guido van Rossum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> There's one thing that I forgot to add to PEP 3137. It's the removal
> of the basestring type. I think this is a reasonable thing to do.
> Christian Heimes has a patch that does this cleanly. Anyone objecting,
> please speak up now!
No-one
Gregory P. Smith wrote:
> fwiw - On py3k head on the x86 ubuntu feisty box i used to do the commit the
> following tests on the py3k branch were failing both before and after this
> change.
>
> test_cProfile test_doctest test_email test_profile
>
> I didn't break them. :)
They are broken on Ub
Proposals for PyCon 2008 talks & tutorials are now being accepted.
The deadline for proposals is November 16.
PyCon 2008 will be held in Chicago, Illinois, USA, from March 13-20.
Please see the full announcement here:
http://pycon.blogspot.com/2007/10/call-for-talk-tutorial-proposals.html
--
Da
On 10/15/07, Gregory P. Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On 10/8/07, Gregory P. Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > > - add missing methods to PyBytes (for list, see the PEP and compare to
> > > what's already there)
> >
>
> Committed revision 58493. (closes issue1261).
>
> fwiw -
20 matches
Mail list logo
