[GvR]
> I expect that, given the general trend that different types are not
> comparable, making an exception for None is more likely a source of
> errors than a source of joy.
That is reasonable.
Raymond
___
Python-3000 mailing list
Python-3000@python
On Feb 1, 2008 6:04 PM, Talin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I would like to present an argument both for and against the proposal.
>
> Against: I've never personally needed this capability.
>
> For: In many languages, the 'null' value has a special polymorphic
> behavior in that it is considered a s
I would like to present an argument both for and against the proposal.
Against: I've never personally needed this capability.
For: In many languages, the 'null' value has a special polymorphic
behavior in that it is considered a subtype of all reference types. Thus
in C, you can assign NULL to
Greg Ewing writes:
> Also, if generator expressions had come first, we
> would probably never have gotten list comprehensions.
I don't understand. A list comprehension is for when you know you're
going to want to work with the whole list. Similarly (even more so)
for dictionary comprehensions
On Feb 1, 2008 5:18 PM, Raymond Hettinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > You should have been there when this was decided about two years ago.
>
> IIRC, the decision was a general one about cross-type
> comparisons not being turned-on the default. I do not
> recall a specific discussion about None
> You should have been there when this was decided about two years ago.
IIRC, the decision was a general one about cross-type
comparisons not being turned-on the default. I do not
recall a specific discussion about None.
Also, the list at the time was flooded with propositions
ranging from the
On Feb 1, 2008 4:07 PM, Greg Ewing <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Not necessarily. We don't have dict comprehensions, and
We don't?
bash-3.2$ ./python.exe
Python 3.0a2+ (py3k:60207, Jan 22 2008, 16:58:59)
[GCC 4.0.1 (Apple Inc. build 5465)] on darwin
Type "help", "copyright", "credits" or "license"
You should have been there when this was decided about two years ago.
I really don't want to be tweaking the language spec continuously
between now and the planned release date in ~August.
On Feb 1, 2008 3:56 PM, Raymond Hettinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> It was very convenient in Py2.x to ha
Nicko van Someren wrote:
> Do we really want set literals at all, given that set(...) exists?
>
> If we are going to have one then, it seems to make sense to have both.
Not necessarily. We don't have dict comprehensions, and
I don't remember there being many complaints about that.
Also, if gen
It was very convenient in Py2.x to have None comparable to other types and
always rank less than any other type.
I would like to restore that ability.
One example, it helps with heaps to be able to turn an entry into None and have
it sift to the top where the null entries can be popped-off.
R
On 30 Jan 2008, at 23:17, Greg Ewing wrote:
> Nicko van Someren wrote:
>> Personally I'd like set comprehensions to give me mutable sets,
>> and so I feel set literals should do the same.
>
> Do you really want set comprehensions at all, given that
> set(genexp) exists?
Do we really want set l
11 matches
Mail list logo
