Thanks for the explanation. I'm sure that I will be able to live
(although miserably) with dict.keys(). ;)
Noam
___
Python-3000 mailing list
Python-3000@python.org
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-3000
Unsubscribe:
http://mail.python.org/m
2007/12/13, Guilherme Polo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> 2007/12/13, Noam Raphael <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > Hello,
> >
> > Was it considered to drop the parentheses after "dict.keys()", to make
> > it "dict.keys" (that is, to make it a property in
Hello,
Was it considered to drop the parentheses after "dict.keys()", to make
it "dict.keys" (that is, to make it a property instead of a method
with no arguments)? If it was, please forgive me - a few minutes of
googling didn't find it.
I now write (another?) ordered dict, and I thought that the
gits needed to recreate it, I used the code by
Robert G. Burger (the author of the article) since it is stand-alone.
The original code can be found here:
http://www.cs.indiana.edu/~burger/fp/index.html
The patch is against current py3k svn.
Have a good day,
Noam
2007/12/9, Noam Raphael <
ving
"eval(repr(f)) == f"? If not, I'll try to write it in the next few
days.
(I checked - indeed, the current implementation just uses the OS's
conversion method with 17 precision digits.)
Noam
2007/12/9, Marcin 'Qrczak' Kowalczyk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
Hello,
I would like to re-raise the issue of float repr() -- making repr(1.1)
== '1.1' instead of '1.1001'.
My use case is data manipulation in the interactive shell - an
extremely powerful tool which, it seems, not so many people use. Many
times I have float data. I think that you'll
On 9/16/07, Guido van Rossum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I think it's not so obvious that reversing the order is any better
> when you throw in some if clauses:
>
> [friend for city in cities if city.name != "Amsterdam" for friend in
> city.friends if friend.name != "Guido"]
>
> vs.
>
> [friend fo
Hello,
I had a thought about syntax I want to share with you.
Say you want to get a list of all the phone numbers of your friends.
You'll write something like this:
telephones = [friend.telephone for friend in friends]
Now suppose that, unfortunately, you have many friends, and they are
grouped
(Sorry, it turns out that I posted this reply only to Nick and not to
the list, so I post it again.)
On 9/4/07, Nick Coghlan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Containment and iteration really do need to be kept consistent and
> having the value matter when checking for dictionary containment would
> be
On 9/4/07, Greg Ewing <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Noam Raphael wrote:
> > The default dict iterator should in principle be iteritems(), and not
> > iterkeys().
>
> This was discussed at length back when "in" support was
> added to dicts. There were reas
Hello,
Just a thought that came to me after writing a code that deals quite a
lot with dicts:
The default dict iterator should in principle be iteritems(), and not
iterkeys().
This is probably just theoritical, since it will break a lot of code
and not gain a lot, but it may be remembered when s
11 matches
Mail list logo
