Re: [Python-3000] Poll: Lazy Unicode Strings For Py3k

2007-02-01 Thread Aahz
On Thu, Feb 01, 2007, Larry Hastings wrote: > Aahz wrote: >> >> While I don't have an opinion about the patch itself, I do have an >> opinion about other people's opinions. ;-) That is, my opinion is that >> unless you get a +1 from at least one of Fredrik, MvL, or MAL (and no -1 >> from any of t

Re: [Python-3000] Poll: Lazy Unicode Strings For Py3k

2007-02-01 Thread Larry Hastings
Aahz wrote: > While I don't have an opinion about the patch itself, I do have an > opinion about other people's opinions. ;-) That is, my opinion is that > unless you get a +1 from at least one of Fredrik, MvL, or MAL (and no -1 > from any of them), this patch should be abandoned. (The exact set

Re: [Python-3000] Poll: Lazy Unicode Strings For Py3k

2007-01-31 Thread Aahz
On Wed, Jan 31, 2007, Larry Hastings wrote: > > I'd like to start a (hopefully final) round of discussion on the "lazy > strings" series of patches. What follows is a summary on the current > state of the patches, followed by five poll questions. While I don't have an opinion about the patch itse

Re: [Python-3000] Poll: Lazy Unicode Strings For Py3k

2007-01-31 Thread Neil Toronto
Paul Prescod wrote: > String concatenation is a known issue in Python programming and > workarounds for it are common obfuscations in a language otherwise > famous for being clean. So I vote +1 on it. I abstain on slicing. > Seconded: +1 on concatenation, no opinion on the rest. It'd be great t

Re: [Python-3000] Poll: Lazy Unicode Strings For Py3k

2007-01-31 Thread Josiah Carlson
"Jim Jewett" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On 1/31/07, Josiah Carlson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > "Jim Jewett" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > On 1/31/07, Josiah Carlson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > Do you remember my "string view" post from last September/October or so? > > > >

Re: [Python-3000] Poll: Lazy Unicode Strings For Py3k

2007-01-31 Thread Jim Jewett
On 1/31/07, Josiah Carlson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > "Jim Jewett" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On 1/31/07, Josiah Carlson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Do you remember my "string view" post from last September/October or so? > > > It implemented almost all of the string API exactly as th

Re: [Python-3000] Poll: Lazy Unicode Strings For Py3k

2007-01-31 Thread Larry Hastings
Josiah Carlson wrote: > Perhaps I missed something about the concatenation implementation, but in > order to prevent the rendering of lazy concatenation objects, shouldn't you > need to keep a reference and pointer to the left and right > strings/concatenation objects? This isn't the same as a

Re: [Python-3000] Poll: Lazy Unicode Strings For Py3k

2007-01-31 Thread Josiah Carlson
"Jim Jewett" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 1/31/07, Josiah Carlson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > "Jim Jewett" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > On 1/31/07, Josiah Carlson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > ... I believe that the added complexity to the *base type* > > > > is too much, while a wr

Re: [Python-3000] Poll: Lazy Unicode Strings For Py3k

2007-01-31 Thread Nick Coghlan
Jim Jewett wrote: > On 1/31/07, Josiah Carlson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> P.S. One of the reasons why I have been pushing for a wrapper, is >> primarily because I believe that the added complexity to the *base type* >> is too much, while a wrapper object would be free to do just about >> anythin

Re: [Python-3000] Poll: Lazy Unicode Strings For Py3k

2007-01-31 Thread Paul Prescod
String concatenation is a known issue in Python programming and workarounds for it are common obfuscations in a language otherwise famous for being clean. So I vote +1 on it. I abstain on slicing. Paul Prescod ___ Python-3000 mailing list Python-3000@py

Re: [Python-3000] Poll: Lazy Unicode Strings For Py3k

2007-01-31 Thread Jim Jewett
On 1/31/07, Josiah Carlson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > "Jim Jewett" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On 1/31/07, Josiah Carlson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > ... I believe that the added complexity to the *base type* > > > is too much, while a wrapper object would be free to do just about > > >

Re: [Python-3000] Poll: Lazy Unicode Strings For Py3k

2007-01-31 Thread Jim Jewett
On 1/31/07, Larry Hastings <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Lazy concatenation changes the behavior of the Python C API in two > subtle ways: > 1) All C API users asking for the value of a string *must* use >the macro PyUnicode_AS_UNICODE() or the function >PyUnicode_AsUnicode(). It is no lon

Re: [Python-3000] Poll: Lazy Unicode Strings For Py3k

2007-01-31 Thread Josiah Carlson
"Jim Jewett" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On 1/31/07, Josiah Carlson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > P.S. One of the reasons why I have been pushing for a wrapper, is > > primarily because I believe that the added complexity to the *base type* > > is too much, while a wrapper object would be fre

Re: [Python-3000] Poll: Lazy Unicode Strings For Py3k

2007-01-31 Thread Jim Jewett
On 1/31/07, Josiah Carlson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > P.S. One of the reasons why I have been pushing for a wrapper, is > primarily because I believe that the added complexity to the *base type* > is too much, while a wrapper object would be free to do just about > anything (with a sufficiently r

Re: [Python-3000] Poll: Lazy Unicode Strings For Py3k

2007-01-31 Thread Josiah Carlson
Larry Hastings <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Lazy concatenation changes the behavior of Python in three subtle > ways. First, it adds the same two changes in the C API behavior > that "lazy concatenation" does: requiring use of the accessor > macro/function, and stipulating that these can now fail

[Python-3000] Poll: Lazy Unicode Strings For Py3k

2007-01-31 Thread Larry Hastings
I'd like to start a (hopefully final) round of discussion on the "lazy strings" series of patches. What follows is a summary on the current state of the patches, followed by five poll questions. I apologize in advance for the length of this posting. A NOTE BEFORE WE BEGIN The "lazy strings"