I wonder what is the current state of type/class unification i.e. "new
style classes"?
The Python 2.5 library reference ( chapter 2.3 ) still states that this
issue is being "far from complete".
( BTW this signals the user that the object system is quite immature and
early alpha. Maybe one shou
Kay Schluehr writes:
> I wonder what is the current state of type/class unification i.e.
> "new style classes"?
>
> The Python 2.5 library reference ( chapter 2.3 ) still states that
> this issue is being "far from complete".
The current state is this: Python has already introduced "new style
Michael Chermside wrote:
>> ( BTW this signals the user that the object system is quite immature
>> and early alpha. Maybe one should
>> rethink commenting the current state of development all over the
>> public docs? )
>
> You are completely correct. The manual is misleading and makes the st
> Bill Janssen wrote:
> > There are three big operating system platforms, true. And clearly
> > each has its own associated window system. But there's also AJAX
>
> How exactly would a good Python GUI "cover" AJAX?
Ivan,
Looks like Google has beaten us to the punch by answering this
question
hi all
i would like to suggest changing the base-exception class, whatever
it may be (Exception/BaseException) to work with keyword arguments
instead of positional ones.
instead of
try:
...
except IOError, ex:
print ex[1]
# or
except IOError, (code, text, filename):
...
# which m
On 5/17/06, tomer filiba <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
hi alli would like to suggest changing the base-exception class, whateverit may be (Exception/BaseException) to work with keyword argumentsinstead of positional ones.Positional support is deprecated; there will only be support for a single argumen
Op do, 11-05-2006 te 15:40 -0400, schreef Fred L. Drake, Jr.:
> On Thursday 11 May 2006 15:06, Jan Claeys wrote:
> > Why would ordinary end-users of an application written in Python need
> > distutils? They will get their application as a py2exe executable (or
> > similar) on Windows, as a dist
"Michael Chermside" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> However, this is more of a practice than a prohibition... it IS
> possible to modify existing classes in Python.
If the class is defined/written in Python.
> Unfortunately, for implementation reasons you can't mod
> > If there's no distro package (not unusual), they'd download the source
> > package
> > and need to run "python setup.py install". They need both Python and
> > distutils in that case.
>
> No, most of them would just use another program that doesn't require
> them to "program in DOS"...
Ye
[Talin]
> b=B() # error, A.__init__ expects an instanc of A
>
>why is this kind of type-checking enforced by the language?
[greg]
>Since type-class unification, there is no clear boundary
If you were allowed to pass any object to any method,
there would be a danger of crashing the interpret
On Wednesday 17 May 2006 15:12, Jan Claeys wrote:
> No, most of them would just use another program that doesn't require
> them to "program in DOS"...
That's ok with me. I use other programs that don't require me to click on
Windows. :-)
-Fred
--
Fred L. Drake, Jr.
__
"Robin Bryce" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In the python tutorial 'self' is introduced like this: "the special thing
> about methods is that the object is passed as the first argument of the
> function". And ever since reading that I've always expected to be able to
> treat 'self' as just another
Michael Chermside schrieb:
>Unfortunately, for implementation reasons you can't modify most
>built-in (and some user-defined) classes in this fashion:
>
> >>> int.func2 = func2
>
> Traceback (most recent call last):
> File "", line 1, in -toplevel-
> int.func2 = func2
> TypeError:
13 matches
Mail list logo
