On Mon, May 22, 2006 at 11:54:14PM -0700, Talin wrote:
> net.protocols - http, imap, pop, ftp, etc.
>Example: net.protocols.http
>
> net.formats - mail, mime, binhex, etc.
>Example: net.formats.mime
>
> net.tools - webbrowser, SocketServer, robotparser, etc.
I'd li
Greg Ewing wrote:
> Collin Winter wrote:
>
>> In Python 2, sure, but if Python 3 introduces the idea that tuples
>> should be used for fixed-length structures (since Guido has said that
>> tuple[Number, Number] should be a 2-tuple of Numbers), then something
>> else needs to fill the "hashable, ar
Guido van Rossum wrote:
> On 5/22/06, Greg Ewing <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> tomer filiba wrote:
>>
>>> i suggest splitting this overloaded meaning into two separate builtins:
>>> * type(name, bases, dict) - a factory for types
>>> * typeof(obj) - returns the type of the object
>> Or just drop th
On Saturday 2006-05-20 20:53, Guido van Rossum wrote:
> On 5/20/06, Tony Lownds <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > How about just dict[str:int]?
>
> A bit too clever, although it happens to work syntactically -- it
> calls dict.__getitem__(slice(str, int)).
Hmm. Why "too clever"? The symmetry with t
Guido writes:
> Well, you could overload __class__ to "lie" -- but type won't. I'd
> rather not lost that functionality. I expect that with proxies
> becoming more popular they may start lying about __class__. For most
> purposes that's fine but I'd like to be able to tell whether I'm
> dealing wit
On 5/22/06, Talin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Guido van Rossum wrote:
> >>Perhaps we should go with Tony Lownds' suggestion of tuple[T] is an
> >>arbitrary-length tuple and tuple[T,] is a 1-tuple?
> >
> >
> > Looks pretty ugly to me. I suggest you STOP WORRYING about this for a
> > while and finis
I have to ignore this topic. It's too big and contentious to get easy
agreement. (The one thing I *don't* want is move the entire stdlib
hierarchy under 'py' or something like that.) Eric Raymond once made
detailed proposal, you can probably still find it somewhere. Good
luck!
--Guido
On 5/22/06,
On 5/23/06, Gareth McCaughan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Saturday 2006-05-20 20:53, Guido van Rossum wrote:
>
> > On 5/20/06, Tony Lownds <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > How about just dict[str:int]?
> >
> > A bit too clever, although it happens to work syntactically -- it
> > calls dict.__get
Let's please leave 2.x alone.
On 5/23/06, Nick Coghlan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Guido van Rossum wrote:
> > On 5/22/06, Greg Ewing <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> tomer filiba wrote:
> >>
> >>> i suggest splitting this overloaded meaning into two separate builtins:
> >>> * type(name, bases, di
On 5/22/06, Talin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Guido van Rossum wrote:
> > I think this is a reasonable suggestion. Perhaps less code would break
> > if you renamed the metaclass instead of the inquiry function.
> >
> > --Guido
>
> I'd like to lend my support to Tomer's proposal. I have been confus
On Tue, May 23, 2006 at 09:54:57AM -0700, Guido van Rossum wrote:
> > (In fact, the first time I tried to use type( x ), I accidentally typed
> > 'typeof( x )'. So this is one data point as to how intuitive the name is.)
> The only intuitive interface is the nipple. Everything else is
> learned. (J
On 5/23/06, Blake Winton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, May 23, 2006 at 09:54:57AM -0700, Guido van Rossum wrote:
> > > (In fact, the first time I tried to use type( x ), I accidentally typed
> > > 'typeof( x )'. So this is one data point as to how intuitive the name is.)
> > The only intuiti
On 5/23/06, Guido van Rossum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Anyway, it appears that the quote is commonly attributed to Bruce
> Edigar, and it should properly be "The only intuitive interface is
> the nipple. After that, it's all learned." it is true that Jef Raskin
> has often been chiding people f
On Tue, May 23, 2006, Guido van Rossum wrote:
>
> The only intuitive interface is the nipple. Everything else is
> learned. (Jef Raskin, I believe.)
Except, of course, that even nipples aren't intuitive (which I assume you
knew given that you have kids). Further info on this subject is
off-topic,
Guido writes:
> Perhaps less code would break
> if you renamed the metaclass instead of the inquiry function.
hrrm... well, the only name, other than "type", that i could think of the
metaclass is "metalcass". for example,
class MyMetaclass(metaclass):
def __new__(cls, name, bases, dict):
Guido van Rossum wrote:
> I think this is a reasonable suggestion. Perhaps less code would break
> if you renamed the metaclass instead of the inquiry function.
It might be a positive effect if code broke because type(obj) broke -
haven't we been promoting for years that it's normally the wrong t
Nick Coghlan wrote:
> This is exactly what I was trying to get at when I suggested using
> "tuple[T]" as the notation for an arbitrary length tuple with elements
> of type T
If tuple[T] is an arbitrary-length tuple, then how
do you spell a 1-tuple with element type T?
> and "T1, T2" as the no
Well, c.l.p was strangely quiet in response to my posting PEP 3102 a few
days ago. Only two comments, one of a general "ick" variety that seems
mainly based on personal bias, and another which likes the idea but
votes a -1 on the 'naked star' syntax.
So in other words, nothing has really change
18 matches
Mail list logo
