Guido van Rossum wrote:
> On 5/27/06, Just van Rossum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Oleg Broytmann wrote:
> >
> > > On Sat, May 27, 2006 at 03:15:32PM +0200, tomer filiba wrote:
> > > > which makes it impossible to diffrenciate between
> > > > >>>y[1, 2]
> > > > (1, 2)
> > > >
> > > > and
> > > >
Martin v. Löwis wrote:
>dispatch[type(sys.maxint+1)] = marshal_int
And presumably sys.maxint would be renamed sys.maxshort?
--
Greg
___
Python-3000 mailing list
[email protected]
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-3000
Unsubscribe:
I want to take a stab at unifying a number of ideas that have been
proposed recently:
-- defaultdict - the desire to allow for a 'default' value that
doesn't get evaluated unless its needed.
-- the 'shortcut' operators 'and' and 'or', which aren't overloadable
because the c
On 5/29/06, Talin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Guido van Rossum wrote:> 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,
On 5/30/06, Brett Cannon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> So, first step in my mind is settling if we want to add one more depth to
> the stdlib, and if so, how we want to group (not specific groupings, just
> general guidelines).
I think that having a package level that exactly matches the divisions
"Steven Bethard" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On 5/30/06, Brett Cannon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > So, first step in my mind is settling if we want to add one more depth to
> > the stdlib, and if so, how we want to group (not specific groupings, just
> > general guidelines).
>
> I think tha
Talin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> I want to take a stab at unifying a number of ideas that have been
> proposed recently:
1. It's either a strange way of spelling lambda, and doesn't gain
anything except a reduction in typing by 1 character.
2. Or it's a strange way of deferring evaluation o
[Removing python-dev from the CC list]
On 5/29/06, "Martin v. Löwis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > That's why I'd like my alternative proposal (int as ABC and two
> > subclasses that may remain anonymous to the Python user); it'll save
> > the alignment waste for short ints and will let us use a
On 5/30/06, Josiah Carlson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "Steven Bethard" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I think that having a package level that exactly matches the divisions
> > in the Library Reference (http://docs.python.org/lib/lib.html) would
> > be great.
Are there any *dis*agreements with
"Jim Jewett" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> "Steven Bethard" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > I think that having a package level that exactly matches the divisions
>> > in the Library Reference (http://docs.python.org/lib/lib.html) would
>> > be great.
>
> Are ther
[Steven Bethard]
> I think that having a package level that exactly matches the divisions
> in the Library Reference (http://docs.python.org/lib/lib.html) would
> be great.
[Jim Jewett]
> Are there any *dis*agreements with this?
[Terry Reedy]
> It is certainly a good starting point. However, it
Josiah Carlson uci.edu> writes:
>
>
> Talin acm.org> wrote:
> >
> > I want to take a stab at unifying a number of ideas that have been
> > proposed recently:
>
> 1. It's either a strange way of spelling lambda, and doesn't gain
> anything except a reduction in typing by 1 character.
> 2. Or
Alexander Belopolsky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Josiah Carlson uci.edu> writes:
>
> >
> >
> > Talin acm.org> wrote:
> > >
> > > I want to take a stab at unifying a number of ideas that have been
> > > proposed recently:
> >
> > 1. It's either a strange way of spelling lambda, and does
On Tuesday 30 May 2006 11:13, Talin wrote:
> For example - suppose I have two dictionaries that I wish to
> search, such that if I don't find a value in the first, I want to look
> in the second; And if I don't find a value in the second, I want to
> default to zero. (This pattern happens to me
On May 30, 2006, at 8:52 PM, Josiah Carlson wrote:
>
> Really, this boils down to another way of spelling lambda.
>
I almost agree. The difference between a promise and a lambda is
that the former can be passed to functions that don't know how to
deal with callables. I think an appropriate
Alexander Belopolsky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On May 30, 2006, at 8:52 PM, Josiah Carlson wrote:
> >
> > Really, this boils down to another way of spelling lambda.
> >
>
> I almost agree. The difference between a promise and a lambda is
> that the former can be passed to functions that
Josiah Carlson wrote:
> It's all a matter of semantics. If I tell you "I'm going to implement
> deferred/promise/etc., as a callable", and as long as I tell you the
> semantics of that call, it will be clear what I mean. Let's actually go
> through the trouble of defining it:
>
> If I call somet
On 30-mei-2006, at 19:49, Josiah Carlson wrote:
>
> "Steven Bethard" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> On 5/30/06, Brett Cannon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> So, first step in my mind is settling if we want to add one more
>>> depth to
>>> the stdlib, and if so, how we want to group (not specif
On Wednesday 31 May 2006 01:49, Ronald Oussoren wrote:
> I can understand the wish for a toplevel package that contains the
> stdlib, although I don't think I agree with that.
I understand it, and mostly wish for it at this point, though I think the name
really has to be something short to work
Talin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Josiah Carlson wrote:
> > It's all a matter of semantics. If I tell you "I'm going to implement
> > deferred/promise/etc., as a callable", and as long as I tell you the
> > semantics of that call, it will be clear what I mean. Let's actually go
> > through the
On 5/31/06, Josiah Carlson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Now that I have sufficiently specified, please explain to me how a new
> syntax would improve the current situation?
If you have read past the first paragraph in my previous post you
would see the answer to your question:
"""
I think we both
Ronald Oussoren <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> On 30-mei-2006, at 19:49, Josiah Carlson wrote:
> > Though I'm probably a bit strange in that I almost want a top level
> > "py"
> > package, and a separating of site-packages from the sys.path and
> > into a
> > top level package named "site"
22 matches
Mail list logo
