On May 31, 2006, at 9:52 AM, Josiah Carlson wrote:
>
> Talin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
...
>> You're missing a crucial point: The whole idea of 'promise', as I
>> understand it, is that it works with functions that aren't
>> expecting a
>> callable.
>
> So you use the 9-line promise that Alex
Fred L. Drake, Jr. wrote:
> > Stuffing site-
> > packages in another toplevel package seems wrong to me. If I
> > understand you correctly I'd have to do 'import site.wx' to import
> > wxPython and that doesn't feel right.
>
> Agreed. That would be nothing but pain.
Also it would seem to me
Greg Ewing wrote:
> Fred L. Drake, Jr. wrote:
>
>> > Stuffing site-
>> > packages in another toplevel package seems wrong to me. If I
>> > understand you correctly I'd have to do 'import site.wx' to import
>> > wxPython and that doesn't feel right.
>>
>>Agreed. That would be nothing but pain.
>
Talin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> A 'promise' on the other hand, doesn't need to be explicitly called to
> evaluate it. Instead, it automatically evaluates itself whenever it is
> 'used'. The problem, of course, is that we haven't defined 'used' very
> well. (I.e. if you pass the unevaluated
Le mardi 30 mai 2006 à 09:25 -0700, Brett Cannon a écrit :
>
> I think what needs to happen is decide if we want to group modules
> into packages (but no deeper than a single depth), and then how to
> handle general naming (e.g., net.http, net.httplib, http, or
> httplib?).
I don't see the point
Fred L. Drake, Jr. wrote:
> 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 re
The more examples I see of the 'py' and 'site' top level namespaces, the
less I like them. Let's dispose of 'site' first; it's been common to
show examples like:
from gui import wx
However, wx currently, and presumably for the forseeable future, lives
in site packages, so we'd actually h
On 5/30/06, Josiah Carlson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I'm still not convinced that
> 'lazy ' or your equivalent promise class are necessary or
> desireable for the evolution of Python; especially given the simplicity
> of the lambda solution.
I may be just seeing that I want to see, but by my re
"Alexander Belopolsky" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> 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
On 5/31/06, Antoine Pitrou <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Le mardi 30 mai 2006 à 09:25 -0700, Brett Cannon a écrit :>> I think what needs to happen is decide if we want to group modules> into packages (but no deeper than a single depth), and then how to> handle general naming (
e.g., net.http, net.http
Marcin 'Qrczak' Kowalczyk knm.org.pl> writes:
>
> Talin acm.org> writes:
>
> > A 'promise' on the other hand, doesn't need to be explicitly called to
> > evaluate it. Instead, it automatically evaluates itself whenever it is
> > 'used'. The problem, of course, is that we haven't defined 'use
Le mercredi 31 mai 2006 à 09:57 -0700, Brett Cannon a écrit :
>
> That might be true of http, but what about modules with a more
> ambiguous name?
Then perhaps the name can be made less ambiguous ;)
For example "ElementTree" could be named "xmltree", or whatever.
> But with Java (don't have muc
On 31-mei-2006, at 9:00, Josiah Carlson wrote:
>
> 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
the current gc already detects cyclic referencing between objects, and by what i understood, it can free the memory the objects take,but __del__ is never call because there's not telling where tostart the __del__ chain.
by cyclic referencing i mean something like>>> class x(object):... def __in
On 31-mei-2006, at 19:19, Antoine Pitrou wrote:
> Le mercredi 31 mai 2006 à 09:57 -0700, Brett Cannon a écrit :
>>
>> That might be true of http, but what about modules with a more
>> ambiguous name?
>
> Then perhaps the name can be made less ambiguous ;)
> For example "ElementTree" could be name
On 5/31/06, Antoine Pitrou <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Le mercredi 31 mai 2006 à 09:57 -0700, Brett Cannon a écrit :>> That might be true of http, but what about modules with a more> ambiguous name?Then perhaps the name can be made less ambiguous ;)
For example "ElementTree" could be named "xmltree"
Talin acm.org> writes:
[snip]
> One way around that would be to have the 'lazy' attribute associated
> with the formal parameter of the called function instead:
>
> def getitem( self, key, lazy default_val ):
>...
>
> Unfortunately, this breaks the "no programmable syntax" rule - b
Ronald Oussoren <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > There was also a proposal that I was supposed to work on getting
> > formalized somewhat over a year ago about getting __main__ relative
> > imports to have __main__.XXX names, which would further reduce (if not
> > remove entirely) name collisions in
Le mercredi 31 mai 2006 à 11:31 -0700, Brett Cannon a écrit :
> If there were categories, though, I would most likely have the handful
> of package names memorized. So I would run help() on the packages to
> see what modules they had and the summary. Basically what I should
> probably be doing wi
On 5/31/06, Ronald Oussoren <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 31-mei-2006, at 19:19, Antoine Pitrou wrote:> Le mercredi 31 mai 2006 à 09:57 -0700, Brett Cannon a écrit : That might be true of http, but what about modules with a more>> ambiguous name?
>> Then perhaps the name can be made less ambigu
"tomer filiba" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> the current gc already detects cyclic referencing between objects,
> and by what i understood, it can free the memory the objects take,
> but __del__ is never call because there's not telling where to
> start the __del__ chain.
Not all cyclic references
On 5/31/06, Antoine Pitrou <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Le mercredi 31 mai 2006 à 11:31 -0700, Brett Cannon a écrit :> If there were categories, though, I would most likely have the handful> of package names memorized. So I would run help() on the packages to
> see what modules they had and the summ
On 5/30/06, Guido van Rossum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Please be specific. Which places are affected? This shouldn't be
> answered generically but on a case-by-case basis.
My final report:
All in all, the tuple->list change was minimally invasive. The two
most prevalent issues were
1) convert
On 5/31/06, Tim Hochberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> However, wx currently, and presumably for the forseeable future, lives
> in site packages, so we'd actually have something like:
>
> from site.gui import wx
> from site.gui import pygui
> from py.gui import tkinter
> That seems
On 5/31/06, Antoine Pitrou <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Le mercredi 31 mai 2006 à 09:57 -0700, Brett Cannon a écrit :
> > That might be true of http, but what about modules with a more
> > ambiguous name?
> Then perhaps the name can be made less ambiguous ;)
> For example "ElementTree" could be n
Antoine Pitrou wrote:
> Le mardi 30 mai 2006 à 09:25 -0700, Brett Cannon a écrit :
>>
> The current flat namespace for the standard library is one *very*
> pleasant feature of Python. You only have to remember the module name
> itself, not its position in the hierarchy. Compare this with Java
> o
On 5/31/06, Collin Winter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> All in all, the tuple->list change was minimally invasive.
>
> Overall, I've chosen to keep the external interfaces of the changed
> modules/packages the same; if there's a desire to change them later,
> this SVN commit can be used to figure
27 matches
Mail list logo
