Brett Cannon wrote:
> So perhaps there is a way to create some kind of "virtual packages" or
> "categories" in which existing modules could register themselves. This
> could allow third-party modules (e.g. "gtk") to register themselves in
> stdlib-supplied virtual packages (e.g. "gu
On 5/31/06, Brett Cannon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Why would a 3rd-party module be installed into the stdlib namespace?
> net.jabber wouldn't exist unless it was in the stdlib or the module's author
> decided to be snarky and inject their module into the stdlib namespace.
Do you really want the
On 1-jun-2006, at 13:29, Paul Moore wrote:
> On 5/31/06, Brett Cannon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Why would a 3rd-party module be installed into the stdlib namespace?
>> net.jabber wouldn't exist unless it was in the stdlib or the
>> module's author
>> decided to be snarky and inject their mo
On 6/1/06, Ronald Oussoren <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 1-jun-2006, at 13:29, Paul Moore wrote:> On 5/31/06, Brett Cannon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:>> Why would a 3rd-party module be installed into the stdlib namespace?
>> net.jabber wouldn't exist unless it was in the stdlib or the>> module's aut
"Paul Moore" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On 5/31/06, Brett Cannon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Why would a 3rd-party module be installed into the stdlib namespace?
> > net.jabber wouldn't exist unless it was in the stdlib or the module's author
> > decided to be snarky and inject their modul
Paul Moore wrote:
>On 5/31/06, Brett Cannon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
>>Why would a 3rd-party module be installed into the stdlib namespace?
>>net.jabber wouldn't exist unless it was in the stdlib or the module's author
>>decided to be snarky and inject their module into the stdlib namespac
On 6/1/06, Aaron Bingham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Paul Moore wrote:>On 5/31/06, Brett Cannon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:Why would a 3rd-party module be installed into the stdlib namespace?
>>net.jabber wouldn't exist unless it was in the stdlib or the module's author>>decided to be snarky and
"Brett Cannon" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Well, personally I would like to clean up the stdlib, but I don't want to
>make it >too lean since the whole "Batteries Included" thing is handy.
Definitely as to both.
> As for sanctioned libraries that don't come in
"Aaron Bingham" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> I'm confused. As far as I can see, a reserved prefix (the "py" or
> "stdlib" package others have mentioned) is the only reliable way to
> avoid naming conflicts with 3rd-party packages with a growing standard
> library
On 6/1/06, Neal Norwitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Could you run a benchmark before and after this patch? I'd like to
> know speed diff.
(Sorry you got this twice, Neal.)
I've attached the benchmarks as a comment on the patch, but I'll
repeat them here. All times are usecs per loop.
./python
Collin Winter writes:
> I've attached the benchmarks as a comment on the patch, but I'll
> repeat them here. All times are usecs per loop.
[statistics showing list is about 15% slower]
My memory is fuzzy here. Can someone repeat for me the reasons
why we wanted to use list? Were we just tryi
Terry Reedy wrote:
> Because you have to type it over and over.
hmm, With the right context manager:
import py
with py as py:
from gui import tkinker
import net
with net as net:
import httplib
import urllib
-Mike
___
Python
On 1-jun-2006, at 17:44, Brett Cannon wrote:
>
>
> On 6/1/06, Ronald Oussoren <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 1-jun-2006, at 13:29, Paul Moore wrote:
>
> > On 5/31/06, Brett Cannon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> Why would a 3rd-party module be installed into the stdlib
> namespace?
> >> net.ja
On 6/1/06, Ronald Oussoren <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 1-jun-2006, at 17:44, Brett Cannon wrote:>>> On 6/1/06, Ronald Oussoren <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:> On 1-jun-2006, at 13:29, Paul Moore wrote:
>> > On 5/31/06, Brett Cannon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:> >> Why would a 3rd-party module be instal
Toby Dickenson wrote:
> The ?? operator first evaluated its left operand. If that succeeds its value
> is returned. If that raised an exception it evaluates and returns its right
> operand. That allowed your example to be written:
>
> value = a[key] ?? b[key] ?? 0
That wouldn't make sens
tomer filiba wrote:
> you can solve the problem using
> weakref.proxy
> ...
> so why not do this automatically?
I would *not* want to have some of my references chosen
at random and automatically made into weak ones. I may
temporarily create a cycle and later break it by removing
one of the refer
16 matches
Mail list logo
