file objects nowadays have ".closed" and ".mode" attributes, but the point
is --
the dispatch mechanism should be able to put constraints on not only on the
*type*, but on the *state* as well -- so once we have multi-dispatch, we
wouldn't need to "manually" check the state of the arguments.
we wa
On 1/16/07, Jim Jewett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Other than dict.items (and .keys and .values) returning a non-list,
are there any other cases where the Py3K idiom can't already be used
in (or at least backported to) Py 2.x?
Well, there is that bit where strings are all unicode, including al
On 1/16/07, Barry Warsaw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I know Guido is against attribute syntax for dict.items and friends,
> and I agree with him for reasons I can't quite put my finger on.
I agree that making dict.items and friends into attributes feels
wrong. I suspect it may be useful to put a
Please move to the python-ideas list (2nd plea!)
--
--Guido van Rossum (home page: http://www.python.org/~guido/)
___
Python-3000 mailing list
[email protected]
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-3000
Unsubscribe:
http://mail.python.or
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Jan 17, 2007, at 8:38 AM, Greg Falcon wrote:
> After a bit of mulling it over, the best objection I can come up with
> is this: views aren't "attributes" or "properties" of a dict object in
> the plain-English sense of the term. This might simply
On 1/17/07, Thomas Wouters <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 1/16/07, Jim Jewett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Other than dict.items (and .keys and .values) returning a non-list,
> > are there any other cases where the Py3K idiom can't already be used
> > in (or at least backported to) Py 2.x?
> Th
