On 3/14/07, Guido van Rossum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 3/14/07, Talin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > PEP: xxx
> > Title: Metaclasses in Python 3000
>
> Checked in as PEP 3115.
I've accepted this PEP and checked in the implementation. The compiler
package is currently broken; someone who know
Hoi,
Some time I proposed changing the type __repr__ to the import name.
While I still think this is a good idea ;-) I found a small
inconsistency in the __repr__ code of PyTypeObject. Currently the
repr checks for the Py_TPFLAGS_HEAPTYPE flag to check if it should
use "class" or "type" as name fo
This is what I think we agreed on :)
(except that I think that lowercase-only 'x', 'e', 'r' is a subject
for a different PEP)
I don't have a PEP number for this yet, but I emailed it into the PEP
editors yesterday.
I tried to cover the discussion about letting "0123" be a decimal
integer, and th
Patrick Maupin schrieb:
> This is what I think we agreed on :)
>
> (except that I think that lowercase-only 'x', 'e', 'r' is a subject
> for a different PEP)
>
> I don't have a PEP number for this yet, but I emailed it into the PEP
> editors yesterday.
>
> I tried to cover the discussion about l
On 3/18/07, Georg Brandl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I just want to add that I've adapted and extended Thomas' original patch
> for the 0o123 syntax. It should be pretty complete.
>
> Open issues would probably be:
> - should int("0755", 0) give 0o755? (IMO yes)
The PEP covers this, with the answ
Patrick Maupin schrieb:
> On 3/18/07, Georg Brandl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> I just want to add that I've adapted and extended Thomas' original patch
>> for the 0o123 syntax. It should be pretty complete.
>>
>> Open issues would probably be:
>> - should int("0755", 0) give 0o755? (IMO yes)
>
>
On 3/18/07, Patrick Maupin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
the treatment of string literal representations of integers
I don't think this is the right term. It's certainly confusing, considering
"string literals" are the stuff in quotes. A less confusing name is just
'integer literals'.
- Ther
On 3/19/07, Georg Brandl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Patrick Maupin schrieb:
> On 3/18/07, Georg Brandl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> I just want to add that I've adapted and extended Thomas' original
patch
>> for the 0o123 syntax. It should be pretty complete.
>>
>> Open issues would probably be
On 3/18/07, Thomas Wouters <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 3/18/07, Patrick Maupin <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > wrote:
> I don't think this is the right term. It's certainly confusing, considering
> "string literals" are the stuff in quotes. A less confusing name is just
> 'integer literals'.
OK, if it i
On 3/18/07, Thomas Wouters <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> As far as I understood Guido, int(s, 16) should. int(s, 0) should not.
I guess this is still an open item, then. My understanding is that
Guido said "no uppercase", I asked about "X", he basically replied,
"well, fine for data, if you must,
On 3/18/07, Thomas Wouters <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> On 3/18/07, Patrick Maupin <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > wrote:
> > the treatment of string literal representations of integers
>
> I don't think this is the right term. It's certainly confusing, considering
> "string literals" are the stuff in quo
On 3/18/07, Guido van Rossum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Octal does need to be justified, since some people argued to remove
> it. I guess binary needs to be justified because Thomas doesn't see
> the need. :-)
I see literals for octal and binary as similar to raising a tuple, or
automatically un
On 3/18/07, Jim Jewett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The preference isn't really overwhelming, though, and the use isn't
> very frequent. This doesn't seem like a big enough win to justify any
> extra complexity in the language.
>
> (And no, I wouldn't add hex either, but not adding is different fr
On 3/19/07, Patrick Maupin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> (new version of the PEP)
D'oh. I just realized that the text I used in the title which Thomas
pointed out was confusing is similarly scattered throughout the PEP.
I will fix this on the next rev., and just refer to "integer
literals", as it
14 matches
Mail list logo
