Guido van Rossum schrieb:
> I haven't taken any action, and it looks like __cmp__ isn't being
> called. I'd rather not add it back; if you want it back, could you at
> least write up a brief PEP? A patch would also help; I recall that it
> was quite a relief being able to cut it out, so I expect th
Josiah Carlson wrote:
> Nick Coghlan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Josiah Carlson wrote:
>>> "Travis E. Oliphant" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
The buffer interface should allow discontiguous memory areas to
share standard striding information. However, consumers that do
no
Georg Brandl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Guido van Rossum schrieb:
> > I haven't taken any action, and it looks like __cmp__ isn't being
> > called. I'd rather not add it back; if you want it back, could you at
> > least write up a brief PEP? A patch would also help; I recall that it
> > was quit
Josiah Carlson schrieb:
> Georg Brandl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Guido van Rossum schrieb:
>> > I haven't taken any action, and it looks like __cmp__ isn't being
>> > called. I'd rather not add it back; if you want it back, could you at
>> > least write up a brief PEP? A patch would also help;
On 3/21/07, Georg Brandl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> BTW, was it intentional that dicts can't be compared via ">" and "<"
> anymore?
Yes. In old Python it made sense since all objects were supposed to be
orderable *somehow* (in the truly distant past, comparisons weren't
even allowed to raise exc
"Georg Brandl" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
| Yes, but dictionaries had an explicit ordering in dict_compare() which
was
| deleted.
Is dict_compare something added in 2.5? It is neither a builtin or dict
method in 2.4.
In any case, this point is that dict order
No comments at all. :( Did I send the mail to the wrong list?
Either or, I still would like to know what the py3k rules are for
repairing broken API:s.
On 3/14/07, BJörn Lindqvist <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I have a question about PEP 3001:
>
> """The last and most disruptive change is the ove
On 3/20/07, Guido van Rossum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[snip]
> Or we could just have 2.6 warn about the presence (or use) of __cmp__
> -- users can write equivalent code using __lt__ etc. themselves and
> probably do a better job.
Fair enough.
Is anyone collecting a list of these --py3k warning
On 3/14/07, BJörn Lindqvist <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> So I wonder what is the policy for fixing mistakes in the API design?
In general, I think if you can warn about it in 2.6 or you can add to
2to3 so that this gets automatically fixed, then it's okay to fix the
API.
> Is a PEP really needed?
"BJörn Lindqvist" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
| No comments at all. :( Did I send the mail to the wrong list?
No, perhaps everyone did as I did, and assumed someone else would answer
;-)
| Either or, I still would like to know what the py3k rules are for
| repai
On 3/20/07, Steven Bethard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 3/20/07, Collin Winter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Quoting from the commit message for r51533, which removed the default
> > ordering:
> >
> > """
> > A general problem with getting lots of these tests to pass is
> > the reality that fo
On 3/21/07, Collin Winter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 3/20/07, Guido van Rossum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [snip]
> > Or we could just have 2.6 warn about the presence (or use) of __cmp__
> > -- users can write equivalent code using __lt__ etc. themselves and
> > probably do a better job.
>
>
On 3/21/07, Adam Olsen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 3/20/07, Steven Bethard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I've used a __key__() method quite successfully in my own code. Maybe
> > we should provide a mixin like::
> >
> > class KeyedComparisonMixin(object):
> > def __eq__(self, othe
On 3/21/07, Collin Winter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 3/20/07, Guido van Rossum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[snip]
> Or we could just have 2.6 warn about the presence (or use) of __cmp__
> -- users can write equivalent code using __lt__ etc. themselves and
> probably do a better job.
Fair enou
On 3/21/07, Thomas Wouters <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 3/21/07, Collin Winter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On 3/20/07, Guido van Rossum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > [snip]
> > > Or we could just have 2.6 warn about the presence (or use) of __cmp__
> > > -- users can write equivalent code us
Terry Reedy schrieb:
> "Georg Brandl" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> | Yes, but dictionaries had an explicit ordering in dict_compare() which
> was
> | deleted.
>
> Is dict_compare something added in 2.5? It is neither a builtin or dict
> method in 2.4.
No, it
Thanks, got it. Found the leak, thanks to gc.get_objects() and your
hint about what was leaking in test_grammar. Were you tired when you
posted that first msg? It was incredibly terse. :-)
Committed revision 54502.
--Guido
On 3/20/07, Neal Norwitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> That was mostly the
On 3/21/07, Georg Brandl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Terry Reedy schrieb:
> > "Georg Brandl" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > | Yes, but dictionaries had an explicit ordering in dict_compare() which
> > was
> > | deleted.
> >
> > Is dict_compare something added i
[Guido van Rossum]
>It was well-defined because I had to do *something* that depended only
>on the keys and values and not on object identities etc. I never
>considered it *userful* and I don't know of anyone who used it.
Also, dict ordering would be confusing in Py3k where the views use the
ineq
Adam Olsen wrote:
> On 3/20/07, Steven Bethard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > I've used a __key__() method quite successfully in my own code. Maybe
> > we should provide a mixin like::
>
> This seems to match what I've usually needed, but I'm not sure it's
> worth putting in python proper.
In
On 3/21/07, Greg Ewing <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In addition to this, what about the idea of a Python-level
> __richcmp__ method? It would provide a single point of override
> for classes that wanted to use it, and it shouldn't upset any
> default behaviours since it's just exposing what's there
On 3/21/07, Steven Bethard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 3/14/07, BJörn Lindqvist <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > So I wonder what is the policy for fixing mistakes in the API design?
>
> In general, I think if you can warn about it in 2.6 or you can add to
> 2to3 so that this gets automatically f
On 3/21/07, brett.cannon wrote:
> Author: brett.cannon
> Date: Wed Mar 21 23:26:20 2007
> New Revision: 54510
>
> Modified:
>python/branches/p3yk/Lib/ConfigParser.py
>python/branches/p3yk/Lib/test/test_file.py
> Log:
> When removing indexing/slicing on exceptions some places were changed
>
On 3/21/07, Collin Winter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 3/21/07, brett.cannon wrote:
> > When removing indexing/slicing on exceptions some places were changed
> > inappropriately from ``e[0]`` to ``e.message`` instead of ``e.args[0]``.
> > The
> > reason it needs to be the last option is the d
On 3/21/07, Terry Reedy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "BJörn Lindqvist" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> | No comments at all. :( Did I send the mail to the wrong list?
>
> No, perhaps everyone did as I did, and assumed someone else would answer
> ;-)
I see.. Thanks f
On 3/21/07, Guido van Rossum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 3/21/07, Collin Winter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On 3/21/07, brett.cannon wrote:
> > > When removing indexing/slicing on exceptions some places were changed
> > > inappropriately from ``e[0]`` to ``e.message`` instead of ``e.args[0]
On 3/21/07, Guido van Rossum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 3/21/07, Collin Winter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On 3/21/07, brett.cannon wrote:
> > > When removing indexing/slicing on exceptions some places were changed
> > > inappropriately from ``e[0]`` to ``e.message`` instead of ``e.args[0]
On 3/21/07, Collin Winter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 3/21/07, Guido van Rossum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On 3/21/07, Collin Winter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > On 3/21/07, brett.cannon wrote:
> > > > When removing indexing/slicing on exceptions some places were changed
> > > > inappr
On 3/21/07, Brett Cannon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 3/21/07, Collin Winter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On 3/21/07, Guido van Rossum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > On 3/21/07, Collin Winter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > On 3/21/07, brett.cannon wrote:
> > > > > When removing indexing
PDFL? Petty Dictator For Life? Poodle Dictator For Life? Perhaps
Dictator For Life? :-)
I suggest that you update the PEP and then repost the pep on
python-dev with a summary of the changes (to the PEP). I expect it to
go smoothly.
--Guido
On 3/21/07, Brett Cannon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On
On 3/21/07, Collin Winter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 3/21/07, Brett Cannon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On 3/21/07, Collin Winter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > On 3/21/07, Guido van Rossum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > On 3/21/07, Collin Winter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > > On
On 3/21/07, Guido van Rossum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> PDFL? Petty Dictator For Life? Poodle Dictator For Life? Perhaps
> Dictator For Life? :-)
>
=) Hey, I'm sick so I get to have a typo or four.
> I suggest that you update the PEP and then repost the pep on
> python-dev with a summary of th
Terry Reedy schrieb:
| > In any case, this point is that dict ordering is as arbitrary as
ordering,
| > for instance, a dict and a string. Since Guido stopped the experiment
of
| > totally ordering all objects when complex nums were added, consistency
| > suggests that all fake orderings be el
Daniel Stutzbach wrote:
> I apologize if this is a silly question, but what would be the
> difference between the proposed __richcmp__ and the old __cmp__ that's
> being removed?
__richcmp__ would have the same signature as the C-level
tp_richcmp slot, i.e. taking a code indicating which
comparis
Brett Cannon wrote:
> Should we just consider this a PDFL pronouncement,
Interesting acronym... Portable Documentator For Life, maybe?
--
Greg Ewing, Computer Science Dept, +--+
University of Canterbury, | Carpe
On 3/21/07, BJörn Lindqvist <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 3/21/07, Steven Bethard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On 3/14/07, BJörn Lindqvist <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > So I wonder what is the policy for fixing mistakes in the API design?
> >
> > In general, I think if you can warn about it
36 matches
Mail list logo
