On 4/21/07, Guido van Rossum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 4/21/07, Jeffrey Yasskin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > PartiallyOrdered:
> > This ABC defines the 5 inequality operations <, <=, >=, >, and cmp().
>
> Actually, I'm hoping to eliminate cmp() completely. Also, even if it
> doesn't get eli
Guido van Rossum wrote:
>
>
> I don't believe that's always true. I can imagine use cases where, if
> I were writing it in an if-then-else fashion, I'd be writing the
> *same* if-test several times as part of a particular algorithm,
> without having an easy way to refactor the algorithm so that the
Michele Cella wrote:
> Personally, I really like this syntax:
>
> res = super currentmethod(arg, arg)
>
> Why? because it's very consistent (pythonic?) with the way I'm used to
> use any other keyword.
But it's inconsistent with the way every other
method is called.
--
Greg
__
On Mon, Apr 23, 2007, Greg Ewing wrote:
> Michele Cella wrote:
>>
>> Personally, I really like this syntax:
>>
>> res = super currentmethod(arg, arg)
>>
>> Why? because it's very consistent (pythonic?) with the way I'm used to
>> use any other keyword.
>
> But it's inconsistent with the way ev
This PEP is to change the ``if __name__ == "__main__": ...`` idiom to
``if __name__ == sys.main: ...`` so that you at least have a chance
to execute module in a package that use relative imports.
Ran this PEP past python-ideas. Stopped the discussion there when too
many new ideas were being prop
Brett Cannon wrote:
> Implementation
> ==
>
> When the ``-m`` option is used, ``sys.main`` will be set to the
> argument passed in. ``sys.argv`` will be adjusted as it is currently.
> Then the equivalent of ``__import__(self.main)`` will occur. This
> differs from current semantics a
(Please note that several groups were Cc'd. For now, please limit
followups to python-3000. This would *probably* be backported to 2.6,
but that wouldn't be decided until the implementation strategy was
settled.)
PEP: 30XX
Title: Access to Module/Class/Function Currently Being Defined (this)
Ver
Can you add refs to all the PEPs?
Will this go into 2.6 also? If so, you should send to python-dev too.
If this is accepted, can you update the 2.6 PEP 361.
On 4/22/07, Brett Cannon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Implementation
> ==
>
> When the ``-m`` option is used, ``sys.main`` wi
On 4/22/07, Jim Jewett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> PEP: 30XX
> Title: Access to Module/Class/Function Currently Being Defined (this)
[snip]
>
> Abstract
>
> It is common to need a reference to the current module, class,
> or function, but there is currently no entirely correct way to
>
On 4/22/07, Samuele Pedroni <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> If we keep s % d (do we? reading the list archives and the peps didn't
> give an answer, I suppose it depends if PEP 3101 is accepted):
>
> will it check if d is a Mapping or continue to use the current heuristics?
>
> I suppose this is a leg
On 4/22/07, Christian Heimes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Brett Cannon wrote:
> > Implementation
> > ==
> >
> > When the ``-m`` option is used, ``sys.main`` will be set to the
> > argument passed in. ``sys.argv`` will be adjusted as it is currently.
> > Then the equivalent of ``__impor
On 4/22/07, Neal Norwitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Can you add refs to all the PEPs?
>
Sure, although considering my laptop died within minutes of my last
commit to 25-maint it might be a little while (using my girlfriend's
laptop to check email).
> Will this go into 2.6 also?
It's covered in
I got off to a good start in terms of figuring out what needs to be in the
PEP... good enough to realize that a complete specification of what I have
in mind is probably going to dwarf the WSGI spec. There are just too many
details that have to be explained; the roughly 1000 lines of Python co
"Jim Jewett" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in
message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
|Functions (including methods) often want access to themselves,
|usually for a private storage location.
Or for true recursion. At present, a function has to 'hope' that its
definition name is not rebound.
tjr
On 4/22/07, Brett Cannon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Implementation
> ==
>
> When the ``-m`` option is used, ``sys.main`` will be set to the
> argument passed in. ``sys.argv`` will be adjusted as it is currently.
> Then the equivalent of ``__import__(self.main)`` will occur. This
> d
Greg Ewing wrote:
> Michele Cella wrote:
>
>> Personally, I really like this syntax:
>>
>> res = super currentmethod(arg, arg)
>>
>> Why? because it's very consistent (pythonic?) with the way I'm used to
>> use any other keyword.
>
> But it's inconsistent with the way every other
> method is cal
16 matches
Mail list logo
