>
> I hope that Python gets a sorteddict and a
> sortedset.
It doesn't make sense for Python to have sorteddict or sortedset. You see,
dict can have keys which cannot be ordered (keys can be heterogeneous, in
which case Py3K may raise TypeError; ordering doesn't make sense for the
objects used a
>> sys.argv could be of type bytes and sys.arguments (or whatever) could be
>> a function taking an encoding parameter (which defaults to UTF-8) and
>> returning strings.
>>
> It would be pretty disruptive to ask everyone to change
> their habit of thinking of sys.argv as a list of strings.
The
>From a python's user point of view. a sorted dict/set/list was sometimes a
requirement for me. Basically. a dictionary that had a BTree implementation
instead of a hash table. Also. having an explicit type error would then be a
clear indication that you have something wrong in your implementattion
Arvind Singh schrieb:
> I hope that Python gets a sorteddict and a
> sortedset.
>
>
> It doesn't make sense for Python to have sorteddict or sortedset. You
> see, dict can have keys which cannot be ordered (keys can be
> heterogeneous, in which case Py3K may raise TypeError; ordering d
On 9/13/07, Greg Ewing <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Gregory P. Smith wrote:
> > When I read the plain term EXCLUSIVE I read that to mean nobody else can
> > read -or- write, ie: not shared in any sense.
>
> You're right, it's not the best term.
>
> > Lets extend these base
> > concepts to SHARED_RE
On 9/13/07, Travis E. Oliphant <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I think if it doesn't go through the buffer interface it is up to the
> object to decide (i.e. what does the object do with itself when buffers
> are exported --- that will depend on the object). All it must do is
> support the buffer in
On 9/14/07, Greg Ewing <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hagen Fürstenau wrote:
> > sys.argv could be of type bytes and sys.arguments (or whatever) could be
> > a function taking an encoding parameter (which defaults to UTF-8) and
> > returning strings.
> >
> > Of course that's backwards incompatible an
On 15/09/2007, Gregory P. Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> similarly for the environment. os.environ dict
> should be bytes object keys and values
You can't have bytes as keys - the type isn't hashable...
Paul
___
Python-3000 mailing list
Python-3000
On 9/15/07, Paul Moore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 15/09/2007, Gregory P. Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > similarly for the environment. os.environ dict
> > should be bytes object keys and values
>
> You can't have bytes as keys - the type isn't hashable...
ugh, yeah. as much as i hate
On Fri, Sep 14, 2007, "Martin v. L??wis" wrote:
>Hagen:
>>
>> And what if we skillfully conserve unknown bytes in a private use or
>> surrogate area and the application author actually knows the encoding
>> and wants correctly decoded strings?
>
> They can easily roundtrip that then to the encodi
On Sat, Sep 15, 2007, Paul Moore wrote:
> On 15/09/2007, Gregory P. Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> similarly for the environment. os.environ dict
>> should be bytes object keys and values
>
> You can't have bytes as keys - the type isn't hashable...
That's why people keep arguing for an
> Also "argv" sounds more low-level than something like "arguments".
While we're on the subject of argv, I've been wondering
whether py3k might want to revisit the idea of having
argv[0] be the program name. In my experience, one almost
*never* wants to treat argv[0] the same way as the rest of
t
On 9/15/07, Arvind Singh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > I hope that Python gets a sorteddict and a
> > sortedset.
>
> It doesn't make sense for Python to have sorteddict or sortedset. You see,
> dict can have keys which cannot be ordered (keys can be heterogeneous, in
> which case Py3K may raise
On 9/15/07, Paul Moore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 15/09/2007, Gregory P. Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > similarly for the environment. os.environ dict
> > should be bytes object keys and values
>
> You can't have bytes as keys - the type isn't hashable...
Then lets stop beating around
This sounds awfully close to bikeshedding. Change too many details
like this and you cause death by a 1000 pinpricks for existing apps.
sys.argv[0] *does* get used (though arguably rarely in the same way as
sys.argv[1:]).
--Guido
On 9/15/07, Greg Ewing <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Also "argv"
> > You can't have bytes as keys - the type isn't hashable...
>
> That's why people keep arguing for an immutable bytes types. I keep
> seeing long discussions that end up with a tortured mechanism for making
> the keys unicode. Why don't we just bite the bullet and make things
> easier and have
On Sep 15, 2007, at 10:00 PM, Nicholas Bastin wrote:
> Then lets stop beating around the bush and implement an immutable
> bytes type. Why put ourselves through contortions trying to jam a
> square peg into a round hole and not just decide to make a round peg?
+42
-Fred
--
Fred Drake
17 matches
Mail list logo
