On Feb 12, 2008 11:56 AM, Guido van Rossum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Here's another way to look at it, maybe it'll help. My hunch is that
> whenever someone writes x = copy(y), they actually know more about the
> type of y than just that it is an object! Because if they knew
> *nothing* about i
On Feb 12, 2008 3:11 PM, Daniel Stutzbach
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Feb 12, 2008 4:52 PM, Guido van Rossum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >
> > > What useful information do we get by knowing that a type has a .copy()
> > > method?
> >
> > It rules out all classes that don't have one. That's n
On Feb 12, 2008 4:52 PM, Guido van Rossum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > What useful information do we get by knowing that a type has a .copy()
> > method?
>
> It rules out all classes that don't have one. That's nearly all types.
>
Okay, but turn it around for a minute. Which types should have
Guido van Rossum wrote:
> I used Google Code Search to find examples of copy.copy().
> Many were hard to understand because there was no clue about the
> argument passed it, and the copy() call doesn't help me infer its type
> either. Contrast this with example code using iter() -- it tells me
> th
Guido van Rossum wrote:
> Here's another way to look at it, maybe it'll help. My hunch is that
> whenever someone writes x = copy(y), they actually know more about the
> type of y than just that it is an object!
I don't see how this is much different than the situation
with __iter__. If you know
Raymond Hettinger wrote:
> The part I'm not following in this paragraph is how a d.copy()
> method is any different from the d.__copy__() method that
> is called by the copy() function. Both share the same underlying
> implementation and both have the same effects when overridden.
Having it a fun
On Feb 11, 2008 9:10 PM, Raymond Hettinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Was the concensus on this to move UserList into the collections module and to
> remove UserString?
> Any objections?
No objections here either.
Steve
--
I'm not *in*-sane. Indeed, I am so far *out* of sane that you appear a
On Feb 12, 2008 9:44 AM, thomas.heller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Author: thomas.heller
> Date: Tue Feb 12 18:44:23 2008
> New Revision: 60746
>
> Modified:
>python/branches/py3k/Modules/_ctypes/_ctypes.c
> Log:
> Revert the last svnmerge (r60681) from trunk to _ctypes.c, it should
> not have
On Feb 11, 2008 10:40 PM, Neil Toronto <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The problem is that, like all the binary operators, "orderable" is only
> defined for pairs of types. A single declaration of orderable-ness
> necessarily lacks information needed for type safety.
Actually, lots of languages have
On Feb 11, 2008 10:38 PM, Raymond Hettinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> That's a lot of firepower for such a little problem ;-)
Indeed, which is why it was not adopted. ;-)
--
--Guido van Rossum (home page: http://www.python.org/~guido/)
___
Python-30
On Feb 11, 2008 10:20 PM, Raymond Hettinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> I don't think we'll ever get another chance to clean-up the mapping API
> >> and to remove duplicate functionality (the code for
> >> dict.__copy__ and dict.copy share the same implementation).
> >
> > I find the use of a
On Feb 12, 2008 2:40 PM, Daniel Stutzbach
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Based on the same reasoning, when
we see x = copy(y) we can tentatively
> assume that y is a type that can usefully be copied. Unless we don't trust
> the author of the code to be sensible.
My point is that (almost) any type is copya
On Feb 12, 2008 2:20 PM, Greg Ewing <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Guido van Rossum wrote:
>
> > Here's another way to look at it, maybe it'll help. My hunch is that
> > whenever someone writes x = copy(y), they actually know more about the
> > type of y than just that it is an object!
>
> I don't se
Guido van Rossum wrote:
> There is a way to prevent merging a particular revision by instructing
> svnmerge properly. I believe the syntax is svnmerge block (svnmerge
> help block will explain you more).
>
> Christian has been using this -- Christian, care to post a detailed example?
Yes, svnmerg
14 matches
Mail list logo
