On 2/10/07, Steve Holden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > On Sun, Feb 11, 2007 at 03:35:29AM +0200, Yotam Rubin wrote:
> >> Why don't you use Stackless? It's very simple, stable, and solves
> >> quite completely the problems in writing concurrect code.
> >
> > That's a grea
Brett Cannon schrieb:
>> Of course Stackless isn't quite fully integrated with 2.5 (yet).
>>
>> When did someone last suggest that Stackless become part of the core
>> CPython implementation, and why didn't that ever happen?
>>
>
> Don't remember the "when". The "why" has always been that Christi
Someone checked in Parser/Python.asdl. After rebuilding Subversion tells me
that Python/Python-ast.c has been modified. I assume the two are related.
Did whoever checked in the former need to check in the latter (and maybe add
a note to Misc/NEWS)?
Skip
__
On 2/11/07, "Martin v. Löwis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Brett Cannon schrieb:
> >> Of course Stackless isn't quite fully integrated with 2.5 (yet).
> >>
> >> When did someone last suggest that Stackless become part of the core
> >> CPython implementation, and why didn't that ever happen?
> >>
>
On 2/11/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Someone checked in Parser/Python.asdl. After rebuilding Subversion tells me
> that Python/Python-ast.c has been modified. I assume the two are related.
> Did whoever checked in the former need to check in the latter
Yeah, sorry about tha
Richard Tew schrieb:
> If these generator coroutine microthreads went ahead and part
> of it was improving the support for asynchronous calls in the
> runtime and standard library, this would also be something
> which also benefited Stackless Python. Even if they didn't go
> ahead I would be inter
Brett Cannon schrieb:
> On 2/11/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Someone checked in Parser/Python.asdl. After rebuilding Subversion tells me
>> that Python/Python-ast.c has been modified. I assume the two are related.
>> Did whoever checked in the former need to check in the la
Hi Martin,
On Sun, Feb 11, 2007 at 07:09:29PM +0100, "Martin v. L?wis" wrote:
> > hacks into the core were complicated and he didn't even think
> > integration was worth it.
>
> With emphasis on the latter. Christian never proposed (to my knowledge)
> that Stackless should be integrated. Of cours
On 2/11/07, "Martin v. Löwis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Actually, the regenerating should happen immediately after commit,
> as this bumps the revision number of the asdl file. This means
> you have to make two commits per AST grammar change: one to change
> the grammar, and the other to update
Hi,
A few days ago I posted to python-ideas with a suggestion for some new
Python syntax, which would allow easier access to object attributes
where the attribute name is known only at run-time. For example:
setattr(self, method_name, getattr(self.metadata, method_name))
from Lib/distutils/d
Ben North wrote:
> c.5 uses which would have to stay as "getattr" because they
> are calls of a variable named "getattr" whose default
> value is the builtin "getattr";
Have you checked if these are intended to bring the "getattr" name into
local scope for fa
Ben North wrote:
> Hi,
>
> A few days ago I posted to python-ideas with a suggestion for some new
> Python syntax, which would allow easier access to object attributes
> where the attribute name is known only at run-time. For example:
>
> setattr(self, method_name, getattr(self.metadata, method_nam
On 2/11/07, Guido van Rossum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 2/11/07, "Martin v. Löwis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Actually, the regenerating should happen immediately after commit,
> > as this bumps the revision number of the asdl file. This means
> > you have to make two commits per AST gramm
"Ben North" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
| so here I am. Does anybody have any opinions/suggestions, particularly
| on the "open questions" referred to in the draft PEP? To summarise
| these open questions:
Need: Runtime attributes are a fairly frequent 'How?' qu
On Monday 12 February 2007 13:57, Brett Cannon wrote:
> On 2/11/07, Guido van Rossum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On 2/11/07, "Martin v. Löwis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > Actually, the regenerating should happen immediately after
> > > commit, as this bumps the revision number of the asdl f
On 2/11/07, "Martin v. Löwis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Brett Cannon schrieb:
> > On 2/11/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> Someone checked in Parser/Python.asdl. After rebuilding Subversion tells
> >> me
> >> that Python/Python-ast.c has been modified. I assume the two ar
On 2/11/07, Ben North <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[SNIP]
> * The draft currently allows a two-argument form, to supply a default
> value if the object has no attribute of that name. This mimics the
> behaviour of the three-argument form of getattr, but looks a bit wrong:
>
> s = obj.(attr_
I have to say that I'm not that impressed by either the 1-arg or
2-arg versions. Someone coming across this syntax for the first
time will not have any hints as to what it means - and worse, it
looks like a syntax error to me. -1 from me.
___
Python-De
I like the general idea, but the syntax looks like dirt on my monitor.
The period is too easy to lose visually and without it, there's
nothing to distinguish this from a function call. Also, like Anthony
Baxter said, someone coming across this for the first time will think
it's a syntax error, allu
Armin Rigo schrieb:
> The history as I remember it is that Christian tried hard to integrate
> the first versions of Stackless with CPython, but was turned town by
> python-dev.
Are there public records of that? As I remember it, Christian never
actually submitted a patch for inclusion (at least n
Anthony Baxter wrote:
> I have to say that I'm not that impressed by either the 1-arg or
> 2-arg versions. Someone coming across this syntax for the first
> time will not have any hints as to what it means - and worse, it
> looks like a syntax error to me. -1 from me.
>
I'm not sure the "loo
Guido van Rossum schrieb:
> Is this documented somewhere? It wouldn't hurt if there was a pointer
> to that documentation right next to the line in Python-ast.c that gets
> modified by the regeneration. (I've been wondering about this a few
> times myself.)
Done!
Martin
_
On Monday 12 February 2007 18:38, Neil Toronto wrote:
> Anthony Baxter wrote:
> > I have to say that I'm not that impressed by either the 1-arg
> > or 2-arg versions. Someone coming across this syntax for the
> > first time will not have any hints as to what it means - and
> > worse, it looks like
Brett Cannon schrieb:
> /*
> File automatically generated by %s.
>
> This module must be committed separately from each AST grammar change;
> the __version__ number is set to the revision number of the commit
> containing the grammar change.
> */
It doesn't completely show up in "svn diff
Anthony Baxter schrieb:
>>This module must be committed separately from each AST grammar
>> change; the __version__ number is set to the revision number of
>> the commit containing the grammar change.
>> */
>
> Note that the welease.py script that builds the releases does
> a "touch" on the r
Collin Winter schrieb:
> I like the general idea, but the syntax looks like dirt on my monitor.
> The period is too easy to lose visually and without it, there's
> nothing to distinguish this from a function call. Also, like Anthony
> Baxter said, someone coming across this for the first time will
26 matches
Mail list logo
