On 04/28/2012 04:20 PM, Eric V. Smith wrote:
But we generally use a namedtuple (or structseq) for things like
get_clock_info. For example, for sys.float_info there's no need for it
to be a tuple, and it can be extended in the future, yet it's a structseq.
I'd prefer an object to a dict, but
On 4/29/2012 4:41 AM, Larry Hastings wrote:
On 04/28/2012 04:20 PM, Eric V. Smith wrote:
But we generally use a namedtuple (or structseq) for things like
get_clock_info. For example, for sys.float_info there's no need for it
to be a tuple, and it can be extended in the future, yet it's a
On 04/29/2012 02:01 AM, Eric V. Smith wrote:
On 4/29/2012 4:41 AM, Larry Hastings wrote:
I'd prefer an object to a dict, but not a tuple / structseq. There's no
need for the members to be iterable.
I agree with you, but there's already plenty of precedent for this.
[...] Iteration for these
On 28.04.12 21:16, Brett Cannon wrote:
On Sat, Apr 28, 2012 at 04:08, Nick Coghlan ncogh...@gmail.com
mailto:ncogh...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, Apr 28, 2012 at 6:00 AM, Brett Cannon br...@python.org
mailto:br...@python.org wrote:
I'm personally in favour of changing the
On Sun, 29 Apr 2012 02:12:41 -0700
Larry Hastings la...@hastings.org wrote:
On 04/29/2012 02:01 AM, Eric V. Smith wrote:
On 4/29/2012 4:41 AM, Larry Hastings wrote:
I'd prefer an object to a dict, but not a tuple / structseq. There's no
need for the members to be iterable.
I agree with
On Sun, 29 Apr 2012 03:26:26 +0200
Victor Stinner victor.stin...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi Guido,
2012/4/28 Guido van Rossum gu...@python.org:
I read most of the PEP and I think it is ready for acceptance! Thanks
for your patience in shepherding this through such a difficult and
long
On 29.04.12 07:05, Nick Coghlan wrote:
On Sun, Apr 29, 2012 at 1:41 PM, PJ Ebyp...@telecommunity.com wrote:
That's already the case. Actually, sys.path[0] is *always* the absolute
path of the script directory -- regardless of whether you invoked the script
by a relative path or an absolute
On Sun, Apr 29, 2012 at 5:29 AM, Steven D'Aprano st...@pearwood.info wrote:
Larry Hastings wrote:
On 04/29/2012 02:01 AM, Eric V. Smith wrote:
On 4/29/2012 4:41 AM, Larry Hastings wrote:
I'd prefer an object to a dict, but not a tuple / structseq. There's no
need for the members to be
On Sat, Apr 28, 2012 at 6:26 PM, Victor Stinner
victor.stin...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi Guido,
2012/4/28 Guido van Rossum gu...@python.org:
I read most of the PEP and I think it is ready for acceptance! Thanks
for your patience in shepherding this through such a difficult and
long discussion.
On Sat, Apr 28, 2012 at 1:32 PM, Victor Stinner
victor.stin...@gmail.com wrote:
As a thin wrapper, adding it to the time module was pretty much
uncontroversial, I think. The PEP proposes cross-platform
functions with consistent semantics, which is where a discussion was
needed.
True, but
Hi,
I see PEP 418 gives time.clock_info() two boolean fields named
is_monotonic and is_adjusted. I think the is_ is unnecessary and
a bit ugly, and they could just be renamed monotonic and adjusted.
Thoughts?
--
Regards,
Benjamin
___
Python-Dev
On Sun, 29 Apr 2012 19:25:16 -0400
Benjamin Peterson benja...@python.org wrote:
Hi,
I see PEP 418 gives time.clock_info() two boolean fields named
is_monotonic and is_adjusted. I think the is_ is unnecessary and
a bit ugly, and they could just be renamed monotonic and adjusted.
Thoughts?
In http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2012-April/119134.html
Benjamin Peterson wrote:
I see PEP 418 gives time.clock_info() two boolean fields named
is_monotonic and is_adjusted. I think the is_ is unnecessary and
a bit ugly, and they could just be renamed monotonic and adjusted.
I
2012/4/29 Jim J. Jewett jimjjew...@gmail.com:
In http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2012-April/119134.html
Benjamin Peterson wrote:
I see PEP 418 gives time.clock_info() two boolean fields named
is_monotonic and is_adjusted. I think the is_ is unnecessary and
a bit ugly, and they
14 matches
Mail list logo
