Rob Cliffe writes:
Why? What value (pun intended) is there in adding an explicit statement
of value to every single class?
It troubles me a bit that value seems to be a fuzzy concept - it has
an obvious meaning for some types (int, float, list etc.) but for
callable objects you
On Tue, Jul 8, 2014 at 5:01 PM, Stephen J. Turnbull step...@xemacs.org wrote:
I agree with Steven d'A that this rule is not part of the language
definition and shouldn't be, but it's the rule of thumb I find hardest
to imagine *ever* wanting to break in my own code (although I sort of
On Jul 8, 2014, at 12:58 AM, Nick Coghlan ncogh...@gmail.com wrote:
On 7 Jul 2014 10:47, Guido van Rossum gu...@python.org wrote:
It would still be nice to know who the appropriate persons are. Too much
of our infrastructure seems to be maintained by house elves or the ITA.
I
Chris Angelico writes:
The reason NaN isn't equal to itself is because there are X bit
patterns representing NaN, but an infinite number of possible
non-numbers that could result from a calculation.
I understand that. But you're missing at least two alternatives that
involve raising on
May the true owner of buildbot.python.org stand up!
(But I do think there may well not be anyone who feels they own it. And
that's a problem for its long term viability.)
Generally speaking, as an organization we should set up a process for
managing ownership of *all* infrastructure in a uniform
Hi,
2014-07-08 15:52 GMT+02:00 Ben Hoyt benh...@gmail.com:
After some very good python-dev feedback on my first version of PEP
471, I've updated the PEP to clarify a few things and added various
Rejected ideas subsections. Here's a link to the new version (I've
also copied the full text
Chris Angelico wrote:
This is off-topic for this thread, but still...
The trouble is that your arguably just as wrong is an
indistinguishable case. If you don't want two different calculations'
NaNs to *ever* compare equal, the only solution is to have all NaNs
compare unequal
For two NaNs
On 7/8/2014 9:52 AM, Ben Hoyt wrote:
DirEntry fields being static attribute-only objects
-
In `this July 2014 python-dev message
https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2014-July/135303.html`_,
Paul Moore suggested a solution that was a
On Tue, Jul 08, 2014 at 04:53:50PM +0900, Stephen J. Turnbull wrote:
Chris Angelico writes:
The reason NaN isn't equal to itself is because there are X bit
patterns representing NaN, but an infinite number of possible
non-numbers that could result from a calculation.
I understand
On Tue, Jul 08, 2014 at 04:58:33PM +0200, Anders J. Munch wrote:
For two NaNs computed differently to compare equal is no worse than 2+2
comparing equal to 1+3. You're comparing values, not their history.
a = -23
b = -42
if log(a) == log(b):
print a == b
--
Steven
On Wed, Jul 9, 2014 at 3:00 AM, Steven D'Aprano st...@pearwood.info wrote:
On Tue, Jul 08, 2014 at 04:58:33PM +0200, Anders J. Munch wrote:
For two NaNs computed differently to compare equal is no worse than 2+2
comparing equal to 1+3. You're comparing values, not their history.
a = -23
b
On 2014-07-08 17:57, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
[snip]
In particular, reflexivity for NANs was dropped for a number of reasons,
some stronger than others:
- One of the weaker reasons for NAN non-reflexivity is that it preserved
the identity x == y = x - y == 0. Although that is the cornerstone
I remember a pending question on python-dev:
- Martin von Loewis asked if the scandir generator would have send()
and close() methods as any Python generator. I didn't see a reply on
the mailing (nor in the PEP).
Good call. Looks like you're referring to this message:
Only exposing what the OS provides for free will make the API too difficult
to use in the common case. But is there a nice way to expand the API that
will allow the user who is trying to avoid extra expense know what
information is already available?
Even if the initial version doesn't have
I think you're misunderstanding is_dir() and is_file(), as these don't
actually call os.stat(). All DirEntry methods either call nothing or
os.lstat() to get the stat info on the entry itself (not the
destination of the symlink).
Oh. Extract of your PEP: is_dir(): like os.path.isdir(), but
On 07/08/2014 12:34 PM, Ben Hoyt wrote:
Better to just have the attributes be None if they were not fetched. None
is better than hasattr anyway, at least in the respect of not having to
catch exceptions to function properly.
The thing is, is_dir() and lstat() are not attributes (for a good
I did better than that -- I read the whole thing! ;)
Thanks. :-)
-1 on the PEP's implementation.
Just like an attribute does not imply a system call, having a
method named 'is_dir' /does/ imply a system call, and not
having one can be just as misleading.
Why does a method imply a system
On Tue, Jul 08, 2014 at 06:33:31PM +0100, MRAB wrote:
The log of a negative number is a complex number.
Only in complex arithmetic. In real arithmetic, the log of a negative
number isn't a number at all.
--
Steven
___
Python-Dev mailing list
On 07/08/2014 06:08 PM, Ben Hoyt wrote:
Just like an attribute does not imply a system call, having a
method named 'is_dir' /does/ imply a system call, and not
having one can be just as misleading.
Why does a method imply a system call? os.path.join() and str.lower()
don't make system calls.
On Jul 7, 2014, at 4:37 PM, Andreas Maier andreas.r.ma...@gmx.de wrote:
I do not really buy into the arguments that try to show how identity and
value are somehow the same. They are not, not even in Python.
The argument I can absolutely buy into is that the implementation cannot be
20 matches
Mail list logo
