On 11 September 2016 at 13:05, Nick Coghlan wrote:
> VOC & Batavia *should* be OK (worst case, they return
> collections.OrderedDict from __prepare__ and also use it for __dict__
> attributes), but I'm less certain about MicroPython (since I don't
> know enough about how its
On 09/11/2016 01:55 AM, Victor Stinner wrote:
2016-09-10 3:49 GMT-04:00 Ethan Furman wrote:
With __definition_order__ Enum can display the actual creation order of enum
members and methods, while relying on Enum.__dict__.keys() presents a
jumbled mess with many attributes the user never
2016-09-10 3:49 GMT-04:00 Ethan Furman :
> With __definition_order__ Enum can display the actual creation order of enum
> members and methods, while relying on Enum.__dict__.keys() presents a
> jumbled mess with many attributes the user never wrote, the enum members
> either
>
On Sun, Sep 11, 2016 at 11:05 AM, Nick Coghlan wrote:
> On 11 September 2016 at 07:26, Guido van Rossum wrote:
> > On Sat, Sep 10, 2016 at 10:57 AM, Nick Coghlan
> wrote:
> >> On 11 September 2016 at 03:08, Guido van Rossum
On 11 September 2016 at 07:26, Guido van Rossum wrote:
> On Sat, Sep 10, 2016 at 10:57 AM, Nick Coghlan wrote:
>> On 11 September 2016 at 03:08, Guido van Rossum wrote:
>>> So I'm happy to continue thinking about this, but I expect this is
On Sat, Sep 10, 2016 at 10:57 AM, Nick Coghlan wrote:
> On 11 September 2016 at 03:08, Guido van Rossum wrote:
>> So I'm happy to continue thinking about this, but I expect this is not
>> such a big deal as you fear. Anyway, let's see if someone comes up
>>
On Sep 10, 2016 10:11, "Guido van Rossum" wrote:
>
> Thanks for bringing this up. I think it's definitely possible to argue
> either way. I think what happened before was that I approved
> __definition_order__ because I wasn't expecting dict to be ordered by
> default. Now that
On Sep 10, 2016 11:00, "Nick Coghlan" wrote:
>
> On 11 September 2016 at 03:08, Guido van Rossum wrote:
> > So I'm happy to continue thinking about this, but I expect this is not
> > such a big deal as you fear. Anyway, let's see if someone comes up
> > with
On 11 September 2016 at 03:08, Guido van Rossum wrote:
> So I'm happy to continue thinking about this, but I expect this is not
> such a big deal as you fear. Anyway, let's see if someone comes up
> with a more convincing argument by beta 2!
For CPython specifically, I don't
Thanks for bringing this up. I think it's definitely possible to argue
either way. I think what happened before was that I approved
__definition_order__ because I wasn't expecting dict to be ordered by
default. Now that Inada Naoki's patch has landed things have changed.
Here's my reason for
On 10 September 2016 at 19:27, Nick Coghlan wrote:
> On 10 September 2016 at 17:49, Ethan Furman wrote:
>> The "mostly" is what concerns me. Much like having a custom __dir__ lets
>> a class fine-tune what is of interest, a custom __definition_order__
On 9/10/2016 5:27 AM, Nick Coghlan wrote:
On 10 September 2016 at 17:49, Ethan Furman wrote:
Per Victor's advice I'm posting this here.
PEP 520 has been accepted, but without the __definition_order__ attribute.
The accompanying comment:
"Note: Since compact dict has
On 10 September 2016 at 17:49, Ethan Furman wrote:
> Per Victor's advice I'm posting this here.
>
> PEP 520 has been accepted, but without the __definition_order__ attribute.
> The accompanying comment:
>
>> "Note: Since compact dict has landed in 3.6, __definition_order__ has
Per Victor's advice I'm posting this here.
PEP 520 has been accepted, but without the __definition_order__ attribute.
The accompanying comment:
"Note: Since compact dict has landed in 3.6, __definition_order__ has
been removed. cls.__dict__ now mostly accomplishes the same thing
instead."
14 matches
Mail list logo