On Wed, Dec 4, 2019 at 3:12 PM Guido van Rossum wrote:
> We could treat it as a kind of future statement. If there’s a top level
> statement that defines the magic identitier we generate the special
> bytecode.
>
True, that would help solve the performance issue.
But I'm still -1 on the idea
We could treat it as a kind of future statement. If there’s a top level
statement that defines the magic identitier we generate the special
bytecode.
On Wed, Dec 4, 2019 at 12:26 Brett Cannon wrote:
>
>
> On Tue, Dec 3, 2019 at 5:58 PM Random832 wrote:
>
>> On Tue, Dec 3, 2019, at 13:43, Brett
On Tue, Dec 3, 2019 at 5:58 PM Random832 wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 3, 2019, at 13:43, Brett Cannon wrote:
> > -1 from me. I can see someone not realizing an operator was changed,
> > assuming it's standard semantics, and then having things break subtly.
> > And debugging this wouldn't be fun either.
04.12.19 18:39, Random832 пише:
On Wed, Dec 4, 2019, at 08:26, Serhiy Storchaka wrote:
03.12.19 20:43, Brett Cannon пише:
-1 from me. I can see someone not realizing an operator was changed,
assuming it's standard semantics, and then having things break subtly.
And debugging this wouldn't be
On Wed, Dec 4, 2019, at 11:51, Chris Angelico wrote:
> Which of these are you expecting to be detected, and thus cause the
> change in bytecode?
More or less the same sort of operations where the use of the name super is
detected within methods and causes the enclosing class to have a __class__
On Wed, Dec 4, 2019, at 11:49, Ethan Furman wrote:
> On 12/04/2019 08:39 AM, Random832 wrote:
> > On Wed, Dec 4, 2019, at 08:26, Serhiy Storchaka wrote:
> >> 03.12.19 20:43, Brett Cannon пише:
> >>> -1 from me. I can see someone not realizing an operator was changed,
> >>> assuming it's standard
On Thu, Dec 5, 2019 at 3:41 AM Random832 wrote:
>
> On Wed, Dec 4, 2019, at 08:26, Serhiy Storchaka wrote:
> > 03.12.19 20:43, Brett Cannon пише:
> > > -1 from me. I can see someone not realizing an operator was changed,
> > > assuming it's standard semantics, and then having things break subtly.
On 12/04/2019 08:39 AM, Random832 wrote:
On Wed, Dec 4, 2019, at 08:26, Serhiy Storchaka wrote:
03.12.19 20:43, Brett Cannon пише:
-1 from me. I can see someone not realizing an operator was changed,
assuming it's standard semantics, and then having things break subtly.
And debugging this
On Wed, Dec 4, 2019, at 08:26, Serhiy Storchaka wrote:
> 03.12.19 20:43, Brett Cannon пише:
> > -1 from me. I can see someone not realizing an operator was changed,
> > assuming it's standard semantics, and then having things break subtly.
> > And debugging this wouldn't be fun either. To me
03.12.19 20:43, Brett Cannon пише:
-1 from me. I can see someone not realizing an operator was changed,
assuming it's standard semantics, and then having things break subtly.
And debugging this wouldn't be fun either. To me this is monkeypatching
without an explicit need for it, i.e. if you
On Tue, Dec 3, 2019, at 13:43, Brett Cannon wrote:
> -1 from me. I can see someone not realizing an operator was changed,
> assuming it's standard semantics, and then having things break subtly.
> And debugging this wouldn't be fun either. To me this is monkeypatching
> without an explicit need
On Tue, Dec 3, 2019 at 8:29 AM Random832 wrote:
> What if there was a general mechanism to allow operators to be implemented
> by user code that does not belong to the class?
>
> If the name [e.g.] __operatorhook_or__ is defined anywhere in a module,
> within that module all calls to that
On Tue, Dec 3, 2019, at 11:36, Ricky Teachey wrote:
>
> > What if there was a general mechanism to allow operators to be implemented
> > by user code that does not belong to the class?
> >
> > If the name [e.g.] __operatorhook_or__ is defined anywhere in a module,
> > within that module all
> What if there was a general mechanism to allow operators to be implemented
> by user code that does not belong to the class?
>
> If the name [e.g.] __operatorhook_or__ is defined anywhere in a module,
> within that module all calls to that operator are replaced with a two-step
> process:
>
>
*
14 matches
Mail list logo
