On Wed, Dec 10, 2008 at 11:57 AM, Benjamin Kaplan
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> On Wed, Dec 10, 2008 at 12:22 PM, Patrick Mullen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>>
>> I don't have a huge stake in this, but I wouldn't mind a change to
>> allow anything proceeding a "." or preceeding a "(" to not be
On Wed, Dec 10, 2008 at 12:22 PM, Patrick Mullen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 10, 2008 at 6:57 AM, MRAB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Aaron Brady wrote:
> >>
> >> On Dec 9, 12:40 pm, MRAB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Aaron Brady wrote:
>
> On Dec 9, 8:28 am, MRAB <[
Patrick Mullen wrote:
On Wed, Dec 10, 2008 at 6:57 AM, MRAB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
Aaron Brady wrote:
On Dec 9, 12:40 pm, MRAB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Aaron Brady wrote:
On Dec 9, 8:28 am, MRAB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
snip
In some languages (I think Delphi is one of them - it's
bee
On Wed, Dec 10, 2008 at 6:57 AM, MRAB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Aaron Brady wrote:
>>
>> On Dec 9, 12:40 pm, MRAB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>
>>> Aaron Brady wrote:
On Dec 9, 8:28 am, MRAB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
snip
>
> In some languages (I think Delphi is one of t
James Stroud wrote:
Andreas Waldenburger wrote:
Is it me, or has c.l.p. developed a slightly harsher tone recently?
(Haven't been following for a while.)
Yep. I can only post here for about a week or two until someone blows a
cylinder and gets ugly because they interpreted something I said as
Lie a écrit :
On Dec 7, 2:38 am, "Warren DeLano" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
(snip)
As someone somewhat knowledgable of how parsers work, I do not
understand why a method/attribute name "object_name.as(...)" must
necessarily conflict with a standalone keyword " as ". It seems to me
that it shou
Aaron Brady wrote:
On Dec 9, 12:40 pm, MRAB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Aaron Brady wrote:
On Dec 9, 8:28 am, MRAB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
snip
In some languages (I think Delphi is one of them - it's been a while!)
some words which would normally be identifiers have a special meaning in
cert
On 9 Des, 19:23, "Chris Mellon" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> So hold up a second. I'm out of line for calling someone on making a
> trollish post that's not relevant to the topic, and for being pretty
> late to the party even with the part that *was* on topic, and for
> (even in the original post
On 10 Des, 00:00, Steven D'Aprano <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
cybersource.com.au> wrote:
>
> Go right ahead. Write your experimental language, and if people like it,
> they'll use it. That's what Guido did, all those years ago. But don't
> turn Python into a hodgepodge of "features" that most people conside
On Dec 9, 4:53 pm, Steven D'Aprano <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
cybersource.com.au> wrote:
> On Tue, 09 Dec 2008 08:30:26 -0800, Aaron Brady wrote:
> > The following are semantically equivalent:
>
> > I certainly wouldn't want something like PL/I, where "IF", "THEN" and
> > "ELSE" could be identifiers.
>
> >
On Dec 9, 12:40 pm, MRAB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Aaron Brady wrote:
> > On Dec 9, 8:28 am, MRAB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > snip
> >> In some languages (I think Delphi is one of them - it's been a while!)
> >> some words which would normally be identifiers have a special meaning in
> >> cer
On Tue, 09 Dec 2008 05:48:29 -0800, Paul Boddie wrote:
> Well, I think it's more interesting to explore the boundaries of what
> can be done, to debunk notions that such things aren't being done in the
> mainstream, and to examine whether they could benefit usability, than it
> is to defer to the
On Tue, 09 Dec 2008 08:30:26 -0800, Aaron Brady wrote:
> The following are semantically equivalent:
>
> I certainly wouldn't want something like PL/I, where "IF", "THEN" and
> "ELSE" could be identifiers.
>
> I wouldn't want something like PL/I, where "IF", "THEN" and "ELSE" could
> be identifie
Carl Banks wrote:
>[ ... ] Do you want the human reader to have to have all kinds of
> rules to memorize about when a symbol is an identifier and when it's a
> syntactic element? Do you want people to have to learn when to escape
> a symbol so that the parser treats it as an identifier instead of
Aaron Brady wrote:
On Dec 9, 8:28 am, MRAB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
snip
In some languages (I think Delphi is one of them - it's been a while!)
some words which would normally be identifiers have a special meaning in
certain contexts, but the syntax precludes any ambiguity, and not in a
diffic
On Tue, Dec 9, 2008 at 6:39 AM, Paul Boddie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 9 Des, 05:52, alex23 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> From my perspective, it was less the original complaint and more the
>> sudden jump to "CPython is dead! The GIL sucks! Academic eggheads!"
>> that prompted the comparis
On Dec 9, 7:48 am, Paul Boddie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 9 Des, 14:24, Steven D'Aprano <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> cybersource.com.au> wrote:
>
> > That is not what Guido said. What he actually said was:
>
> > "That's possible with sufficiently powerful parser technology, but
> > that's not how th
On Dec 9, 9:28 am, MRAB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I certainly wouldn't want something like PL/I, where "IF", "THEN" and
> "ELSE" could be identifiers, so you could have code like:
>
> IF IF = THEN THEN
> THEN = ELSE;
> ELSE
> ELSE = IF;
Although I agree with the sen
On Dec 9, 8:28 am, MRAB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
snip
> In some languages (I think Delphi is one of them - it's been a while!)
> some words which would normally be identifiers have a special meaning in
> certain contexts, but the syntax precludes any ambiguity, and not in a
> difficult way. "as"
Paul Boddie wrote:
On 9 Des, 14:24, Steven D'Aprano <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
cybersource.com.au> wrote:
That is not what Guido said. What he actually said was:
"That's possible with sufficiently powerful parser technology, but
that's not how the Python parser (and most parsers, in my experience)
trea
On 9 Des, 14:24, Steven D'Aprano <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
cybersource.com.au> wrote:
>
> That is not what Guido said. What he actually said was:
>
> "That's possible with sufficiently powerful parser technology, but
> that's not how the Python parser (and most parsers, in my experience)
> treat reserved
On Tue, 09 Dec 2008 04:39:55 -0800, Paul Boddie wrote:
> To be fair to the complainant, before mentioning the GIL, he did
> initially get the usual trite fragments of the Zen of Python right back
> at him ("simple is better than complex", "special cases aren't special
> enough to break the rules"
2008/12/4 Chris Mellon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Aside from the cultural indoctrination, though (and that may be a real
> and strong force when dealing with math software, and I don't want to
> discount it in general, just for purposes of this discussion) why is
> it more sensible to use "x" here inst
On 9 Des, 05:52, alex23 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> From my perspective, it was less the original complaint and more the
> sudden jump to "CPython is dead! The GIL sucks! Academic eggheads!"
> that prompted the comparisons to trolling.
To be fair to the complainant, before mentioning the GIL, h
En Mon, 08 Dec 2008 18:07:22 -0200, J. Cliff Dyer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
escribió:
On Wed, 2008-12-03 at 21:42 -0800, Warren DeLano wrote:
Anyway, it seems obvious that the right decision for our customers (or
more importantly, for their countless lines of autogenerated-Python
log,
state, and code
On Dec 9, 5:21 am, Paul Boddie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> What I can say is that it certainly does take balls to see matters
> from the other guy's perspective instead of calling someone names for
> pointing something out.
>From my perspective, it was less the original complaint and more the
sud
On Wed, 2008-12-03 at 21:42 -0800, Warren DeLano wrote:
> Anyway, it seems obvious that the right decision for our customers (or
> more importantly, for their countless lines of autogenerated-Python
> log,
> state, and code files from the past decade) is to stick with C/Python
> 2.5.x for the time
On Dec 4, 5:39 pm, "Chris Mellon" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Honestly, based on the content and tenor of this post I think this is
> Yet Another Python Troll
So original: disagreeable criticism is "trolling". A few points...
Short keywords are more likely to collide with short variable and
at
Virgil Dupras wrote:
> On 06 Dec 2008, at 20:38, Warren DeLano wrote:
> As long as "as" is widely known as a keyword, I don't see the problem.
> Every python developer knows that the convention is to add a trailing
> underscore when you want to use a reserved word in your code.
Ooo, actually I di
On Dec 6, 9:35 pm, Carl Banks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Dec 6, 8:17 pm, Steven D'Aprano <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > I don't like "cast", because a cast is an instruction to the compiler to
> > treat data as some type other than what it was defined as.
> It doesn't
> > create a new piece of data. (
On Dec 6, 2:29 pm, "Guido van Rossum" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
snip
> > So, assuming I now wish to propose a corrective PEP to remedy this
> > situation for Python 3.1 and beyond, what is the best way to get started
> > on such a proposal?
>
> Don't bother writing a PEP to make 'as' available as
On Dec 6, 9:09�pm, Steven D'Aprano <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
cybersource.com.au> wrote:
> On Sat, 06 Dec 2008 18:09:07 -0800, Mensanator wrote:
> > On Dec 6, 6:25 pm, Steven D'Aprano <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > cybersource.com.au> wrote:
> >> On Sat, 06 Dec 2008 14:36:07 -0800, Mensanator wrote:
> >> > It was
> Date: Sat, 6 Dec 2008 12:13:16 -0800 (PST)
> From: Carl Banks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: Re: "as" keyword woes
> To: python-list@python.org
> Message-ID:
>
> (snip)
>
> If you write a PEP, I advise you to try to sound less whiny and than
&g
On Dec 6, 8:17 pm, Steven D'Aprano <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
cybersource.com.au> wrote:
> On Sun, 07 Dec 2008 11:27:56 +1000, Nick Coghlan wrote:
> > Warren DeLano wrote:
> >> In other words we have lost the ability to refer to "as" as the
> >> generalized OOP-compliant/syntax-independent method name for
On Sat, 06 Dec 2008 18:09:07 -0800, Mensanator wrote:
> On Dec 6, 6:25�pm, Steven D'Aprano <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> cybersource.com.au> wrote:
>> On Sat, 06 Dec 2008 14:36:07 -0800, Mensanator wrote:
>> > It was extremely simple for me to fix the sympy module where I
>> > noticed it. I'm not saying it
On Sun, 07 Dec 2008 11:27:56 +1000, Nick Coghlan wrote:
> Warren DeLano wrote:
>> In other words we have lost the ability to refer to "as" as the
>> generalized OOP-compliant/syntax-independent method name for casting:
>
> Other possible spellings:
>
> # Use the normal Python idiom for avoiding
On Dec 6, 6:25�pm, Steven D'Aprano <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
cybersource.com.au> wrote:
> On Sat, 06 Dec 2008 14:36:07 -0800, Mensanator wrote:
> > It was extremely simple for me to fix the sympy module where I noticed
> > it. I'm not saying it wasn't a problem, I'm saying it wasn't BROKEN.
>
> If it wasn
Warren DeLano wrote:
> In other words we have lost the ability to refer to "as" as the
> generalized OOP-compliant/syntax-independent method name for casting:
Other possible spellings:
# Use the normal Python idiom for avoiding keyword clashes
# and append a trailing underscore
new_object = old_o
On Sat, 06 Dec 2008 14:36:07 -0800, Mensanator wrote:
> It was extremely simple for me to fix the sympy module where I noticed
> it. I'm not saying it wasn't a problem, I'm saying it wasn't BROKEN.
If it wasn't broken, why did you need to fix it?
"Broken" means "not working", not "unfixable".
On 06 Dec 2008, at 20:38, Warren DeLano wrote:
Date: Fri, 05 Dec 2008 22:22:38 -0800
From: Dennis Lee Bieber <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: "as" keyword woes
To: python-list@python.org
Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
I'm still in the dark as to what type
On Dec 6, 2:09�pm, Wolfgang Strobl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Mensanator <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
>
>
>
>
> >On Dec 6, 8:16?am, Wolfgang Strobl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> Dennis Lee Bieber <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> >> >On 05 Dec 2008 05:21:25 GMT, Steven D'Aprano
> >> ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> decla
Warren DeLano wrote:
As someone somewhat knowledgable of how parsers work, I do not
understand why a method/attribute name "object_name.as(...)" must
necessarily conflict with a standalone keyword " as ". It seems to me
that it should be possible to unambiguously separate the two without
ambigu
On Sat, Dec 6, 2008 at 11:38 AM, Warren DeLano <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[...]
> There, I assert that 'object.as(class_reference)' is the simplest and
> most elegant generalization of this widely-used convention. Indeed, it
> is the only obvious concise answer, if you are limited to using methods
On Dec 7, 2:38 am, "Warren DeLano" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Date: Fri, 05 Dec 2008 22:22:38 -0800
> > From: Dennis Lee Bieber <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Subject: Re: "as" keyword woes
> > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Message-ID: <[EM
On Dec 6, 1:38 pm, "Warren DeLano" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> There, I assert that 'object.as(class_reference)' is the simplest and
> most elegant generalization of this widely-used convention. Indeed, it
> is the only obvious concise answer, if you are limited to using methods
> for casting.
I
In my opinion, this thread is a crock of balony.
Python *occasionally* adds keywords after giving a warning or requiring
a future import in previous versions.
In 2.2, one had to 'from __future__ import generators' to make a
generator because doing so required the new 'yield' keyword.
In 2.3,
> Date: Fri, 05 Dec 2008 22:22:38 -0800
> From: Dennis Lee Bieber <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: Re: "as" keyword woes
> To: python-list@python.org
> Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> I'm still in the dark as to what type of data could
&g
Mensanator wrote:
On Dec 6, 8:16�am, Wolfgang Strobl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Dennis Lee Bieber <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
On 05 Dec 2008 05:21:25 GMT, Steven D'Aprano
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> declaimed the following in
comp.lang.python:
On Thu, 04 Dec 2008 08:44:19 -0800, Matimus wrote:
The point wa
On Dec 6, 8:16�am, Wolfgang Strobl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Dennis Lee Bieber <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> >On 05 Dec 2008 05:21:25 GMT, Steven D'Aprano
> ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> declaimed the following in
> >comp.lang.python:
>
> >> On Thu, 04 Dec 2008 08:44:19 -0800, Matimus wrote:
>
> >> > The poin
On Dec 6, 2:22 pm, Steven D'Aprano <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
cybersource.com.au> wrote:
> I see your wink, but, please, did you read that thread started by "r"
> about the Ruby API for some piece of Google software? That was so
> offensively fanboyish that I almost removed Python from my computer.
The on
alex23 wrote:
On Dec 6, 8:00 am, James Stroud <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I think its a symptom of the language's
maturing, getting popular, and a minority fraction* of the language's
most devout advocates developing an egotism that complements their
python worship in a most unsavory way.
It's
On Fri, 05 Dec 2008 19:00:12 -0800, alex23 wrote:
> On Dec 6, 8:00 am, James Stroud <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> I think its a symptom of the language's maturing, getting popular, and
>> a minority fraction* of the language's most devout advocates developing
>> an egotism that complements their p
On Dec 6, 8:00 am, James Stroud <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I think its a symptom of the language's
> maturing, getting popular, and a minority fraction* of the language's
> most devout advocates developing an egotism that complements their
> python worship in a most unsavory way.
It's hard to se
On Fri, 05 Dec 2008 14:00:18 -0800, James Stroud wrote:
> Andreas Waldenburger wrote:
>> Is it me, or has c.l.p. developed a slightly harsher tone recently?
>> (Haven't been following for a while.)
>
> Yep. I can only post here for about a week or two until someone blows a
> cylinder and gets ugl
On Dec 5, 4:00 pm, James Stroud <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Andreas Waldenburger wrote:
> > Is it me, or has c.l.p. developed a slightly harsher tone recently?
> > (Haven't been following for a while.)
>
> Yep. I can only post here for about a week or two until someone blows a
> cylinder and gets
Andreas Waldenburger wrote:
Is it me, or has c.l.p. developed a slightly harsher tone recently?
(Haven't been following for a while.)
Yep. I can only post here for about a week or two until someone blows a
cylinder and gets ugly because they interpreted something I said as a
criticism of the
Warren, weren't you aware that Python.org is now a church. So you can never
live up to the standards of the Pythonista high priests. You can only ask a
question or submit your comment then cower, hoping the pythonista high
priests don't beat you with clubs for heresy.
;)
2008/12/4 Warren DeLa
On Thu, 4 Dec 2008 16:17:20 -0800 "Warren DeLano" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> Thank so much for the suggestions Ben. Sorry that I am personally
> unable to live up to your high standards, but it is nevertheless an
> honor to partipicate in such a helpful and mutually respectful
> community maili
On 04 Dec 2008 22:29:41 GMT Steven D'Aprano
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Thank goodness we don't have to program in verbose, explicit English!
Then you'll HATE Inform 7:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inform_7#Example_game_2
:)
/W
--
My real email address is constructed by swapping the domain wi
On Thu, 04 Dec 2008 08:44:19 -0800, Matimus wrote:
> The point was that there
> is that new releases don't _break_ anything.
But that's clearly not true, because the OP is pointing out that the new
release from 2.5 to 2.6 *does* break his code.
--
Steven
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/list
> From: Ben Finney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> "Chris Mellon" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Peculiarities in usenet resulted in this discussion having several
> > threads and I missed some messages before I wrote this email.
>
> I'll put this more bluntly: Warren's messages to date
> egregious
On Thu, 04 Dec 2008 10:44:33 -0600, Chris Mellon wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 4, 2008 at 8:45 AM, Steven D'Aprano
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> On Thu, 04 Dec 2008 20:53:38 +1000, James Mills wrote:
>>
>>> Readability of your code becomes very important especially if you're
>>> working with many develop
On Dec 4, 2:42 pm, Albert Hopkins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> It's been a while so I can't remember, but it seems like "yield" was
> dropped in to python relatively quickly in 2.2. Was there a similar
> outrage when "yield" became a keyword?
This is just one guy complaining. Yes, I'd imagine wh
> I still have not
> >> seen a single post from you even hinting that you might have any
> >> responsibility in the matter.
> >
> > Well then, let me set the record straight on that one point:
> >
> > I admit that it was entirely my mistake (and mine alone) to
implicitly
> > assume, by adopting suc
It's been a while so I can't remember, but it seems like "yield" was
dropped in to python relatively quickly in 2.2. Was there a similar
outrage when "yield" became a keyword?
-a
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
On Dec 4, 3:44 am, James Stroud <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> You probably aren't a developer for the cPython implementation, but, if
> you were, I'd recommend taking rants like Warren's to heart because they
> are born of honest frustration and practical concern. Hopefully
> developers for python 2
On Dec 3, 11:42 pm, "Warren DeLano" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Except that Python syntax has proven itself to be a non-backwards
> compatible moving target. Eliminating cruft and adding new
> functionality is one thing, but introducing a whole new two-letter
> keyword so long after the game has
Warren DeLano wrote:
what I can't understand is the decision to break 2.6 instead of 3.0. 2.x was
supposed to remain backwards compatible, with the thinking that 2.x
would be maintained in parallel for quite some time. 3.x was supposed
to be the compatibility break.
I do not understand why a
On Thu, 4 Dec 2008 10:44:33 -0600 "Chris Mellon" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> Aside from the cultural indoctrination, though (and that may be a real
> and strong force when dealing with math software, and I don't want to
> discount it in general, just for purposes of this discussion) why is
> it m
> Now, instead of keeping that special status, it was decided to make
> it a reserved word since there's a new use case in Python 2.6 for
> it as well - catching exceptions:
>
> >>> try:
> ... 1/0
> ... except Exception as exc_object:
> ... print exc_object
> ...
> integer division or modu
Warren DeLano wrote:
Why was it necessary to make "as" a reserved keyword?
Embrace the pain.
John Nagle
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
On Dec 4, 6:08 am, Steven D'Aprano <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
cybersource.com.au> wrote:
> On Wed, 03 Dec 2008 17:15:21 -0800, Matimus wrote:
> >> Couldn't we have continued along just fine using a smarter parser
> >> without elevating "as" to reserved status (and thus potentially
> >> breaking a 10+ years
On Thu, Dec 4, 2008 at 8:45 AM, Steven D'Aprano
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, 04 Dec 2008 20:53:38 +1000, James Mills wrote:
>
>> Readability of your code becomes very important especially if you're
>> working with many developers over time.
>>
>> 1. Use sensible meaningful names.
>> 2. Don'
On Wed, Dec 3, 2008 at 11:42 PM, Warren DeLano <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > Why was it necessary to make "as" a reserved keyword?
>>
>> I can't answer for the Python developers as to why they *did* make it
>> a reserved word.
>>
>> But I can offer what I believe is a good reason why it *should*
On Thu, 04 Dec 2008 20:53:38 +1000, James Mills wrote:
> Readability of your code becomes very important especially if you're
> working with many developers over time.
>
> 1. Use sensible meaningful names.
> 2. Don't use abbreviations.
This is excellent advice, but remember, what is a sensible m
On Wed, 03 Dec 2008 17:15:21 -0800, Matimus wrote:
>> Couldn't we have continued along just fine using a smarter parser
>> without elevating "as" to reserved status (and thus potentially
>> breaking a 10+ years of existing code)?
>
> Nothing broke your code. It works just fine under the version i
On Dec 4, 7:28 pm, "Warren DeLano" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> But who's leaving who exactly? Surely a language as beautiful as Python
> will easily transcend the limitations of its flagship implementation (if
> or to the extent that such an implementation cannot keep pace with the
> times). Tha
On Thu, Dec 4, 2008 at 7:44 AM, James Stroud <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> alex23 wrote:
>>
>> On Dec 4, 3:42 pm, "Warren DeLano" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>
>>> So you prefer broken code to broken rules, eh? Your customers must love
>>> that! This is exactly the kind of ivory-tower thinking I
On Thu, Dec 4, 2008 at 9:04 PM, Aaron Brady <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[... snip ...]
> Does the OP hold the following should be legal?
>
> if if or or:
> and( for )
> if not:
> while( def )
I most certainly hope not! :)
--JamesMills
--
--
-- "Problems are solved by method"
--
http://mail.py
On Dec 4, 3:28 am, "Warren DeLano" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Have you
> > even looked at multiprocessing?
> Multiprocessing solves some problems, but it is unsuitable for
> high-frequency handoffs of large (in memory) objects between many
> independent threads/processes -- the HPC object/data
On Dec 4, 4:43 am, Dennis Lee Bieber <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, 4 Dec 2008 01:28:56 -0800, "Warren DeLano" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> declaimed the following in comp.lang.python:
>
> > In addition, note that my choice of a concise method identifier affects
> > only my users. Python's introduc
One of the things I'd like to point out here is
what we've been learning in new job during
Induction Training...
That is, it's part of the coding standard and
design standards to name variables sensibly.
For instance, naming a variable "db" when it's
really a "database" object is a no no. Instead
On 2008-12-04 06:42, Warren DeLano wrote:
>>> Why can't the parser distinguish between a standalone " as " keyword
>>> and ".as" used as an object/attribute reference?
>> Because that would require special-casing some names as being
>> forbidden in syntax where other names are allowed. Special case
alex23 wrote:
On Dec 4, 3:42 pm, "Warren DeLano" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
So you prefer broken code to broken rules, eh? Your customers must love
that! This is exactly the kind of ivory-tower thinking I feared might
be behind the decision (form over function, damn the users to hell,
etc.)
> I don't know how you infer any of those from what I said, nor
> from the process of introducing features in Python. None of
> what you say there rings at all true with anything I've
> experienced in Python's core or the attitudes surrounding
> development if the language; indeed, quite the o
On Dec 4, 3:42 pm, "Warren DeLano" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> So you prefer broken code to broken rules, eh? Your customers must love
> that! This is exactly the kind of ivory-tower thinking I feared might
> be behind the decision (form over function, damn the users to hell,
> etc.)
Really? I
"Warren DeLano" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > But I can offer what I believe is a good reason why it *should* be
> > a reserved word: Because simple is better than complex, and
> > special cases aren't special enough to break the rules.
>
> So you prefer broken code to broken rules, eh? Your cu
> > Why was it necessary to make "as" a reserved keyword?
>
> I can't answer for the Python developers as to why they *did* make it
> a reserved word.
>
> But I can offer what I believe is a good reason why it *should* be a
> reserved word: Because simple is better than complex, and special
> cas
> What I want to understand is why this parser change was necessary in
> order to enable new 2.6/3.0 features. Was this change potentially
> avoidable?
Does it really matter? The change occurred and it isn't going to go
back. What you should be asking yourself is whether the affect it had
on your
Steven D'Aprano wrote:
On Wed, 03 Dec 2008 22:02:24 +, Martin P. Hellwig wrote:
Warren DeLano wrote:
A bottom line / pragmatic question... hopefully not a FAQ.
Why was it necessary to make "as" a reserved keyword?
Because it can be used at the import statement to let the imported thing
"Warren DeLano" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Why was it necessary to make "as" a reserved keyword?
I can't answer for the Python developers as to why they *did* make it
a reserved word.
But I can offer what I believe is a good reason why it *should* be a
reserved word: Because simple is bette
On Dec 3, 4:38 pm, Steven D'Aprano <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
cybersource.com.au> wrote:
> On Wed, 03 Dec 2008 22:02:24 +, Martin P. Hellwig wrote:
> > Warren DeLano wrote:
> >> A bottom line / pragmatic question... hopefully not a FAQ.
>
> >> Why was it necessary to make "as" a reserved keyword?
> >
Albert Hopkins wrote:
On Wed, 2008-12-03 at 13:38 -0800, Warren DeLano wrote:
A bottom line / pragmatic question... hopefully not a FAQ.
Why was it necessary to make "as" a reserved keyword?
And more to the point, why was it necessary to prevent developers from
being able to refer to attrib
Steven D'Aprano wrote:
While I feel sympathy for the OP, I do have to ask: he's been using
Python 2.5 for, what, a couple of years now? How many times did he see
the depreciation warning, and almost certainly the pending depreciation
warning before that? Python-dev has been talking about making
> Because it can be used at the import statement to let the imported
thing
> be known under another name?
> Something like:
>
> >>> import xml.etree.ElementTree as ET
Yes, but that syntax worked fine for years without "as" actually having
to be a keyword. There must be something more going on h
On Wed, 03 Dec 2008 22:02:24 +, Martin P. Hellwig wrote:
> Warren DeLano wrote:
>> A bottom line / pragmatic question... hopefully not a FAQ.
>>
>> Why was it necessary to make "as" a reserved keyword?
>
> Because it can be used at the import statement to let the imported thing
> be known un
On Wed, 2008-12-03 at 13:38 -0800, Warren DeLano wrote:
> A bottom line / pragmatic question... hopefully not a FAQ.
>
> Why was it necessary to make "as" a reserved keyword?
>
> And more to the point, why was it necessary to prevent developers from
> being able to refer to attributes named "as
Martin P. Hellwig wrote:
Warren DeLano wrote:
A bottom line / pragmatic question... hopefully not a FAQ.
Why was it necessary to make "as" a reserved keyword?
Because it can be used at the import statement to let the imported thing
be known under another name?
Something like:
>>> import
Warren DeLano wrote:
A bottom line / pragmatic question... hopefully not a FAQ.
Why was it necessary to make "as" a reserved keyword?
Because it can be used at the import statement to let the imported thing
be known under another name?
Something like:
>>> import xml.etree.ElementTree as E
A bottom line / pragmatic question... hopefully not a FAQ.
Why was it necessary to make "as" a reserved keyword?
And more to the point, why was it necessary to prevent developers from
being able to refer to attributes named "as"?
For example, this code breaks as of 2.6 / 3.0:
Class C:
100 matches
Mail list logo
