On Wednesday 03 June 2015 03:19, Marko Rauhamaa wrote:
> Steven D'Aprano :
>
>> On Fri, 29 May 2015 12:00 pm, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
>>
>> [...]
>>> in a language where classes are
>>> themselves values, there is no reason why a class must be instantiated,
>>> particularly if you're only using a
On Tue, Jun 2, 2015 at 11:19 AM, Marko Rauhamaa wrote:
> Steven D'Aprano :
>
>> On Fri, 29 May 2015 12:00 pm, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
>>
>> [...]
>>> in a language where classes are
>>> themselves values, there is no reason why a class must be instantiated,
>>> particularly if you're only using a s
Steven D'Aprano :
> On Fri, 29 May 2015 12:00 pm, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
>
> [...]
>> in a language where classes are
>> themselves values, there is no reason why a class must be instantiated,
>> particularly if you're only using a single instance of the class. Anyone
>> ever come across a named
On Fri, 29 May 2015 12:00 pm, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
[...]
> in a language where classes are
> themselves values, there is no reason why a class must be instantiated,
> particularly if you're only using a single instance of the class. Anyone
> ever come across a named design pattern that involves
On Thursday, May 28, 2015 at 11:59:36 AM UTC-5, Marko Rauhamaa wrote:
> Ian Kelly :
> > I think I would be more inclined to use enums. This has the advantages
> > of not creating a new set of state classes for every connection
> > instance and that each state is a singleton instance, allowing thing
On Wednesday, May 27, 2015 at 8:00:49 AM UTC-5, Todd wrote:
> On Wed, May 27, 2015 at 2:40 PM, zipher wrote:
> On Wednesday, May 27, 2015 at 6:30:16 AM UTC-5, Ben Finney wrote:
>
> > Steven D'Aprano writes:
>
> >
>
> > > On Wednesday 27 May 2015 14:39, Ben Finney wrote:
>
> > >
>
> > > > Tha
On Wednesday, May 27, 2015 at 2:39:21 AM UTC-5, Marko Rauhamaa wrote:
> Chris Angelico :
>
> > Using some other name in place of "self" should definitely remain
> > *possible*, but not commonly done.
>
> You are effectively making the argument that Python has made a mistake
> by not giving "self"
On Wednesday, May 27, 2015 at 12:48:02 AM UTC-5, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
> On Wednesday 27 May 2015 14:39, Ben Finney wrote:
>
> > zipher writes:
> >
> >> Arrgh. Sorry, that was meant privately...
> >
> > I'm glad we saw it publicly, so that we get more of an idea how you
> > treat people.
> >
On Tuesday, May 26, 2015 at 11:40:20 PM UTC-5, Ben Finney wrote:
> zipher writes:
>
> > Arrgh. Sorry, that was meant privately...
>
> I'm glad we saw it publicly, so that we get more of an idea how you
> treat people.
Ben, he asked for it. Stop assuming.
> That kind of homophobic slur is ina
On Fri, 29 May 2015 12:00 pm, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
> I haven't studied this in close detail, but first impressions is that this
> is not well-written Python code. The obvious problems that come to mind:
Well, first impressions can be misleading... I wrote the above, thinking
that there were mor
On Fri, 29 May 2015 01:01 am, Marko Rauhamaa wrote:
> Anssi Saari :
>
>> Do you have an example of state pattern using nested classes and
>> python? With a quick look I didn't happen to find one in any language.
>
> Here's an sampling from my mail server:
I haven't studied this in close detail
On Fri, May 29, 2015 at 2:59 AM, Marko Rauhamaa wrote:
> When I have coded state machines for C or Java, I have noticed that
> nothing beats enums and switch statements performance-wise, and
> expressively, they're not that bad, either. Python doesn't have a switch
> statement, so the natural thin
Ian Kelly :
> On Thu, May 28, 2015 at 9:01 AM, Marko Rauhamaa wrote:
>> Anssi Saari :
>>
>>> Do you have an example of state pattern using nested classes and
>>> python? With a quick look I didn't happen to find one in any
>>> language.
>>
>> Here's an sampling from my mail server:
>
> I think I
On Thu, May 28, 2015 at 9:01 AM, Marko Rauhamaa wrote:
> Anssi Saari :
>
>> Do you have an example of state pattern using nested classes and
>> python? With a quick look I didn't happen to find one in any language.
>
> Here's an sampling from my mail server:
I think I would be more inclined to us
Anssi Saari :
> Do you have an example of state pattern using nested classes and
> python? With a quick look I didn't happen to find one in any language.
Here's an sampling from my mail server:
class SMTPServerConnection(Se
Marko Rauhamaa writes:
> Ned Batchelder :
>
>> I would find it much clearer to not use a nested class at all, and
>> instead to pass the object into the constructor:
>
> Nested classes are excellent and expressing the state pattern http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_pattern>.
Do you have an exa
On 5/27/2015 2:32 AM, Chris Angelico wrote:
On Wed, May 27, 2015 at 3:23 PM, Steven D'Aprano
wrote:
On Wednesday 27 May 2015 06:45, Mark Lawrence wrote:
Apart from breaking all the tools that rely on "self" being spelt "self"
this looks like an excellent idea.
Tools which rely on self being
On 2015-05-27, Todd wrote:
> On Wed, May 27, 2015 at 2:40 PM, zipher wrote:
>
>> [some stupid crap]
>
> If your goal is to get people to stop calling you a troll, you are
> going about it the wrong way. If it isn't, why are you even here?
> Please remember the first rule of holes: if you find yo
On Wed, May 27, 2015 at 2:40 PM, zipher wrote:
> On Wednesday, May 27, 2015 at 6:30:16 AM UTC-5, Ben Finney wrote:
> > Steven D'Aprano writes:
> >
> > > On Wednesday 27 May 2015 14:39, Ben Finney wrote:
> > >
> > > > That kind of homophobic slur is inappropriate from anyone in this
> > > > commu
On Wednesday, May 27, 2015 at 6:30:16 AM UTC-5, Ben Finney wrote:
> Steven D'Aprano writes:
>
> > On Wednesday 27 May 2015 14:39, Ben Finney wrote:
> >
> > > That kind of homophobic slur is inappropriate from anyone in this
> > > community. Kindly cut it out altogether.
> >
> > I look forward to
Steven D'Aprano writes:
> On Wednesday 27 May 2015 14:39, Ben Finney wrote:
>
> > That kind of homophobic slur is inappropriate from anyone in this
> > community. Kindly cut it out altogether.
>
> I look forward to the day when people would read the earlier insult
> and be perplexed as to why it
On Wed, May 27, 2015 at 5:39 PM, Marko Rauhamaa wrote:
> Chris Angelico :
>
>> Using some other name in place of "self" should definitely remain
>> *possible*, but not commonly done.
>
> You are effectively making the argument that Python has made a mistake
> by not giving "self" a special, langua
Chris Angelico :
> Using some other name in place of "self" should definitely remain
> *possible*, but not commonly done.
You are effectively making the argument that Python has made a mistake
by not giving "self" a special, language-level status.
Marko
--
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listi
On Wed, May 27, 2015 at 3:23 PM, Steven D'Aprano
wrote:
> On Wednesday 27 May 2015 06:45, Mark Lawrence wrote:
>
>> Apart from breaking all the tools that rely on "self" being spelt "self"
>> this looks like an excellent idea.
>
> Tools which rely on self being spelled "self" are already broken. I
On Wednesday 27 May 2015 14:39, Ben Finney wrote:
> zipher writes:
>
>> Arrgh. Sorry, that was meant privately...
>
> I'm glad we saw it publicly, so that we get more of an idea how you
> treat people.
>
> That kind of homophobic slur is inappropriate from anyone in this
> community. Kindly c
On Wednesday 27 May 2015 06:45, Mark Lawrence wrote:
> Apart from breaking all the tools that rely on "self" being spelt "self"
> this looks like an excellent idea.
Tools which rely on self being spelled "self" are already broken. It's a
convention, nothing more, and there are various good reaso
On Wednesday 27 May 2015 05:46, Marko Rauhamaa wrote:
> Python's practice works. However, a small problem is presented by nested
> classes:
>
> class Connection:
> def __init__(self):
> class Idle:
> def signal_start(self):
> # how to re
On Wednesday 27 May 2015 02:37, zipher wrote:
> Would it be prudent to rid the long-standing "argument" (pun unintended)
> about self and the ulterior spellings of it, by changing it into a symbol
> rather than a name?
No.
> Something like:
>
> class MyClass(object):
>
> def __init__(@):
zipher writes:
> Arrgh. Sorry, that was meant privately...
I'm glad we saw it publicly, so that we get more of an idea how you
treat people.
That kind of homophobic slur is inappropriate from anyone in this
community. Kindly cut it out altogether.
--
\ “Always do right. This will grat
On Tuesday, May 26, 2015 at 11:57:44 AM UTC-5, Laura Creighton wrote:
> In a message of Tue, 26 May 2015 09:37:29 -0700, zipher writes:
> >Would it be prudent to rid the long-standing "argument" (pun unintended)
> >about self and the ulterior spellings of it, by changing it into a symbol
> >rathe
On Tuesday, May 26, 2015 at 9:48:25 PM UTC-5, zipher wrote:
> On Tuesday, May 26, 2015 at 12:28:31 PM UTC-5, Mark Lawrence wrote:
> > On 26/05/2015 17:37, zipher wrote:
> > > Would it be prudent to rid the long-standing "argument" (pun unintended)
> > > about self and the ulterior spellings of it,
On Tuesday, May 26, 2015 at 11:57:44 AM UTC-5, Laura Creighton wrote:
> In a message of Tue, 26 May 2015 09:37:29 -0700, zipher writes:
> >Would it be prudent to rid the long-standing "argument" (pun unintended)
> >about self and the ulterior spellings of it, by changing it into a symbol
> >rathe
On Tuesday, May 26, 2015 at 12:28:31 PM UTC-5, Mark Lawrence wrote:
> On 26/05/2015 17:37, zipher wrote:
> > Would it be prudent to rid the long-standing "argument" (pun unintended)
> > about self and the ulterior spellings of it, by changing it into a symbol
> > rather than a name?
>
> Yes, how
On 2015-05-26 21:45, Mark Lawrence wrote:
>> class MyClass(object):
>> def __init__(ስ):
>> ስ.dummy = None
>
> Apart from breaking all the tools that rely on "self" being spelt
> "self" this looks like an excellent idea.
Though to be fair, they *are* broken tools if they rely on "self"
Mark Lawrence wrote:
>> def __init__(ስ):
>> ስ.dummy = None
> Apart from breaking all the tools that rely on "self" being spelt "self"
> this looks like an excellent idea.
too bad for the tools: using the name "self" is just a convention, not a
rule.
--
By ZeD
--
https://mail.pyt
On 26/05/2015 21:26, garabik-news-2005...@kassiopeia.juls.savba.sk wrote:
zipher wrote:
Would it be prudent to rid the long-standing "argument" (pun
unintended) about self and the ulterior spellings of it, by changing
it into a symbol rather than a name?
Something like:
class MyClass(object):
Ned Batchelder :
> I would find it much clearer to not use a nested class at all, and
> instead to pass the object into the constructor:
Nested classes are excellent and expressing the state pattern http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_pattern>.
Marko
--
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/
zipher wrote:
> Would it be prudent to rid the long-standing "argument" (pun
> unintended) about self and the ulterior spellings of it, by changing
> it into a symbol rather than a name?
>
> Something like:
>
> class MyClass(object):
>
> def __init__(@):
> @.dummy = None
Believe
On Tuesday, May 26, 2015 at 3:47:20 PM UTC-4, Marko Rauhamaa wrote:
> zipher :
>
> > Would it be prudent to rid the long-standing "argument" (pun
> > unintended) about self and the ulterior spellings of it, by changing
> > it into a symbol rather than a name?
> >
> > Something like:
> >
> > class
zipher :
> Would it be prudent to rid the long-standing "argument" (pun
> unintended) about self and the ulterior spellings of it, by changing
> it into a symbol rather than a name?
>
> Something like:
>
> class MyClass(object):
>
> def __init__(@):
> @.dummy = None
>
> OR, even better
On Tue, May 26, 2015, at 12:57, Laura Creighton wrote:
> Guido did. :)
> http://neopythonic.blogspot.se/2008/10/why-explicit-self-has-to-stay.html
It's worth noting that the "dynamically modify a class" argument (and to
some extent the decorator argument) misses Javascript's solution - _any_
func
On Wed, May 27, 2015 at 3:28 AM, Mark Lawrence wrote:
> Yes, how about you taking a permanent holiday rather than bother this list
> with more of your nonsense?
No need to be nasty about it. The suggestion is a plausible one, it
just happens to not fit Python's philosophy. The best response is to
On 26/05/2015 17:37, zipher wrote:
Would it be prudent to rid the long-standing "argument" (pun unintended) about
self and the ulterior spellings of it, by changing it into a symbol rather than a name?
Something like:
class MyClass(object):
def __init__(@):
@.dummy = None
OR, e
zipher wrote:
> Would it be prudent to rid the long-standing "argument" (pun unintended)
> about self and the ulterior spellings of it, by changing it into a symbol
> rather than a name?
>
> Something like:
>
> class MyClass(object):
>
> def __init__(@):
> @.dummy = None
Just seein
In a message of Tue, 26 May 2015 09:37:29 -0700, zipher writes:
>Would it be prudent to rid the long-standing "argument" (pun unintended) about
>self and the ulterior spellings of it, by changing it into a symbol rather
>than a name?
>
>Something like:
>
>class MyClass(object):
>
>def __ini
Would it be prudent to rid the long-standing "argument" (pun unintended) about
self and the ulterior spellings of it, by changing it into a symbol rather than
a name?
Something like:
class MyClass(object):
def __init__(@):
@.dummy = None
OR, even better, getting *rid of it* in t
46 matches
Mail list logo
