make some __ __
> method to do this, allow indexing by None, or something else
> - neither of those sounds particularly wonderful.
>
>
> Do you want to help develop Dynamic languages on CLR?
> (http://members.microsoft.com/careers/search/details.aspx?JobI
> D=6D4754D
Hi all - I'm cross-posting this to the IP list as the subject seems to
be an open issue there too.
I'm working on generics support for Python for .NET, and there a couple
of thorny issues that could use some discussion regarding naming and
resolution of generic types.
In C# you can explicitly na
Hi all - I'm cross-posting this to the IP list as the subject seems to
be an open issue there too.
I'm working on generics support for Python for .NET, and there a couple
of thorny issues that could use some discussion regarding naming and
resolution of generic types.
In C# you can explicitly nam
onic solution. Brian's question makes me wonder if Python can be
> all things to all programmers, and my thinking is: no, it can't. Trying to
> make it so will just pollute the language.
>
> --Thane
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL
t better (and I
like it better as a sustainable pattern to bridge these kinds
of gaps) than anything else I can think of...
Brian Lloyd[EMAIL PROTECTED]
V.P. Engineering 540.361.1716
Zope Corporation http://www.zope.com
___
Right - the fact that CPython encourages/forces you to work with
structs, pointers, etc. directly is the real problem. If there
were a truly 'abstract' interface for C extensions it would be
much easier to contemplate a CLR (or other VM) abstraction layer.
I bet the PyPy folks wish t
