On Sep 1, 2:15�pm, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > I have just re-read the list of changes in Python 2.6, it's huge, > there are tons of changes and improvements, I'm really > impressed:http://docs.python.org/dev/whatsnew/2.6.html > > I'll need many days to learn all those changes! I can see it fixes > several of the missing things/problems I have found in Python in the > past, like the lack of information regarding the floating point it > uses, etc. > I have seen that many (smart) updates are from Hettinger. > > You can see a language gets better when you can remove often-used > commodity functions/classes from your own 'bag of tricks' :-) (Like > the permutations() function,
Don't get rid of the whole bag, they didn't implement Combinations with Replcaement. > etc). > > >Python now must be compiled with C89 compilers (after 19 years!). This means > >that the Python source tree has dropped its own implementations of memmove > >and strerror, which are in the C89 standard library.< > > I presume it's better for me to not hold my breath while I wait > CPython to be written in C99 :-) > > Now math has > factorial:http://docs.python.org/dev/library/math.html#math.factorial > Seen how reduce() is removed from Python 3 (I know it's in itertools), > and seeing that for me to write a productory() function was the first > usage I have had for reduce, years ago, I think the math module can > gain a productory() function too. > > For Python 2.7/3.1 I'd now like to write a PEP regarding the > underscores into the number literals, like: 0b_0101_1111, 268_435_456 > etc. I use such underscores all the time in the D language, and I > think they can be a tiny but significant improvement for Python (and > underscore is much better than just a space, because the underscore > helps the person that reads the code to understand that's a single > number). > > Bye, > bearophile -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
