Re: [Python-Dev] Declaring setters with getters
Greg Ewing <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Fred Drake wrote: >>@property >>def attribute(self): >>return 42 >> >>@property.set >>def attribute(self, value): >>self._ignored = value > > Hmmm... if you were allowed general lvalues as the target of a > def, you could write that as > >def attribute.set(self, value): > ... > Dotted names would be sufficient rather than general lvalues. I like this, I think it looks cleaner than the other options, especially if you write both getter and setter in the same style: attribute = property() def attribute.fget(self): return 42 def attribute.fset(self, value): self._ignored = value ___ Python-Dev mailing list [email protected] http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Python-Dev] Declaring setters with getters
On 11/2/07, Duncan Booth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Greg Ewing <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Fred Drake wrote: > >>@property > >>def attribute(self): > >>return 42 > >> > >>@property.set > >>def attribute(self, value): > >>self._ignored = value > > > > Hmmm... if you were allowed general lvalues as the target of a > > def, you could write that as > > > >def attribute.set(self, value): > > ... > > > Dotted names would be sufficient rather than general lvalues. > > I like this, I think it looks cleaner than the other options, especially if > you write both getter and setter in the same style: > > attribute = property() > > def attribute.fget(self): > return 42 > > def attribute.fset(self, value): > self._ignored = value Sorry, you have just entered Python 4000 territory. -- --Guido van Rossum (home page: http://www.python.org/~guido/) ___ Python-Dev mailing list [email protected] http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Python-Dev] Request for inclusion in 2.5.2 (5-for-1)
On 10/31/07, Mike Klaas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Issue http://bugs.python.org/issue1663329 details an annoyance in the > subprocess module that has affected several users, including me. > Essentially, closing hundreds of thousands of file descriptors by > round-tripping through the python exception machinery is very slow, > taking hundreds of milliseconds and at times many seconds. The > proposed fix is to write this loop in c. The c function is but a > handful of lines long. I purposefully kept the implementation > trivial so that it will work on all unix variants (there is another > issue that contains a super-duper optimization for AIX, and other > possibilities exist for Solaris, but the simple fix yields a ten-fold > speedup everywhere but windows, so I didn't think that it was worth > the complexity). > > Though technically relating only to performance, I consider this a > bug-fix candidate as mysterious multi-second delays when launching a > subprocess end up making the functionality of close_fds unusable on > some platform configurations (namely, those with high MAX_FD set). > > It would be great to see this is 2.5.2. Understanding that issue > evaluation takes significant effort, I've done some evaluation/triage > on other open tickets: Thanks for doing these! Since people are already jumping on those bugs but nobody has voiced an opinion on your own patch, let me say that I think it's a good patch, and I want it in 2.6, but I'm reluctant to add it to 2.5.2 as it goes well beyond a bugfix (adding a new C API and all that). -- --Guido van Rossum (home page: http://www.python.org/~guido/) ___ Python-Dev mailing list [email protected] http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Python-Dev] Request for inclusion in 2.5.2 (5-for-1)
Mike Klaas wrote: > http://bugs.python.org/issue1705170: reproduced. Conjecture as to > why it is occurring, but I don't know the guts well enough to propose > a decent fix. I've fixed this on the trunk (I'm afraid I have no opinion on the patch you're interested in though. Neal - where does the 2.5 branch stand at the moment? This would be a simple fix to slip into 2.5.2 if there's still time. Cheers, Nick. -- Nick Coghlan | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | Brisbane, Australia --- http://www.boredomandlaziness.org ___ Python-Dev mailing list [email protected] http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Python-Dev] Request for inclusion in 2.5.2 (5-for-1)
On 2-Nov-07, at 6:57 AM, Guido van Rossum wrote: > > Since people are already jumping on those bugs but nobody has voiced > an opinion on your own patch, let me say that I think it's a good > patch, and I want it in 2.6, but I'm reluctant to add it to 2.5.2 as > it goes well beyond a bugfix (adding a new C API and all that). Thanks for looking at it! Is there a better way of exposing some c-helper code for a stdlib module written in python? It seems that the canonical pattern is to write a separate extension module called _ and import the functionality from there, but that seemed like a significantly more invasive patch. Might it help to tack on the helper function in posix only, deleting it from the os namespace? Thanks again, -Mike ___ Python-Dev mailing list [email protected] http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
[Python-Dev] Summary of Tracker Issues
ACTIVITY SUMMARY (10/26/07 - 11/02/07) Tracker at http://bugs.python.org/ To view or respond to any of the issues listed below, click on the issue number. Do NOT respond to this message. 1315 open (+15) / 11541 closed (+21) / 12856 total (+36) Open issues with patches: 417 Average duration of open issues: 683 days. Median duration of open issues: 775 days. Open Issues Breakdown open 1311 (+15) pending 4 ( +0) Issues Created Or Reopened (36) ___ pickling bytes? 10/26/07 http://bugs.python.org/issue1338created gvanrossum py3k smtplib starttls() should ehlo() if it needs to 10/26/07 http://bugs.python.org/issue1339created fenner correction for test_tempfile in py3k on Windows 10/28/07 CLOSED http://bugs.python.org/issue1340reopened gvanrossum correction for test_fileinput in py3k on Windows 10/26/07 CLOSED http://bugs.python.org/issue1341created amaury.forgeotdarc patch Crash on Windows if Python runs from a directory with umlauts10/27/07 http://bugs.python.org/issue1342created tiran XMLGenerator: nice elements 10/27/07 http://bugs.python.org/issue1343created panzi subprocess.communication doc could use clarification 10/27/07 http://bugs.python.org/issue1344created dsturtevant Fix for test_netrc on Windows10/27/07 http://bugs.python.org/issue1345created tiran patch Error using >>> from OpenGL.GLUT import *10/27/07 CLOSED http://bugs.python.org/issue1346created neuralsensor BaseHTTPServer writing strings to bytes interface10/28/07 CLOSED http://bugs.python.org/issue1347created janssen py3k, patch httplib closes socket, then tries to read from it10/28/07 http://bugs.python.org/issue1348created janssen py3k, patch more uses of ord() in plat-mac/ic.py 10/28/07 CLOSED http://bugs.python.org/issue1349created janssen py3k, patch IDLE - CallTips enhancement - show full doc-string in new window 10/28/07 http://bugs.python.org/issue1350created taleinat patch Add getsize() to io instances10/28/07 http://bugs.python.org/issue1351created tiran Preliminary stderr patch 10/28/07 CLOSED http://bugs.python.org/issue1352created tiran mp4 missing from mimetypes.py10/29/07 CLOSED http://bugs.python.org/issue1353created kraft windows installer problem10/29/07 http://bugs.python.org/issue1354created rajar xml.dom refers to PyXML, which is no longer maintained 10/29/07 http://bugs.python.org/issue1355created whooey1830 3.0a1 Solaris w/ SUN C/C++ 10/29/07 CLOSED http://bugs.python.org/issue1356created MrJean1 3.0a1 make test Error on Solaris w/ SUN C/C++ 10/29/07 CLOSED
Re: [Python-Dev] Request for inclusion in 2.5.2 (5-for-1)
On 11/2/07, Mike Klaas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 2-Nov-07, at 6:57 AM, Guido van Rossum wrote: > > > Since people are already jumping on those bugs but nobody has voiced > > an opinion on your own patch, let me say that I think it's a good > > patch, and I want it in 2.6, but I'm reluctant to add it to 2.5.2 as > > it goes well beyond a bugfix (adding a new C API and all that). > > Thanks for looking at it! > > Is there a better way of exposing some c-helper code for a stdlib > module written in python? It seems that the canonical pattern is to > write a separate extension module called _ and import the > functionality from there, but that seemed like a significantly more > invasive patch. No, what you did was the right thing. It just doesn't feel like a bugfix to me. > Might it help to tack on the helper function in posix only, deleting > it from the os namespace? No. Why are yo so insistent on having this in 2.5.2? You can't force folks who use your code to upgrade (e.g. OSX Leopard was just shipped with 2.5.1). -- --Guido van Rossum (home page: http://www.python.org/~guido/) ___ Python-Dev mailing list [email protected] http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
