On Thu, 19 Feb 2004, Dan Sugalski wrote:
> I tried to unify attributes and properties--I really did. The
> problem is that they're horribly semantically different. Attributes
> are class private and guaranteed across all objects of a class,
> while properties are ad hoc and can be thrown on anythi
At 10:21 AM -0800 2/19/04, Steve Fink wrote:
On Feb-19, Dan Sugalski wrote:
At 7:30 PM -0500 2/18/04, Simon Glover wrote:
> One really pedantic comment: wouldn't it make sense to rename the
> fetchmethod op to fetchmeth, for consistency with callmeth, tailcallmeth
> etc?
Good point. I'll chang
At 01:34 PM 2/19/2004 -0500, Dan Sugalski wrote:
At 10:21 AM -0800 2/19/04, Steve Fink wrote:
On Feb-19, Dan Sugalski wrote:
At 7:30 PM -0500 2/18/04, Simon Glover wrote:
> One really pedantic comment: wouldn't it make sense to rename the
> fetchmethod op to fetchmeth, for consistency with callm
On Feb-19, Dan Sugalski wrote:
> At 7:30 PM -0500 2/18/04, Simon Glover wrote:
> > One really pedantic comment: wouldn't it make sense to rename the
> > fetchmethod op to fetchmeth, for consistency with callmeth, tailcallmeth
> > etc?
>
> Good point. I'll change that, then.
D yo reall wan t repea
At 7:30 PM -0500 2/18/04, Simon Glover wrote:
One really pedantic comment: wouldn't it make sense to rename the
fetchmethod op to fetchmeth, for consistency with callmeth, tailcallmeth
etc?
Good point. I'll change that, then.
--
Dan
---
At 12:33 PM -0500 2/18/04, Michal Wallace wrote:
You said in an earlier post that python won't be able to
talk to objects with attributes without a syntax change.
I don't think a syntax change will be required -- we just
need a wrapper class. But it would be *SO* much nicer if
properties and attrib
Dan Sugalski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Just to let everyone know, if there aren't any comments on the scheme
> in PDD 15, I'm going to implement it as-is and be done with it, at
> least for now.
Good. Make it running.
> That does, FWIW, meet the criteria for a 0.1.0 release for the 29th.
The
One really pedantic comment: wouldn't it make sense to rename the
fetchmethod op to fetchmeth, for consistency with callmeth, tailcallmeth
etc?
Simon
On Wed, 18 Feb 2004, Dan Sugalski wrote:
> Just to let everyone know, if there aren't any comments on the scheme
> in PDD 15, I'm going to implement it as-is and be done with it, at
> least for now. This would be a good time to speak up--can't guarantee
> that I'll put the changes in for this rev,
Just to let everyone know, if there aren't any comments on the scheme
in PDD 15, I'm going to implement it as-is and be done with it, at
least for now. This would be a good time to speak up--can't guarantee
that I'll put the changes in for this rev, but I certainly can't
think about it if I don
10 matches
Mail list logo
