On Sunday 04 September 2005 07:25 am, Colin J. Williams wrote:
> Rocco Moretti wrote:
> > Terry Hancock wrote:
> >
> >> On Thursday 01 September 2005 07:28 am, Fuzzyman wrote:
> >>
> >>> What's the difference between this and ``isinstance`` ?
> >>
> >>
> >> I must confess that an "isa" operator so
Colin J. Williams wrote:
> Could you elaborate on that please?
See my earlier post in this thread, this link:
http://www.canonical.org/~kragen/isinstance/
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Colin J. Williams wrote:
> Rocco Moretti wrote:
>
>> Terry Hancock wrote:
>>
>>> On Thursday 01 September 2005 07:28 am, Fuzzyman wrote:
>>>
What's the difference between this and ``isinstance`` ?
>>>
>>> I must confess that an "isa" operator sounds like it would
>>> have been slightly nicer
Rocco Moretti wrote:
> Terry Hancock wrote:
>
>> On Thursday 01 September 2005 07:28 am, Fuzzyman wrote:
>>
>>> What's the difference between this and ``isinstance`` ?
>>
>>
>> I must confess that an "isa" operator sounds like it would
>> have been slightly nicer syntax than the isinstance() built
phil hunt wrote:
> On Sat, 03 Sep 2005 00:45:19 -0500, Steve Holden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>>I'm not talking about a change in *paradigm* merely a change in
>>>*syntax*; this:
>>>
>>> receiver selector argument
>>>
>>>would mean the same as the current Python:
>>>
>>> receiver.selector
On Sat, 03 Sep 2005 00:45:19 -0500, Steve Holden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> I'm not talking about a change in *paradigm* merely a change in
>> *syntax*; this:
>>
>>receiver selector argument
>>
>> would mean the same as the current Python:
>>
>>receiver.selector(argument)
>>
>Aah, I
talin at acm dot org wrote:
> Thanks for all the respones :) I realized up front that this suggestion
> is unlikely to gain approval, for reasons eloquently stated above.
> However, there are still some interesting issues raised that I would
> like to discuss.
>
> Let me first respond to a few of t
On Thu, 01 Sep 2005 21:25:20 -0500, D H <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>talin at acm dot org wrote:
>> Although I realize the perils of even suggesting polluting the Python
>> namespace with a new keyword, I often think that it would be useful to
>> consider defining an operator for testing whether or
phil hunt wrote:
> On Thu, 01 Sep 2005 20:39:14 -0500, Steve Holden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>phil hunt wrote:
>>
>>>It could be argued of course, that an OOPL should allow methods to
>>>be sent with a grammar:
>>>
>>> receiver selector argument
>>>
>>>(which is almost what Smalltalk does)
On Thu, 01 Sep 2005 20:39:14 -0500, Steve Holden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>phil hunt wrote:
>> It could be argued of course, that an OOPL should allow methods to
>> be sent with a grammar:
>>
>>receiver selector argument
>>
>> (which is almost what Smalltalk does), but you're not arguing f
Thanks for all the respones :) I realized up front that this suggestion
is unlikely to gain approval, for reasons eloquently stated above.
However, there are still some interesting issues raised that I would
like to discuss.
Let me first respond to a few of the comments:
>What's the difference be
Terry Hancock wrote:
> On Thursday 01 September 2005 07:28 am, Fuzzyman wrote:
>
>>What's the difference between this and ``isinstance`` ?
>
> I must confess that an "isa" operator sounds like it would
> have been slightly nicer syntax than the isinstance() built-in
> function. But not enough nic
On Thursday 01 September 2005 07:28 am, Fuzzyman wrote:
> On 1 Sep 2005 00:52:54 -0700, "talin at acm dot org"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> What's the difference between this and ``isinstance`` ?
Other than proposing a keyword operator instead of a function,
apparently nothing.
isinstance() ev
talin at acm dot org wrote:
> Although I realize the perils of even suggesting polluting the Python
> namespace with a new keyword, I often think that it would be useful to
> consider defining an operator for testing whether or not an item is a
> member of a category.
It's a good idea but not like
phil hunt wrote:
> On 1 Sep 2005 00:52:54 -0700, talin at acm dot org <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>The "isa" operator would of course be overloadable, perhaps by an
>>accessor functions called __isa__, which works similarly to
>>__contains__. The potential uses for this are not limited to
>>isin
On 1 Sep 2005 00:52:54 -0700, talin at acm dot org <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>The "isa" operator would of course be overloadable, perhaps by an
>accessor functions called __isa__, which works similarly to
>__contains__. The potential uses for this are not limited to
>isinstance() sugar, however.
On 1 Sep 2005 00:52:54 -0700, "talin at acm dot org"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Although I realize the perils of even suggesting polluting the Python
>namespace with a new keyword, I often think that it would be useful to
>consider defining an operator for testing whether or not an item is a
>mem
"talin at acm dot org" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> membership within a container -- instead we're testing for membership
> with a type hierarchy, where 'type' can be defined to mean whatever the
> programmer wants.
Well, if "type" means a (possibly infinite) set of objects, then you
can use "in"
18 matches
Mail list logo