John J. Lee wrote:
> "Michele Simionato" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> [...]
>> This agrees with my scan (except I also found an occurrence of 'create'
>> in Tkinter).
>> BTW, I would be curious to see the script you are using for the
>> scanning. Are you
>> using tokenize too? In am quite fond of
"Michele Simionato" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
[...]
> This agrees with my scan (except I also found an occurrence of 'create'
> in Tkinter).
> BTW, I would be curious to see the script you are using for the
> scanning. Are you
> using tokenize too? In am quite fond of the tokenize module ;)
Havi
Michele Simionato wrote:
> Peter Hansen wrote:
>> Michele Simionato wrote:
>> > You can pull out the example in the official
>>> PEP, if you like.
>> Please do. If this is supposed to have anything to do with namespaces,
>> it has nothing to do with the type of data structures XML is capable of
>
Peter Hansen wrote:
> Michele Simionato wrote:
> > You can pull out the example in the official
> > PEP, if you like.
>
> Please do. If this is supposed to have anything to do with namespaces,
> it has nothing to do with the type of data structures XML is capable of
> and the presence of this exa
Michele Simionato wrote:
> Honestly, I don't want the 'create' statement to be used to write XML
> in Python.
> I think this would be a misuse of the functionality. OTOH I believe
> that the main selling point for the 'create' statements is that it make
> it easy to implement declarative minilangua
Steven Bethard wrote:
> Azolex wrote:
> > Steven Bethard wrote:
> >> and named, nested hierarchies like XML documents could be created
> >> like::
> >>
> >> create ETobject html:
> >> "This statement would generate an ElementTree object"
> >>
> >> create ETobject head:
> >>
Steven Bethard wrote:
> Azolex wrote:
> > Steven Bethard wrote:
> >> and named, nested hierarchies like XML documents could be created
> >> like::
> >>
> >> create ETobject html:
> >> "This statement would generate an ElementTree object"
> >>
> >> create ETobject head:
> >>
Steven Bethard wrote:
> Azolex wrote:
> > Steven Bethard wrote:
> >> and named, nested hierarchies like XML documents could be created
> >> like::
> >>
> >> create ETobject html:
> >> "This statement would generate an ElementTree object"
> >>
> >> create ETobject head:
> >>
Steven Bethard wrote:
> Azolex wrote:
> > Steven Bethard wrote:
> >> and named, nested hierarchies like XML documents could be created
> >> like::
> >>
> >> create ETobject html:
> >> "This statement would generate an ElementTree object"
> >>
> >> create ETobject head:
> >>
Steven Bethard wrote:
> Azolex wrote:
> > Steven Bethard wrote:
> >> and named, nested hierarchies like XML documents could be created
> >> like::
> >>
> >> create ETobject html:
> >> "This statement would generate an ElementTree object"
> >>
> >> create ETobject head:
> >>
Steven Bethard wrote:
> Azolex wrote:
>> Steven Bethard wrote:
>>> and named, nested hierarchies like XML documents could be created
>>> like::
>>>
>>> create ETobject html:
>>> "This statement would generate an ElementTree object"
>>>
>>> create ETobject head:
>>> "
Azolex wrote:
> Steven Bethard wrote:
>> and named, nested hierarchies like XML documents could be created
>> like::
>>
>> create ETobject html:
>> "This statement would generate an ElementTree object"
>>
>> create ETobject head:
>> "generate the head"
>>
Steven Bethard wrote:
> I've updated the PEP based on a number of comments on comp.lang.python.
> The most updated versions are still at:
>
> http://ucsu.colorado.edu/~bethard/py/pep_create_statement.txt
> http://ucsu.colorado.edu/~bethard/py/pep_create_statement.html
>
> In this post, I
Carl Banks wrote:
> Steven Bethard wrote:
>> I've updated the PEP based on a number of comments on comp.lang.python.
>> The most updated versions are still at:
>>
>> http://ucsu.colorado.edu/~bethard/py/pep_create_statement.txt
>> http://ucsu.colorado.edu/~bethard/py/pep_create_statement.
Michele> I think looking at the occurrences in the standard library only
Michele> is unfair.
In addition, when considering the standard library you need to search the
source repository, not just what's installed on your platform. I noticed in
your earlier post that you pointed your count
Serge Orlov wrote:
> bruno at modulix wrote:
> > Steven Bethard wrote:
> > > The PEP below should be mostly self explanatory. I'll try to keep the
> > > most updated versions available at:
>
> [snip]
>
> >
> > Seems mostly clean. +1.
> >
>
> That's what Trojans said when they saw a wooden horse at
I think looking at the occurrences in the standard library only is
unfair. I have a large "Zope +Plone+my stuff" installation and I get
154 occurrences of 'create' but nearly 0 occurrences
of 'make' (only a few in Zope/lib/python/BTrees/tests/testSetOps.py). I
guess 'make' sounds
too Lispy, this i
Steven Bethard wrote:
> I've updated the PEP based on a number of comments on comp.lang.python.
> The most updated versions are still at:
>
> http://ucsu.colorado.edu/~bethard/py/pep_create_statement.txt
> http://ucsu.colorado.edu/~bethard/py/pep_create_statement.html
>
> In this post, I'
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Steven> Optional Extensions
> Steven> ===
>
> Steven> Remove the create keyword
> Steven> -
>
> Steven> It might be possible to remove the create keyword so that such
> Steven> statements would begin with t
Steven> Optional Extensions
Steven> ===
Steven> Remove the create keyword
Steven> -
Steven> It might be possible to remove the create keyword so that such
Steven> statements would begin with the callable being called, e.g.::
Ste
Michael Ekstrand wrote:
> Is there a natural way
> to extend this to other things, so that function creation can be
> modified? For example:
>
> create tracer fib(x):
> # Return appropriate data here
> pass
>
> tracer could create a function that logs its entry and exit; behavior
> could be
Terry Reedy wrote:
> "Michele Simionato" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> This is a very relevant question. I would expect the new keyword would
>> break lots
>> of modules. However measuring is better than speculating.
>
> Please run also with alternatives, such a
"Michele Simionato" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> This is a very relevant question. I would expect the new keyword would
> break lots
> of modules. However measuring is better than speculating.
Please run also with alternatives, such as 'make'.
tjr
--
http://
"Azolex" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> I'd advocate for the shortest possible keyword, and - maybe because
> English is not my native language - I'd thus prefer "make" if any is
> really required.
While currently +0 on the proposal, I am +1 on 'make' versus 'creat
Steven Bethard wrote:
> I've updated the PEP based on a number of comments on comp.lang.python.
> The most updated versions are still at:
>
> http://ucsu.colorado.edu/~bethard/py/pep_create_statement.txt
> http://ucsu.colorado.edu/~bethard/py/pep_create_statement.html
>
> In this post, I
Michele Simionato wrote:
> Steven Bethard wrote:
>> I've updated the PEP based on a number of comments on comp.lang.python.
>> The most updated versions are still at:
>>
>> http://ucsu.colorado.edu/~bethard/py/pep_create_statement.txt
>> http://ucsu.colorado.edu/~bethard/py/pep_create_sta
Steven Bethard wrote:
> I've updated the PEP based on a number of comments on comp.lang.python.
> The most updated versions are still at:
>
> http://ucsu.colorado.edu/~bethard/py/pep_create_statement.txt
> http://ucsu.colorado.edu/~bethard/py/pep_create_statement.html
>
> In this post, I'
Michele Simionato wrote:
> Carl Banks wrote:
>>> create module mod:
>>> "This creates a sub-module named mod with an f1 function"
>>>
>>> def f1():
>>> ...
>> Let's not do this, really. A module should be one-to-one with a file,
>> and you should be able to impo
Carl Banks wrote:
> My biggest concern with this is the special arguments of the caller.
> It breaks my heart that we couldn't do something like this:
>
> create dict keymap:
> A = 1
> B = 2
>
> And it'll probably confuse people as well. We ought to keep that in
> mind.
>
>
> > Of course,
I've updated the PEP based on a number of comments on comp.lang.python.
The most updated versions are still at:
http://ucsu.colorado.edu/~bethard/py/pep_create_statement.txt
http://ucsu.colorado.edu/~bethard/py/pep_create_statement.html
In this post, I'm especially soliciting review of
Sion Arrowsmith wrote:
> Michele Simionato <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >Sion Arrowsmith wrote:
> >> A quick scan of the standard library suggests that it will have
> >> a grand total of 3 modules requiring a fix (it's a method name
> >> in imaplib and a named argument in a couple of places in bsdd
Steven Bethard wrote:
...
>
> Optional Extensions
> ===
>
> Remove the create keyword
> -
>
> It might be possible to remove the create keyword so that such
> statements would begin with the callable being called, e.g.:
>
> module mod:
> def f
Carl Banks wrote:
> Steven Bethard wrote:
>> This PEP proposes a generalization of the class-declaration syntax,
>> the ``create`` statement. The proposed syntax and semantics parallel
>> the syntax for class definition, and so::
>>
>> create :
>>
>>
>> is translated into the assignm
Michele Simionato <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Sion Arrowsmith wrote:
>> A quick scan of the standard library suggests that it will have
>> a grand total of 3 modules requiring a fix (it's a method name
>> in imaplib and a named argument in a couple of places in bsddb
>> and distutils). Your own cod
Tim N. van der Leeuw wrote:
> Could this still make it in Python 2.5 even? If it's pushed hard
> enough? I don't know if this has been discussed on the python-dev
> mailing lists and what the reactions of python-devs and GvR was?
Unlikely. I haven't posted it to python-dev yet, and they've basical
> Abstract
>
>
> This PEP proposes a generalization of the class-declaration syntax,
> the ``create`` statement. The proposed syntax and semantics parallel
> the syntax for class definition, and so::
>
>create :
>
>
> is translated into the assignment::
>
> = ("", ,
Sion Arrowsmith wrote:
> Kay Schluehr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >Steven Bethard wrote:
> >> Python-Version: 2.6
> >Have you a rough estimation how many modules will be broken when
> >"create" is introduced as a keyword?
>
> A quick scan of the standard library suggests that it will have
> a gran
Michele Simionato wrote:
> Steven Bethard wrote:
>> The PEP is based on a suggestion [1]_ from Michele Simionato on the
>> python-dev list.
>
> True, but I would also mention that the idea of the 'create' keyword
> come from
> Nick Coghlan:
>
> http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2005-Oct
Kay Schluehr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Steven Bethard wrote:
>> Python-Version: 2.6
>Have you a rough estimation how many modules will be broken when
>"create" is introduced as a keyword?
A quick scan of the standard library suggests that it will have
a grand total of 3 modules requiring a fix (
Steven Bethard wrote:
> Michael Ekstrand wrote:
>> Something it could be useful to try to add, if possible: So far, it
>> seems that this create block can only create class-like things (objects
>> with a name, potentially bases, and a namespace). Is there a natural way
>> to extend this to other th
Michael Ekstrand wrote:
> Something it could be useful to try to add, if possible: So far, it
> seems that this create block can only create class-like things (objects
> with a name, potentially bases, and a namespace). Is there a natural way
> to extend this to other things, so that function creat
Kay Schluehr wrote:
> Steven Bethard wrote:
>
> > Python-Version: 2.6
>
> Have you a rough estimation how many modules will be broken when
> "create" is introduced as a keyword?
This is a very relevant question. I would expect the new keyword would
break lots
of modules. However measuring is bette
Steven Bethard wrote:
> Python-Version: 2.6
Have you a rough estimation how many modules will be broken when
"create" is introduced as a keyword?
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
>From what I read here it would make a huge useability improvement for
properties, and for that alone I would vote this a +1 if I were given
the right to vote.
Could this still make it in Python 2.5 even? If it's pushed hard
enough? I don't know if this has been discussed on the python-dev
mailing
Steven Bethard wrote:
> The PEP below should be mostly self explanatory. I'll try to keep the
> most updated versions available at:
>
> http://ucsu.colorado.edu/~bethard/py/pep_create_statement.txt
> http://ucsu.colorado.edu/~bethard/py/pep_create_statement.html
>
>
>
> PEP: XXX
> Ti
Carl Banks wrote:
> That's probably even more readable than class A, if not as familiar.
> My biggest concern with this is the special arguments of the caller.
> It breaks my heart that we couldn't do something like this:
>
> create dict keymap:
> A = 1
> B = 2
>
Why couldn't you? Maybe
Serge Orlov wrote:
> bruno at modulix wrote:
>
>>Steven Bethard wrote:
>>
>>>The PEP below should be mostly self explanatory. I'll try to keep the
>>>most updated versions available at:
>
>
> [snip]
>
>
>>Seems mostly clean. +1.
>>
>
>
> That's what Trojans said when they saw a wooden horse
bruno at modulix wrote:
> Seems mostly clean. +1.
>
> (and I do prefer it with the 'create' statement - more explicit and
> readable than Michele's original proposition IMHO).
Well, I do agree ;)
Actually, Steven's original PEP draft was closer to my original
proposal,
but I suggested him to prop
bruno at modulix wrote:
> Steven Bethard wrote:
> > The PEP below should be mostly self explanatory. I'll try to keep the
> > most updated versions available at:
[snip]
>
> Seems mostly clean. +1.
>
That's what Trojans said when they saw a wooden horse at the gates of
Troy ;)
Serge.
--
http
Steven Bethard wrote:
> The PEP below should be mostly self explanatory. I'll try to keep the
> most updated versions available at:
>
> http://ucsu.colorado.edu/~bethard/py/pep_create_statement.txt
> http://ucsu.colorado.edu/~bethard/py/pep_create_statement.html
>
>
>
> PEP: XXX
> Title
Steven Bethard wrote:
> The PEP is based on a suggestion [1]_ from Michele Simionato on the
> python-dev list.
True, but I would also mention that the idea of the 'create' keyword
come from
Nick Coghlan:
http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2005-October/057531.html
Michele Simionato
I wonder if the resulting code would look like Python.
It seems a great way to unify how things are defined, but I would not
want to mix the syntax with the current style.
- Pad.
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Steven Bethard wrote:
> This PEP proposes a generalization of the class-declaration syntax,
> the ``create`` statement. The proposed syntax and semantics parallel
> the syntax for class definition, and so::
>
> create :
>
>
> is translated into the assignment::
>
> = ("", , )
>
I haven't looked at this enough to really understand it, but it looks
interesting and promising.
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
The PEP below should be mostly self explanatory. I'll try to keep the
most updated versions available at:
http://ucsu.colorado.edu/~bethard/py/pep_create_statement.txt
http://ucsu.colorado.edu/~bethard/py/pep_create_statement.html
PEP: XXX
Title: The create statement
Version: $Revisi
55 matches
Mail list logo
