William Stein wrote:
> On 9/11/07, Jaap Spies <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> I did not find this here:
>> http://docs.python.org/dev/3.0/whatsnew/3.0.html
>>
>> The 'old' behaviour seems to be continued:
>
> Specifically what he said in his talk would change is the following:
>
> fake-python3000>
On 9/11/07, Jaap Spies <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I did not find this here:
> http://docs.python.org/dev/3.0/whatsnew/3.0.html
>
> The 'old' behaviour seems to be continued:
Specifically what he said in his talk would change is the following:
fake-python3000> n = 5
fake-python3000> v = [n*n fo
William Stein wrote:
>
> That said, I vaguely recall Guido van Rosum saying that he was
> seriously considering changing this behavior in "Python 3000",
> i.e., the version of Python that will seriously break backwards
> compatibility. I have no idea what will really happen.
>
I did not fi
On Sep 10, 2007, at 21:34 , William Stein wrote:
>
> On 9/10/07, Nikos Apostolakis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Is it possible to have the variables that appear in "for" loops and
>> other such constructs to be "dummy" in the mathematical sence
>> (probably the cs term is "local")? The current
On 9/10/07, Nikos Apostolakis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Is it possible to have the variables that appear in "for" loops and
> other such constructs to be "dummy" in the mathematical sence
> (probably the cs term is "local")? The current behavior, in which
> after the loop is completed the loop
