Re: [Python-Dev] zipimport.c broken with implicit namespace packages
On 3 Jan 2016, at 3:41 am, Guido van Rossum wrote:> > On Sat, Jan 2, 2016 at 3:26 PM, wrote:> > -->> "Brett" == Brett Cannon writes:> >> I opened>> https://bugs.python.org/issue25711 to specifically try to>> fix this issue once and for all and along the way modernize
Re: [Python-Dev] zipimport.c broken with implicit namespace packages
On Sat, 2 Jan 2016 at 21:31 wrote:>> " " == Brett Cannon writes:>>> I just wanted to quickly say that Guido's observation as to how>> a VFS is overkill is right. Imagine implementing a loader using>> sqlite and you quickly realize that doing a dull VFS is more>
Re: [Python-Dev] zipimport.c broken with implicit namespace packages
On Sun, 3 Jan 2016 at 02:55 Phil Thompson wrote:> On 3 Jan 2016, at 3:41 am, Guido van Rossum wrote:>>>> On Sat, Jan 2, 2016 at 3:26 PM, wrote:>>>> -->>> "Brett" == Brett Cannon writes:>>>>> I opened>>> https://bugs.python.org/issue25711 to specifically try to>
Re: [Python-Dev] zipimport.c broken with implicit namespace packages
> " " == Brett Cannon writes: ... > So it's possible that some abstraction might be possible, but > up to this point there hasn't been a motivating factor for > importlib to do this as zipimport is written in C and thus > won't benefit from any abstraction that importlib
Re: [Python-Dev] PEP 257 and __init__
On Tue, Dec 29, 2015 at 1:03 PM, Facundo Batista wrote:> On Tue, Dec 29, 2015 at 4:38 PM, Andrew Barnert > wrote:>>> Isn't the same thing true for every special method? There are lots of> classes where __add___ just says "a.__add__(b) = a + b" or (better> following the PEP) "Return self +
Re: [Python-Dev] PEP 257 and __init__
On 1/3/2016 6:21 PM, Guido van Rossum wrote: On Tue, Dec 29, 2015 at 1:03 PM, Facundo Batista mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: On Tue, Dec 29, 2015 at 4:38 PM, Andrew Barnert mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:> Isn't the same thing true for every special method? There are lots
Re: [Python-Dev] PEP 257 and __init__
On 4 January 2016 at 17:01, Terry Reedy wrote:> Ask the PSF/pypi people to either prohibit such names or require a> disclaimer of some sort. They are inherently confusing: "I took a look at> pep008" does not mean that one even looked at the PEP. Even when the> context makes clear that the re