http://www.perl.com/pub/2000/04/whatsnew.html --Guido van Rossum (home page: http://www.python.org/~guido/)
On Fri, 21 Apr 2000, Guido van Rossum wrote:
Yeah, loads of cool stuff we should steal... And loads of stuff that we shouldn't steal, no matter how cool it looks (lvaluable subroutines, anyone?) -- Moshe Zadka <mzadka@geocities.com>. http://www.oreilly.com/news/prescod_0300.html http://www.linux.org.il -- we put the penguin in .com
On Fri, 21 Apr 2000, Guido van Rossum wrote:
OK, here's my summary of the good things we should copy: (In that order:) -- Weak references (as weak dictionaries? would "w{}" to signify a weak dictionary is alright parser-wise?) -- Binary numbers -- way way cool (and doesn't seem to hard -- need to patch the tokenizer, PyLong_FromString and PyOS_strtoul: anything I've missed?) -- Moshe Zadka <mzadka@geocities.com>. http://www.oreilly.com/news/prescod_0300.html http://www.linux.org.il -- we put the penguin in .com
On Sat, 22 Apr 2000, Moshe Zadka wrote:
On Fri, 21 Apr 2000, Guido van Rossum wrote:
OK, here's my summary of the good things we should copy:
(In that order:)
-- Weak references (as weak dictionaries? would "w{}" to signify a weak dictionary is alright parser-wise?) -- Binary numbers -- way way cool (and doesn't seem to hard -- need to patch the tokenizer, PyLong_FromString and PyOS_strtoul: anything I've missed?)
Yet another numeric format? eek. If anything, we should be dropping octal, rather than adding binary. You want binary? Just use int("10010", 2). No need for more syntax. I'd go for weak objects (proxies) rather than weak dictionaries. Duplicating the dict type just to deal with weak refs seems a bit much. But I'm not a big brain on this stuff -- I tend to skip all the discussions people have had on this stuff. I just avoid the need for circular refs and weak refs :-) Most of the need for weak refs would disappear with some simple form of GC installed. And it seems we'll have that by 1.7. Cheers, -g -- Greg Stein, http://www.lyra.org/
On Sat, 22 Apr 2000, Greg Stein wrote:
Yet another numeric format? eek. If anything, we should be dropping octal, rather than adding binary.
You want binary? Just use int("10010", 2). No need for more syntax.
Damn, but you're right.
Most of the need for weak refs would disappear with some simple form of GC installed. And it seems we'll have that by 1.7.
Disagree. Think "destructors": with weak references, there's no problems: the referant dies first, and if later, the referer needs the referant to die, well, he'll get a "DeletionError: this object does not exist anymore" in his face, which is alright, because a weak referant should not trust the reference to live. 90%-of-the-cyclic-__del__-full-trash-problem-would-go-away-ly y'rs, Z. -- Moshe Zadka <mzadka@geocities.com>. http://www.oreilly.com/news/prescod_0300.html http://www.linux.org.il -- we put the penguin in .com
participants (3)
-
Greg Stein -
Guido van Rossum -
Moshe Zadka