🌐 Mailman 3 January 2004 - Python-list - python.org

Re: r prefix bug ... or my lack of understanding?
by Bill Sneddon Jan. 28, 2004

Jan. 28, 2004

David Goodger wrote: > It's a FAQ: > http://www.python.org/doc/faq/general.html#why-can-t-raw-strings-r-strings-… > > (or question 4.24 of http://www.python.org/doc/faq/general.html). > > -- David Goodger > > Thanks I looked at faqs.org did not see it. It does not seem to be kept up to date. I will check python.org in the future. Bill

2 1

Crystal Reports Viewer in wxPython
by Dean Marodi Jan. 28, 2004

Jan. 28, 2004

Hi! I want to use Crystal Reports Viewer with wxPython. Can anyone help (example)? Thanks, Dean

1 0

RE: fast deep-copying of instances
by Robert Brewer Jan. 28, 2004

Jan. 28, 2004

Michal Vitecek wrote: > hello, > > i have a data cache which sits between a slow database and > my server and > it's used to cache data retrieved from the database. in > order for it to > work correctly (race-conditions) i need a fast deep-copying of > instances (the cache is used heavily). > > i tried to use copy module but it's *very* slow, then i tried cPickle > to pickle and depickle instances which was faster, but still slow. > > then i've come across cCopy which is 8x faster than copy, but > unfortunately it doesn't work with new style classes because type()'s > return is crappy for them. so the question is: does there > exist a fast > copy module which works with new style classes? If you don't find something pre-built, you can always build it yourself into the classes which you are caching, via __copy__ and __deepcopy__ methods.: def __copy__(self): newUnit = self.__class__() newUnit.ID = u'' newUnit._data.update(self._data) newUnit.dirty = False newUnit.concrete = False return newUnit >From the Library ref on the copy module: "In order for a class to define its own copy implementation, it can define special methods __copy__() and __deepcopy__(). The former is called to implement the shallow copy operation; no additional arguments are passed. The latter is called to implement the deep copy operation; it is passed one argument, the memo dictionary. If the __deepcopy__() implementation needs to make a deep copy of a component, it should call the deepcopy() function with the component as first argument and the memo dictionary as second argument." HTH! Robert Brewer MIS Amor Ministries fumanchu(a)amor.org

2 1

received your email
by gstein＠lyra.org Jan. 28, 2004

Jan. 28, 2004

Hi, [ Re: Hello ] I have received your email, but it may take a while to respond. I'm really sorry to have to hook up this auto-responder, as it is so impersonal. However, I get a lot of email every day and find it very difficult to keep up with it. Please be patient while I try to get to your message. Please feel free to resend your message if you think I've missed it. I'll always respond to personal email first. If your email is regarding some of the software that I work on (if you have questions, comments, suggestions, etc), then please resend it to the appropriate mailing list: mod_dav <mailto:dav-dev@lyra.org> WebDAV <mailto:w3c-dist-auth@w3.org> ViewCVS <mailto:viewcvs@lyra.org> Subversion <mailto:dev@subversion.tigris.org> edna <mailto:edna@lyra.org> Thank you! Cheers, -g -- Greg Stein, http://www.lyra.org/

1 0

Re: I support PEP 326
by Josiah Carlson Jan. 28, 2004

Jan. 28, 2004

Skip Montanaro wrote: > >> That's a _lot_ of stuff in one module. Even if you exclude the 40-odd > >> exceptions that are there, that's still a lot of guff in one big flat > >> namespace. > > Gerrit> Any plans to clean it up in Python 3.0? > > Yes, there has been some discussion about this on python-dev. It doesn't > appear a PEP's been written yet. > > Skip Hey Skip, I know you commented on the flat namespace of __builtin__, but I've not seen any comments on PEP 326. Don't feel like you need to answer, but what are your feelings on it (even if you hate the PEP and give it a -1, you'll not hurt my feelings)? - Josiah

2 1

Re: I support PEP 326
by tweedgeezer＠hotmail.com Jan. 28, 2004

Jan. 28, 2004

Anthony Baxter <anthony(a)interlink.com.au> wrote in message news:<mailman.884.1075263037.12720.python-list(a)python.org>... > >>> len(dir(__builtins__)) > 125 > > That's a _lot_ of stuff in one module. Even if you exclude the 40-odd > exceptions that are there, that's still a lot of guff in one big flat > namespace. There certainly is, but are the mistakes of the past going to doom us to put things in the wrong place until we get to clean it up? I think the one appropriate place for the proposed constants is __builtins__, for the obvious reasons that (a) all other singleton constants are there (None, True, False) and (b) ease of implementation of cmp (with Maximum and Minimum in __builtins__, it's a 5-line change, I read on Python-dev). Yes, __builtins__ is bloated, but as Mr. Holl mentioned, a significant amount of it can be removed once Guido's willing to break backwards-compatibility. But why make 3.0 even more backwards-incompatible than it is now by sticking rightful builtins somewhere else just to keep the builtin namespace artificially smaller? (Or consider this: as a native speaker of English, I have a working vocabulary of tens of thousands of English words, and a non-working vocabulary in the hundreds of thousands. Do people really believe that the difference between 125 and 127 (or 150, or 200) builtins is going to increase my cognitive load significantly?) Jeremy

1 0

type() for new style classes - buggy?
by Michal Vitecek Jan. 28, 2004

Jan. 28, 2004

hello, does the type() command work correctly for new style classes? i guess it does not, unfortunately. for example, for a new style class' instance it returns <class '__main__.ClassName'>, but for old style class' instance it returns <type 'instance'>. >>> import types >>> class A(object): pass >>> class B: pass >>> type(A()) <class '__main__.A'> >>> type(B()) <type 'instance'> >>> type(A()) == types.InstanceType 0 >>> type(B()) == types.InstanceType 1 how can one then determine what he's working with when he uses new style classes (either instance or class)? thank you, -- fuf (fuf(a)mageo.cz)

2 1

Norton AntiVirus detected a virus in a message you sent. The infected attachment was deleted.
by NAVMSE-MAIL Jan. 28, 2004

Jan. 28, 2004

Recipient of the infected attachment: MAIL, First Storage Group\Mailbox Store (MAIL), Liz Martinez/Inbox Subject of the message: Test One or more attachments were deleted Your email address will be blocked to this server!!!! Thank you, FISHER ISLAND IT DEPT. Attachment document.zip was Deleted for the following reasons: Virus W32.Novarg.A@mm was found. Virus W32.Novarg.A@mm was found in document.txt .scr.

1 0

Re: type() for new style classes - buggy?
by Sidharth Kuruvila Jan. 28, 2004

Jan. 28, 2004

In the case of new style classes type actually doubles up as a class constructor, so all classes including type itself are instances type. >>> class A(object): ... pass ... >>> a = A() >>> type(a) <class '__main__.A'> >>> type(A) <type 'type'> >>> isinstance(A, type) True >>> isinstance(a, type) False >>> isinstance(type, type) True >>> hope this helps there is some documentation on new style classes you might want to read. http://www.python.org/doc/newstyle.html particularly the first essay by Guido.

1 0

Fw: Security validation issue
by Herman Geldenhuys Jan. 28, 2004

Jan. 28, 2004

Oops! Sorry guys, wrong list... Apologies. ----- Original Message ----- From: Herman Geldenhuys To: python-list(a)python.org Sent: Wednesday, January 28, 2004 4:54 PM Subject: Security validation issue I've written a Zope product that exposes a "MenuItem". I add a menuItem in a Zope folder, and I have no difficulty accessing and editing it via the ZMI. I've written an xml-rpc-like protocol for Zope, that basically validates the security "manually". This menuItem has an attribute called "def getVersion(self):" which returns an int. This is the Code that prevents me from accessing the method in python, via my protocol: if not AccessControl.getSecurityManager().validate(None, object, attributes[-1]): raise UnauthorisedAccessException('Unauthorised: ' + originalAddress) object = <bound method HWMenuItem.getVersion of <HWMenuItem instance at 01B7B290>> This is the method getVersion attributes[-1] = "getVersion" (string) UnauthorisedAccessException: Unauthorised: menus.administration.addUser.getVersion This code works for any other default Zope type, but not mine. Did I perhaps forgot a permission or something? I can access this fine via the ZMI, but when I validate it this way, python just starts cursing at me. Can somebody help? Thanks H

1 0