durusmail: quixote-users: Illegal Python Names cookbook recipe
Illegal Python Names cookbook recipe
2004-04-05
2004-04-05
2004-04-05
Bug fixes (was: Illegal Python Names cookbook recipe)
2004-04-07
2004-04-07
Bug fixes (was: Illegal Python Names cookbookrecipe)
2004-04-07
Patches for .7a3
2004-04-07
Re: Patches for .7a3
2004-04-08
StaticFile is broken (Quixote-0.7a3, scgi-1.2a2, Apache/1.3.27, FreeBSD 4.7)
2004-04-08
Re: Patches for .7a3
2004-04-21
2004-04-21
2004-04-06
2004-04-06
2004-04-06
2004-04-06
2004-04-06
2004-04-06
2004-04-06
2004-04-07
2004-04-07
2004-04-07
2004-04-07
2004-04-07
2004-04-07
2004-04-07
Re: Illegal Python Names cookbook recipe
2004-04-07
2004-04-07
2004-04-07
2004-04-07
2004-04-07
2004-04-07
2004-04-07
2004-04-07
2004-04-07
2004-04-07
2004-04-07
2004-04-07
2004-04-08
2004-04-07
2004-04-07
2004-04-07
2004-04-06
2004-04-05
2004-04-05
2004-04-05
Re: R: [Quixote-users] Illegal Python Names cookbook recipe
2004-04-06
Illegal Python Names cookbook recipe
A.M. Kuchling
2004-04-07
On Tue, Apr 06, 2004 at 07:18:39PM -0500, Martin Maney wrote:
> But I think this is much saner than piling magic special cases on
> _q_exports.  Should be easy to add _q_map (if it exists) prior to
> trying the old _q_exports to allow for an easy transition, then a quiet
> obsolescence (assuming there's agreement that the _q_map equivalent of
> _q_exports is simple enough to allow that).

Possible solution: _q_map is automatically created the first time you
traverse through an object.  If the object already has a _q_map, the
contents of _q_exports are merged into _q_map.  So you could include one,
the other, or both as you see fit.

One worry: mutating _q_map could lead to confusion.  Python doesn't have an
immutable dictionary type (unless Raymond Hettinger went and added one).

--amk


reply