Guido van Rossum wrote:
What was the purpose of the patch in the first place?
I don't fully understand it. I guess the objective of the patch
was to expose the feature of the underlying library. The SF
submission then gives the rationale for that feature as
Copying a
(de)compression object
On Sun, May 21, 2006, Neal Norwitz wrote:
On 5/19/06, Anthony Baxter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Remember, the feature freeze isn't until beta1. New stuff can still go
in after the next alpha, before beta1.
I agree. Of course, it's preferable to get things in ASAP to get more
testing.
Aahz wrote:
On Sun, May 21, 2006, Neal Norwitz wrote:
On 5/19/06, Anthony Baxter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Remember, the feature freeze isn't until beta1. New stuff can still go
in after the next alpha, before beta1.
I agree. Of course, it's preferable to get things in ASAP to get more
On 5/21/06, Aahz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sun, May 21, 2006, Neal Norwitz wrote: On 5/19/06, Anthony Baxter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:Remember, the feature freeze isn't until beta1. New stuff can still go
in after the next alpha, before beta1. I agree. Of course, it's preferable to get things in
Hi all!
The following PEP tries to make the case for a slight unification of for
statement and list comprehension syntax.
Comments appreciated, including on the sample implementation.
===
PEP: xxx
Title: Unification of for-statement and list-comprehension syntax
Version: $Revision$
Then options 2 and 3 are both fine.
Not compiling at all is *not*, so if nobody has time to implement 2 or
3, we'll have to do 4.
--Guido
On 5/21/06, Martin v. Löwis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Guido van Rossum wrote:
What was the purpose of the patch in the first place?
I don't fully
-1. The contraction just makes it easier to miss the logic.
Also, it would be a parsing conflict for the new conditional
expressions (x if T else y).
This was proposed and rejected before.
--Guido
On 5/21/06, Heiko Wundram [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi all!
The following PEP tries to make the
Am Sonntag 21 Mai 2006 17:38 schrieb Guido van Rossum:
-1. The contraction just makes it easier to miss the logic.
I actually don't think so, because it's pretty synonymous to what 'if' means
for list comprehensions which use the same keywords (that's why I called
it unification of ...
Thomas Allow me to pitch in my support for speeding up the releases,
Thomas then. I don't believe alpha releases (of Python) get serious
Thomas testing.
Is there nobody else out there that uses Python built from the current svn
repository as the main Python interpreter on a
On 5/21/06, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Thomas Allow me to pitch in my support for speeding up the releases,Thomas then. I don't believe alpha releases (of Python) get seriousThomas testing.Is there nobody else out there that uses Python built from the current svn
repository as the
Heiko Wundram [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
As I've noticed that I find myself typing the latter quite often
in code I write, it would only be sensible to add the corresponding
syntax for the for statement:
for node in tree if node.haschildren():
Am Sonntag 21 Mai 2006 18:08 schrieb Steven Bethard:
While this has been proposed before, I'd like to thank you for putting
together a full PEP and a working implementaiton. I think you should
still submit the PEP, if for nothing else so that when the issue comes
up again, we can point to the
Am Sonntag 21 Mai 2006 22:11 schrieb Talin:
As a general guideline, I've noticed that proposals which are purely
syntactic sugar are unlikely to be accepted unless there is some
additional benefit other than just compression of source code.
I know about this, but generally, I find there's more
Heiko Wundram [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Am Sonntag 21 Mai 2006 22:11 schrieb Talin:
As a general guideline, I've noticed that proposals which are purely
syntactic sugar are unlikely to be accepted unless there is some
additional benefit other than just compression of source code.
I
Heiko Wundram wrote:
for node in tree:
if not node.haschildren():
continue
do something with node
Er, you do realise that can be written more straightforwardly as
for node in tree:
if node.haschildren():
do something with node
--
Greg
Am Montag 22 Mai 2006 01:59 schrieb Josiah Carlson:
1) It unifies the syntax for list comprehensions and for loops, which use
the
No, it /partially unifies/ list comprehensions and for loops. To
actually unify them, you would need to allow for arbitrarily nested fors
and ifs...
for ...
Am Montag 22 Mai 2006 02:22 schrieb Greg Ewing:
Heiko Wundram wrote:
for node in tree:
if not node.haschildren():
continue
do something with node
Er, you do realise that can be written more straightforwardly as
for node in tree:
if
Am Montag 22 Mai 2006 02:46 schrieben Sie:
Heiko Wundram wrote:
2) Just as I've replied to Terry J. Reed, if you find list comprehensions
easy to read, you're also bound to be able to understand what for expr
in expr if expr: does, at least AFAICT.
I tend to write non-trivial LCs on
18 matches
Mail list logo
