> I got "No results matched your query" on the second URL, at which point I > didn't bother with the first.
Check again in case it's an error. https://sourcegraph.com/search?q=context:global+lang:python+%5C%5B%5Cs*:%5Cs*%28i%7Cj%7Ck%7Cind%7Cindex%29%5Cs*%5C%5D%5Cs*%5C%2B%5Cs*%5C%28.*%5C%2C%5C%29%5Cs*%5C%2B%5Cs*%5B%5Cw%5C.%5D%2B%5C%5B%5Cs*%28i%7Cj%7Ck%7Cind%7Cindex%29%5Cs*%5C%2B%5Cs*1%5Cs*:%5Cs*%5C%5D&patternType=regexp https://sourcegraph.com/search?q=context:global+lang:python+%3D%5Cs*list%5C%28%5B%5Cw%5C.%5D%2B%5C%29%5Cs*%5Cw%2B%5C%5B%5Cw%2B%5C%5D%5Cs*%3D%5Cs*%5B%5Cw%5C.%5D%2B%5Cs*%5B%5Cw%5C.%5D%2B%5Cs*%3D%5Cs*tuple%5C%28%5Cw%2B%5C%29&patternType=regexp I get 500+ results for each query, including code from several prominent repositories and organizations, such as: - pytorch - pandas - apache - numpy - jax - sympy - cupy - tensorflow - pyqtgraph - aws - dask - deepmind - h5py - cloudflare - facebook research and so on. > My perspective is that replacement of an item in a tuple is so simple that it > isn't even worth a utility function unless it is generalised. I don't oppose the latter. > Just build a new tuple using slicing and concatenation expressions. Not every > expression is worth an actual named function. I feel that this proposal is > too small to bother with a function, let alone adding it to the tuple as a > builtin method. See Christopher's comments on performance as a builtin. ------- Original Message ------- On Monday, March 14th, 2022 at 7:51 PM, Steven D'Aprano <st...@pearwood.info> wrote: > On Mon, Mar 14, 2022 at 04:38:48PM +0000, wfdc wrote: > > > > I would think that at least is obvious: the top voted Python > > > > > > question on StackOverflow currently has 11891 votes. This is two > > > > > > orders of magnitude less. > > > > Like I said, this puts it in the top 3031 / 1908740 = 0.00159 = 0.159% > > > > of Python questions by vote count. > > > > That's not "a low number of votes" no matter how you try to spin it. > > It doesn't matter whether it is the top 0.159% or the top 0.00000001%, > > 160 votes or so is an objectively low number compared to the top ranking > > questions, with almost 100 times as many votes. > > Not that it matters. Even if the question had a trillion votes, that > > alone is not sufficient to justify the proposal. > > > > Popularity on StackOverflow is just a vague indication of > > > > > > popularity, not a sign of need or usefulness. > > > > Then see > > > > https://sourcegraph.com/search?q=context:global+lang:python+\[\s*:\s*(i|j|k|ind|index)\s*\]\s*\%2B\s*\(.%5C%2C%5C%29%5Cs%5C%2B%5Cs*%5B%5Cw%5C.%5D%2B%5C%5B%5Cs*%28i%7Cj%7Ck%7Cind%7Cindex%29%5Cs*%5C%2B%5Cs1%5Cs:%5Cs*%5C%5D&patternType=regexp > > > > https://sourcegraph.com/search?q=context:global+lang:python+%3D\slist%5C%28%5B%5Cw%5C.%5D%2B%5C%29%5Cs%5Cw%2B%5C%5B%5Cw%2B%5C%5D%5Cs*%3D%5Cs*%5B%5Cw%5C.%5D%2B%5Cs*%5B%5Cw%5C.%5D%2B%5Cs*%3D%5Cs*tuple%5C%28%5Cw%2B%5C%29&patternType=regexp > > > > for plenty more examples. > > I got "No results matched your query" on the second URL, at which point > > I didn't bother with the first. > > Thank you for providing some search terms, but you misunderstand the > > process of proposing new functionality to the builtins and stdlib. The > > onus is not on us to do the work, but for those making the proposal. > > If we ask for examples, we expect you to do the work of curating some > > good examples, not just to dump a regex in our laps and tell us to > > search for them ourselves. > > The bottom line here is that we don't have to justify why the proposal > > isn't accepted. New feature requests are not Default Accept. All we need > > to do is nothing at all and the proposal doesn't go ahead. > > At this point, I don't think this discussion on Python-Ideas is going > > anywhere, which is a shame because I actually do like it. > > Those who are opposed to changes (whether for good reasons or bad) are > > dominating the discussion. You aren't going to change their mind. Those > > who are neutral or in favour have had their voices drowned out. We've > > already had the mailing list put into Emergency Moderation once, > > presumably because tempers are getting frayed. > > I think that your strategies here could include: > > (1) Give this up as a lost cause. > > (2) Ignore the negative feedback here and raise it as an enhancement > > request on the bug tracker, or a PR on the repo. > > You will probably have it rejected and be told to discuss it on > > Python-Ideas, but you might be lucky and get the interest of a core > > developer who loves this proposal and accepts it. (But probably not.) > > (3) Look for some fresh feedback, hopefully (from your perspective) less > > conservative and negative. Try the "Ideas" topic on Discus. > > Take into account the feedback you have already received. We've told you > > the sorts of things that the core devs and Steering Council will be > > looking for. If you're not willing to provide that, you'll get the same > > response. > > Python is a mature language, and the core developers and Steering > > Council are conservative when it comes to adding marginally useful > > features that aren't obvious Big Wins, and this is not a Big Win, it is > > at best a Small Win. This post from one of the core devs may help you > > understand the culture here: > > https://www.curiousefficiency.org/posts/2011/04/musings-on-culture-of-python-dev.html > > My advice to you is that if your time and care factor is low, save your > > energy for battles you really care about. We all want what is best for > > Python, we may just disagree on what the balance of pros and cons are. > > If your care factor is high, and you want to continue gathering support > > for the proposal with the intention of writing a PEP, then listen to > > those of us who have written successful PEPs in the past. > > > See also the "batteries included" point that was made ages ago. (If > > > > users find themselves re-implementing the same utility function over > > > > and over again across different projects, it's a good sign that such a > > > > function should be part of the standard library.) > > It is a sign, but how strong a sign is open for debate. > > My perspective is that replacement of an item in a tuple is so simple > > that it isn't even worth a utility function unless it is generalised. > > Just build a new tuple using slicing and concatenation expressions. Not > > every expression is worth an actual named function. > > I feel that this proposal is too small to bother with a function, > > let alone adding it to the tuple as a builtin method. > > But generalising it to all sequences, not just tuples, that interests me > > more. I've used this on strings and lists, probably more often than on > > tuples. Yes, it raises the bar for acceptance, but it also raises the > > benefit. > > > Your other questions are frankly not necessary to answer and feel like > > > > goalpost-moving. The two proposals you held up as examples don't even > > > > satisfy them. > > It isn't clear to me what other questions you are referring to. > > -- > > Steve > > _______________________________________________ > > Python-ideas mailing list -- python-ideas@python.org > > To unsubscribe send an email to python-ideas-le...@python.org > > https://mail.python.org/mailman3/lists/python-ideas.python.org/ > > Message archived at > https://mail.python.org/archives/list/python-ideas@python.org/message/P4UZ6NFTSPVLMPQSFTYB2GMJBGZXXR7Q/ > > Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/ _______________________________________________ Python-ideas mailing list -- python-ideas@python.org To unsubscribe send an email to python-ideas-le...@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman3/lists/python-ideas.python.org/ Message archived at https://mail.python.org/archives/list/python-ideas@python.org/message/3J4YXQV7SJPGHU4NM2LECSWO5FD32MNE/ Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
