[Python-ideas] Re: re.match(pattern, string, require=True)

[David Mertz, Ph.D.]

It's hard to overstate how "normal" a non-match is. A typical program might
examine thousands of strings to identify the ten that match a pattern.
Exceptions shouldn't be used for cases that are in no way exceptional.

On Sun, Oct 22, 2023, 7:27 PM Greg Ewing  wrote:

> On 23/10/23 1:36 am, Juancarlo Añez wrote:
> > The *re* module is a black swan, because most of stdlib raises
> > exceptions on invalid arguments or not being able to deliver.
>
> Most of the time, failure to match an re is not a programming error.
> Often it's perfectly normal. Sometimes it's the result of invalid
> user input, but that's the fault of the user, not the programmer.
>
> --
> Greg
> ___
> 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/4JNKSUTZ6ZDVHERYCNO35J2UDS5UO4CD/
> 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/ATA4NWRU4MNUX427LZLNP3UMRVEOLVQE/
Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/

[Python-ideas] Re: re.match(pattern, string, require=True)

[Greg Ewing]

On 23/10/23 1:36 am, Juancarlo Añez wrote:
The *re* module is a black swan, because most of stdlib raises 
exceptions on invalid arguments or not being able to deliver.


Most of the time, failure to match an re is not a programming error.
Often it's perfectly normal. Sometimes it's the result of invalid
user input, but that's the fault of the user, not the programmer.

--
Greg
___
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/4JNKSUTZ6ZDVHERYCNO35J2UDS5UO4CD/
Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/

[Python-ideas] Re: re.match(pattern, string, require=True)

[Eric V. Smith via Python-ideas]

On 10/21/2023 8:31 PM, Chris Angelico wrote:

On Sun, 22 Oct 2023 at 11:29, MRAB  wrote:

I think what the OP wants is to have re.match either return a match or
raise an exception.

Yes, and my point is that simply attempting to access an attribute
will do exactly that. It's not a silent failure.

Why create a new argument, then mandate that you use it everywhere,
just to achieve what's already happening?


Because the end user message would be much better, and the exception 
would point to the exact line where the match didn't occur, instead of 
some subsequent line.


Eric
___
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/5HRZYV54IUK43VX5WRULEZ6CH3IP35OO/
Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/

[Python-ideas] Re: re.match(pattern, string, require=True)

[Chris Angelico]

On Mon, 23 Oct 2023 at 01:14, Juancarlo Añez  wrote:
>
> The re module is a black swan, because most of stdlib raises exceptions on 
> invalid arguments or not being able to deliver.
>

This is a comparison function, and like every other comparison
function, it signals its results with a return value. It returns a
truthy value if the regular expression matches, and a falsy value if
it does not. As such, it is perfectly in line with fnmatch.fnmatch(),
all of the str.is*() methods, math.isclose(), and pretty much
everything else.

So I guess by your logic, Python's standard library must have come
from Perth, as it is nothing but black swans.

ChrisA
___
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/EM4H4YIL5AIHEOZVA5RTOBFBQFDUIA5F/
Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/

[Python-ideas] Re: re.match(pattern, string, require=True)

[Juancarlo Añez]

The *re* module is a black swan, because most of stdlib raises exceptions
on invalid arguments or not being able to deliver.

It's impossible to change *re* now, so wrapping the calls should be the
right solution.

--
Juancarlo Añez
mailto:apal...@gmail.com


On Sun, Oct 22, 2023 at 5:19 AM Stephen J. Turnbull <
turnbull.stephen...@u.tsukuba.ac.jp> wrote:

> Chris Angelico writes:
>
>  > Why create a new argument, then mandate that you use it everywhere,
>  > just to achieve what's already happening?
>
> "Newbies don't read code backwards very well" seems to be the
> point.
>
> While I'm not of the school that "I learned this painfully, so newbies
> should learn this painfully", I do think that novice Python
> programmers should learn that
>
> 1.  "None has no .xxx attribute" means that some previous code (often
> but not always a regex match) was unable to perform some task
> and returned None to indicate failure.
> 2.  If the failure was expectable, your code is buggy because it
> didn't test for None, and if it was unexpected, some code
> somewhere is buggy because it allowed an invariant to fail.
>
> On the cost side, there are so many cases where a more finely divided
> Exception hierarchy would help novices quite a bit but experts very
> little that this case (easy to learn) would open the floodgates.  I
> believe Guido has specifically advised against such a hierarchy.  I'm
> against this change.
>
> 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/MIE4OFPAG5CTNMUR7FYJSX66UMDHIH57/
> 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/QCKOSYRIFF4O27CUFIUV76NGPQYI4FQP/
Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/

[Python-ideas] Re: re.match(pattern, string, require=True)

[Paul Moore]

Just as a further note, it's perfectly possible to write a helper:

def ensure_match(pattern, string):
m = re.match(pattern, string)
if m is None:
raise ValueError(f"Provided string did not match {pattern}")
return m

If the project is concerned about failures to check the return value of
matches, then using a helper like this seems like a reasonable way of
addressing this (far more effective than living with the problem until a
flag gets added to the stdlib and the project can drop support for older
Python versions...)

If the intention here is simply to "make it easier for people to remember"
in the future, without being tied to any actual real world use case, then I
don't see how adding a (just as easily forgettable) boolean flag is any
significant improvement.

Paul

On Sun, 22 Oct 2023 at 10:19, Stephen J. Turnbull <
turnbull.stephen...@u.tsukuba.ac.jp> wrote:

> Chris Angelico writes:
>
>  > Why create a new argument, then mandate that you use it everywhere,
>  > just to achieve what's already happening?
>
> "Newbies don't read code backwards very well" seems to be the
> point.
>
> While I'm not of the school that "I learned this painfully, so newbies
> should learn this painfully", I do think that novice Python
> programmers should learn that
>
> 1.  "None has no .xxx attribute" means that some previous code (often
> but not always a regex match) was unable to perform some task
> and returned None to indicate failure.
> 2.  If the failure was expectable, your code is buggy because it
> didn't test for None, and if it was unexpected, some code
> somewhere is buggy because it allowed an invariant to fail.
>
> On the cost side, there are so many cases where a more finely divided
> Exception hierarchy would help novices quite a bit but experts very
> little that this case (easy to learn) would open the floodgates.  I
> believe Guido has specifically advised against such a hierarchy.  I'm
> against this change.
>
> 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/MIE4OFPAG5CTNMUR7FYJSX66UMDHIH57/
> 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/UTU4SQNQOJNBNYCW35ZP4OI4XTDKDJEN/
Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/

[Python-ideas] Re: re.match(pattern, string, require=True)

[Stephen J. Turnbull]

Chris Angelico writes:

 > Why create a new argument, then mandate that you use it everywhere,
 > just to achieve what's already happening?

"Newbies don't read code backwards very well" seems to be the
point.

While I'm not of the school that "I learned this painfully, so newbies
should learn this painfully", I do think that novice Python
programmers should learn that

1.  "None has no .xxx attribute" means that some previous code (often
but not always a regex match) was unable to perform some task
and returned None to indicate failure.
2.  If the failure was expectable, your code is buggy because it
didn't test for None, and if it was unexpected, some code
somewhere is buggy because it allowed an invariant to fail.

On the cost side, there are so many cases where a more finely divided
Exception hierarchy would help novices quite a bit but experts very
little that this case (easy to learn) would open the floodgates.  I
believe Guido has specifically advised against such a hierarchy.  I'm
against this change.

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/MIE4OFPAG5CTNMUR7FYJSX66UMDHIH57/
Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/

[Python-ideas] Re: re.match(pattern, string, require=True)

[Chris Angelico]

On Sun, 22 Oct 2023 at 11:29, MRAB  wrote:
> I think what the OP wants is to have re.match either return a match or
> raise an exception.

Yes, and my point is that simply attempting to access an attribute
will do exactly that. It's not a silent failure.

Why create a new argument, then mandate that you use it everywhere,
just to achieve what's already happening?

ChrisA
___
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/PUXKLC2K7SSNMIKUCEGGRJCF2NBT5URM/
Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/

[Python-ideas] Re: re.match(pattern, string, require=True)

[MRAB]

On 2023-10-21 21:15, Chris Angelico wrote:

On Sun, 22 Oct 2023 at 06:37, Ram Rachum  wrote:


On Sat, Oct 21, 2023 at 10:30 PM Chris Angelico  wrote:



> I love that, but it mostly makes sense for "if there's a match do this, otherwise do that" where 
most cases fall into "I'm absolutely sure there's a match here and here's what we should do with that 
match", and when that "absolutely sure" fails, the proper way to deal with that is by raising an 
exception.
>

Oh, you mean like AttributeError?



What I propose is like AttributeError in that they are both exceptions, but 
unlike AttributeError in that it'll communicate the problem effectively in a 
way that's easy to understand, especially by people who aren't Python experts.

When you and I see this:

AttributeError: 'NoneType' object has no attribute 'strip'



Which is strong evidence of a bug in your code. You're trying to tell
me that you want a way to enforce that, if the regex doesn't match,
it's a bug in your code. This seems to do that perfectly well.

If it's NOT a bug when the regex doesn't match, you have the standard
conditional form available. I'm not seeing a problem here.

I think what the OP wants is to have re.match either return a match or 
raise an exception.

___
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/SCPAXBHEYNBRMMTBAX7A4DIO7UAVXBZN/
Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/

[Python-ideas] Re: re.match(pattern, string, require=True)

[Chris Angelico]

On Sun, 22 Oct 2023 at 06:37, Ram Rachum  wrote:
>
> On Sat, Oct 21, 2023 at 10:30 PM Chris Angelico  wrote:
>>
>>
>> > I love that, but it mostly makes sense for "if there's a match do this, 
>> > otherwise do that" where most cases fall into "I'm absolutely sure there's 
>> > a match here and here's what we should do with that match", and when that 
>> > "absolutely sure" fails, the proper way to deal with that is by raising an 
>> > exception.
>> >
>>
>> Oh, you mean like AttributeError?
>>
>
> What I propose is like AttributeError in that they are both exceptions, but 
> unlike AttributeError in that it'll communicate the problem effectively in a 
> way that's easy to understand, especially by people who aren't Python experts.
>
> When you and I see this:
>
> AttributeError: 'NoneType' object has no attribute 'strip'
>

Which is strong evidence of a bug in your code. You're trying to tell
me that you want a way to enforce that, if the regex doesn't match,
it's a bug in your code. This seems to do that perfectly well.

If it's NOT a bug when the regex doesn't match, you have the standard
conditional form available. I'm not seeing a problem here.

ChrisA
___
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/OCGJC5PUPLW4NFEW2JOACALTNO6MEXJC/
Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/

[Python-ideas] Re: re.match(pattern, string, require=True)

[Ram Rachum]

On Sat, Oct 21, 2023 at 10:30 PM Chris Angelico  wrote:

>
> > I love that, but it mostly makes sense for "if there's a match do this,
> otherwise do that" where most cases fall into "I'm absolutely sure there's
> a match here and here's what we should do with that match", and when that
> "absolutely sure" fails, the proper way to deal with that is by raising an
> exception.
> >
>
> Oh, you mean like AttributeError?
>
>
What I propose is like AttributeError in that they are both exceptions, but
unlike AttributeError in that it'll communicate the problem effectively in
a way that's easy to understand, especially by people who aren't Python
experts.

When you and I see this:

AttributeError: 'NoneType' object has no attribute 'strip'


Our brain that has been subjected to over a decade of Python work
automatically processes it, completely dismissing the 'strip' as a red
herring and concluding that a few lines above that line there was a regex
match that was expected to succeed but failed. Then we have to roll up our
sleeves and rerun this code with some instrumentation to find out what the
offending string was.

I propose to skip that entire exercise and go straight to:

re.NoMatchError: 'foobar' does not match pattern '^[0-9]+'


That would be so much nicer both for beginners and experienced developers.

What do you think about that?


Thanks,
Ram.
___
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/4KHHPCY4QTFK6HDTRQTYQCFE4FOLEA42/
Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/

[Python-ideas] Re: re.match(pattern, string, require=True)

[Chris Angelico]

On Sun, 22 Oct 2023 at 06:11, Ram Rachum  wrote:
>
> On Sat, Oct 21, 2023 at 10:01 PM Chris Angelico  wrote:
>>
>> On Sat, 21 Oct 2023 at 21:57, Ram Rachum  wrote:
>>
>> What about an if with the match inside it?
>>
>> if m := re.match(...):
>> ...
>>
>> That's one of the motivating examples behind the walrus after all.
>
>
> I love that, but it mostly makes sense for "if there's a match do this, 
> otherwise do that" where most cases fall into "I'm absolutely sure there's a 
> match here and here's what we should do with that match", and when that 
> "absolutely sure" fails, the proper way to deal with that is by raising an 
> exception.
>

Oh, you mean like AttributeError?

ChrisA
___
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/CAG7AI2MKNSB6RTGHBYLQSD6MAOQO3AN/
Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/

[Python-ideas] Re: re.match(pattern, string, require=True)

[Ram Rachum]

On Sat, Oct 21, 2023 at 10:01 PM Chris Angelico  wrote:

> On Sat, 21 Oct 2023 at 21:57, Ram Rachum  wrote:
>
> What about an if with the match inside it?
>
> if m := re.match(...):
> ...
>
> That's one of the motivating examples behind the walrus after all.
>

I love that, but it mostly makes sense for "if there's a match do this,
otherwise do that" where most cases fall into "I'm absolutely sure there's
a match here and here's what we should do with that match", and when that
"absolutely sure" fails, the proper way to deal with that is by raising an
exception.
___
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/UXRGYESPWW2BTCSHRP64HFM2UJS27J6M/
Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/

[Python-ideas] Re: re.match(pattern, string, require=True)

[Chris Angelico]

On Sat, 21 Oct 2023 at 21:57, Ram Rachum  wrote:
>
> It's a little similar to the reasoning behind PEP 618 (adding the `strict` 
> argument to `zip`).

Not quite, since without strict, zip will truncate - it doesn't have a
different return value.

> A keyword argument is easier to add, and makes the code less ugly, then an 
> `if` clause. When I don't have that `if` clause you mentioned in my code, 
> it's not because I forgot, it's because I don't want an extra clause for 
> something I don't think is going to happen. Also, a keyword argument enables 
> code linters to enforce a rule that the `require` argument must always be 
> specified. (Example.)
>

What about an if with the match inside it?

if m := re.match(...):
...

That's one of the motivating examples behind the walrus after all.

ChrisA
___
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/EDPVFGDI53HULMSYZUDFZSXTHRD4GAG4/
Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/

[Python-ideas] Re: re.match(pattern, string, require=True)

[Ram Rachum]

It's a little similar to the reasoning behind PEP 618 (adding the `strict`
argument to `zip`).

A keyword argument is easier to add, and makes the code less ugly, then an
`if` clause. When I don't have that `if` clause you mentioned in my code,
it's not because I forgot, it's because I don't want an extra clause for
something I don't think is going to happen. Also, a keyword argument
enables code linters to enforce a rule that the `require` argument must
always be specified. (Example
.)


On Sat, Oct 21, 2023 at 1:45 PM Paul Moore  wrote:

> I don't see how it's more likely that people would remember to add a
> `require=True` flag than to add `if m: raise RuntimeError("No match")`. The
> problem here is people forgetting that a match can fail, not lack of a
> means to handle that problem.
>
> Paul
>
> On Sat, 21 Oct 2023 at 11:38, Ram Rachum  wrote:
>
>> Hey,
>>
>> I bet this has been discussed before but I couldn't find it. I'd
>> appreciate it if anyone could point me to that thread.
>>
>> I'm sick of seeing "AttributeError: 'NoneType' object has no attribute
>> 'foo'" whenever there's a `re.match` operation that fails while the code
>> expects it to succeed. What do you think about a flag `require` such that
>> `re.match(pattern, string, require=True)` would either return a match or
>> raise an exception with an actually useful message?
>>
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Ram.
>> ___
>> 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/PLF46RTMGJUIXRPXPLHZUPLTLGE47TQA/
>> 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/3MPSWTKM6TS6NC3OWQUSCU237IZLXLYE/
Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/

[Python-ideas] Re: re.match(pattern, string, require=True)

[David Mertz, Ph.D.]

I feel like this is all example of "not every one line function needs to be
in the standard library."

You can easily write your own 'match_or_raise()'... I guess it would take
two lines, actually.

On Sat, Oct 21, 2023, 2:42 PM Ram Rachum  wrote:

> Hey,
>
> I bet this has been discussed before but I couldn't find it. I'd
> appreciate it if anyone could point me to that thread.
>
> I'm sick of seeing "AttributeError: 'NoneType' object has no attribute
> 'foo'" whenever there's a `re.match` operation that fails while the code
> expects it to succeed. What do you think about a flag `require` such that
> `re.match(pattern, string, require=True)` would either return a match or
> raise an exception with an actually useful message?
>
>
> Thanks,
> Ram.
> ___
> 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/PLF46RTMGJUIXRPXPLHZUPLTLGE47TQA/
> 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/IIHOR3ZV7KSDHIZQDRAHX5HO6COJCOQN/
Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/

[Python-ideas] Re: re.match(pattern, string, require=True)

[Paul Moore]

I don't see how it's more likely that people would remember to add a
`require=True` flag than to add `if m: raise RuntimeError("No match")`. The
problem here is people forgetting that a match can fail, not lack of a
means to handle that problem.

Paul

On Sat, 21 Oct 2023 at 11:38, Ram Rachum  wrote:

> Hey,
>
> I bet this has been discussed before but I couldn't find it. I'd
> appreciate it if anyone could point me to that thread.
>
> I'm sick of seeing "AttributeError: 'NoneType' object has no attribute
> 'foo'" whenever there's a `re.match` operation that fails while the code
> expects it to succeed. What do you think about a flag `require` such that
> `re.match(pattern, string, require=True)` would either return a match or
> raise an exception with an actually useful message?
>
>
> Thanks,
> Ram.
> ___
> 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/PLF46RTMGJUIXRPXPLHZUPLTLGE47TQA/
> 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/BJ5R5MFLEDZFGKGHPLYBTPQJCCQTF5WZ/
Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/