On 14 April 2015 at 21:04, Lennart Regebro wrote:
> OK, so I realized another thing today, and that is that arithmetic
> doesn't necessarily round trip.
>
> For example, 2002-10-27 01:00 US/Eastern comes both in DST and STD.
>
> But 2002-10-27 01:00 US/Eastern STD minus two days is 2002-10-25 01:0
Ok, sorry.
On Tue, Apr 14, 2015 at 8:59 PM, Ian Cordasco
wrote:
>
>
> On Tue, Apr 14, 2015 at 7:54 PM, Andrew Svetlov
> wrote:
>
>> Python-dev is for development OF Python, not for development WITH Python
>> or Python LEARNING, BTW.
>>
>> On Tue, Apr 14, 2015 at 8:46 PM, Raúl Cumplido
>> wrote
On Tue, Apr 14, 2015 at 7:54 PM, Andrew Svetlov
wrote:
> Python-dev is for development OF Python, not for development WITH Python
> or Python LEARNING, BTW.
>
> On Tue, Apr 14, 2015 at 8:46 PM, Raúl Cumplido
> wrote:
>
>> Hi Andrew,
>>
>> Is someone asking where to find resources to learn Python
Python-dev is for development OF Python, not for development WITH Python or
Python LEARNING, BTW.
On Tue, Apr 14, 2015 at 8:46 PM, Raúl Cumplido
wrote:
> Hi Andrew,
>
> Is someone asking where to find resources to learn Python. We have
> redirected him to the python lists both in english and spa
Hi Andrew,
Is someone asking where to find resources to learn Python. We have
redirected him to the python lists both in english and spanish.
We should have replied in English if it would have been something related
to python-dev, but we have responded in Spanish as maybe the user doesn't
underst
I'm sorry. Please use English in the mailing list.
People may not understand your chatting.
2015-04-14 20:36 GMT-04:00 Erik Rivera :
> Baldomero,
>
> Veo que perteneces al estado de Puebla, México, existe la lista de Python
> México https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-mx, habemos var
Baldomero,
Veo que perteneces al estado de Puebla, México, existe la lista de Python
México https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-mx, habemos varios
de Puebla que te podemos apoyar.
Saludos.
El 14 de abril de 2015, 19:50, Baldomero Perez martinez <
bpma...@yahoo.com.dmarc.invalid.mx> e
Hola Baldomero,
Esta lista es para el desarrollo de el lenguaje Python. Para dudas sobre
como aprender Python o su utilización puedes utilizar la lista en español
python...@python.org o la lista en inglés python-l...@python.org
Existe también la lista en inglés para pedir ayuda para iniciarse en e
Quiero aprender python quiero empezar agradezco si me pueden ayudar L.I.
Baldomero Pérez Martínez
Enc. Proy. Informatica
Fideicomiso Ingenio Atencingo 80326___
Python-Dev mailing list
Python-Dev@python.org
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-
On 4/14/2015 2:14 PM, Guido van Rossum wrote:
Also, why do you think we added the 'lone star' syntax? :-)
Hint: Not because Guido is from Texas
___
Python-Dev mailing list
Python-Dev@python.org
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev
U
On Tue, Apr 14, 2015 at 4:52 PM, Alexander Belopolsky
wrote:
> For those who were not at the conference, can someone summarize the
> post-PyCon status of this PEP?
>
> Is Barry still the "BDFL-Delegate"? Is there an updated draft? Should this
> discussion move to python-ideas?
There is no statu
Also, why do you think we added the 'lone star' syntax? :-)
--
--Guido van Rossum (python.org/~guido)
___
Python-Dev mailing list
Python-Dev@python.org
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev
Unsubscribe:
https://mail.python.org/mailman/opt
On Tue, Apr 14, 2015 at 1:56 PM Alexander Walters
wrote:
> Lacking anything anyone else says... the use case for keyword only
> arguments (where they actually make the code better rather than simply
> being different) is rather limited.
>
> I disagree. For parameters not often passed or beyond 3
On Wed, Apr 8, 2015 at 11:18 AM, Lennart Regebro wrote:
>
> I wrote PEP-431 two years ago, and never got around to implement it.
> This year I got some renewed motivation after Berker Peksağ made an
> effort of implementing it.
> I'm planning to work more on this during the PyCon sprints, and also
Hello,
On Tue, 14 Apr 2015 15:40:32 -0400
Larry Hastings wrote:
> On 04/14/2015 01:56 PM, Paul Sokolovsky wrote:
> > But newer parts of stdlib, e.g. asyncio, visibly overuse kw-only
> > args.
>
> Overuse? asyncio? You mean "that thing Guido just wrote last
> year"? The most practical definiti
On 04/14/2015 01:40 PM, Eric V. Smith wrote:
I'm working on adding a numeric_owner parameter to some tarfile methods
(http://bugs.python.org/issue23193),
In a review, Berker suggested making the parameter keyword-only. I agree
that you'd likely never want to pass just "True", but that
"numeric
On 04/14, Eric V. Smith wrote:
> But, I don't see a lot of keyword-only parameters being added to stdlib
> code. Is there some position we've taken on this? Barring someone saying
> "stdlib APIs shouldn't contain keyword-only params", I'm inclined to
> make numeric_owner keyword-only.
os.path and
OK, so I realized another thing today, and that is that arithmetic
doesn't necessarily round trip.
For example, 2002-10-27 01:00 US/Eastern comes both in DST and STD.
But 2002-10-27 01:00 US/Eastern STD minus two days is 2002-10-25 01:00
US/Eastern DST
However, 2002-10-25 01:00 US/Eastern DST plu
On 04/14/2015 02:11 PM, Zachary Ware wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 14, 2015 at 1:06 PM, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
>> On Tue, Apr 14, 2015 at 01:40:40PM -0400, Eric V. Smith wrote:
>>> But, I don't see a lot of keyword-only parameters being added to stdlib
>>> code. Is there some position we've taken on this?
If you’re introducing a new parameter that is a boolean, making it kw-only is
generally accepted. Some people (myself included) would encourage you to do so.
Besides asyncio, there are already new arguments that are kw-only in many
modules, including configparser, unittest, xml.etree, xmlrpc, ur
I personally find that keyword only arguments make for nicer APIS. It also
makes subclassing easier because you are free to add new positional
arguments later. Especially for boolean arguments, I think keyword only is
a great API choice.
On Tue, Apr 14, 2015 at 2:06 PM, Steven D'Aprano
wrote:
>
Hello,
On Tue, 14 Apr 2015 13:40:40 -0400
"Eric V. Smith" wrote:
> I'm working on adding a numeric_owner parameter to some tarfile
> methods (http://bugs.python.org/issue23193),
>
> In a review, Berker suggested making the parameter keyword-only. I
> agree that you'd likely never want to pass j
On Tue, Apr 14, 2015 at 1:06 PM, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 14, 2015 at 01:40:40PM -0400, Eric V. Smith wrote:
>> But, I don't see a lot of keyword-only parameters being added to stdlib
>> code. Is there some position we've taken on this? Barring someone saying
>> "stdlib APIs shouldn't
On Tue, Apr 14, 2015 at 01:40:40PM -0400, Eric V. Smith wrote:
> But, I don't see a lot of keyword-only parameters being added to stdlib
> code. Is there some position we've taken on this? Barring someone saying
> "stdlib APIs shouldn't contain keyword-only params", I'm inclined to
> make numeric_
Lacking anything anyone else says... the use case for keyword only
arguments (where they actually make the code better rather than simply
being different) is rather limited.
On 4/14/2015 13:40, Eric V. Smith wrote:
I'm working on adding a numeric_owner parameter to some tarfile methods
(http:
At least asyncio uses keyword-only intensively.
On Tue, Apr 14, 2015 at 1:40 PM, Eric V. Smith wrote:
> I'm working on adding a numeric_owner parameter to some tarfile methods
> (http://bugs.python.org/issue23193),
>
> In a review, Berker suggested making the parameter keyword-only. I agree
> tha
I'm working on adding a numeric_owner parameter to some tarfile methods
(http://bugs.python.org/issue23193),
In a review, Berker suggested making the parameter keyword-only. I agree
that you'd likely never want to pass just "True", but that
"numeric_owner=True" would be a better usage.
But, I don
27 matches
Mail list logo
