On Fri, Feb 12, 2016 at 3:12 PM, Andrew Barnert via Python-Dev
wrote:
> On Thursday, February 11, 2016 7:20 PM, Stephen J. Turnbull
> wrote:
>
>
>
>> I think we should keep it around forever. Even my slowest colleagues
>> are learning that they should record their seeds and PRNG algorithms
>> f
On 2/11/2016 8:22 PM, Andrew Barnert wrote:
On Thursday, February 11, 2016 8:10 PM, Glenn Linderman
wrote:
On 2/11/2016 7:56 PM, David Mertz wrote:
Great PEP overall. We definitely don't want the restriction to grouping numbers
only in threes. South Asian crore use grouping in twos.
https:
On Thursday, February 11, 2016 8:10 PM, Glenn Linderman
wrote:
>On 2/11/2016 7:56 PM, David Mertz wrote:
>
>Great PEP overall. We definitely don't want the restriction to grouping
>numbers only in threes. South Asian crore use grouping in twos.
>>https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crore
>>
>Intere
[Greg Ewing ]
> The Mersenne Twister is no longer regarded as quite state-of-the art
> because it can get into states that produce long sequences that are
> not very random.
>
> There is a variation on MT called WELL that has better properties
> in this regard. Does anyone think it would be a good
On Thursday, February 11, 2016 7:20 PM, Stephen J. Turnbull
wrote:
> I think we should keep it around forever. Even my slowest colleagues
> are learning that they should record their seeds and PRNG algorithms
> for reproducibility's sake. :-)
+1
> For that matter, restore Wichmann-Hill.
So
On 2/11/2016 7:56 PM, David Mertz wrote:
Great PEP overall. We definitely don't want the restriction to
grouping numbers only in threes. South Asian crore use grouping in twos.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crore
Interesting... 3 digits in the least significant group, and _then_ by
twos
Great PEP overall. We definitely don't want the restriction to grouping
numbers only in threes. South Asian crore use grouping in twos.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crore
On Feb 11, 2016 7:04 PM, "Glenn Linderman" wrote:
> On 2/11/2016 4:16 PM, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
>
> On Thu, Feb 11, 2016
Steven D'Aprano writes:
> Peters has an opinion?) but if we do change, I'd like to see the
> existing random.Random moved to random.MT_Random for backwards
> compatibility and compatibility with other software which uses MT. Not
> necessarily saying that we have to keep it around forever (a
Serhiy Storchaka writes:
> I suspect that my arguments can be lost [without a competing PEP].
Send Georg a patch for his PEP, that's where they belong, since only
one of the two PEPs could be approved, and they would be 95% the same
otherwise. If he doesn't apply it (he's allowed to move it to
Executive summary:
My experience is that having bytes APIs in the os module is very
useful. But perhaps higher-level functions like os.scandir can do
without (I present no arguments either way on that, just acknowledge
it).
Andrew Barnert writes:
> Anyway, Windows CDs can't cause this problem.
On 2/11/2016 4:16 PM, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
On Thu, Feb 11, 2016 at 06:03:34PM +, Brett Cannon wrote:
On Thu, 11 Feb 2016 at 02:13 Steven D'Aprano wrote:
On Wed, Feb 10, 2016 at 08:41:27PM -0800, Andrew Barnert wrote:
And honestly, are you really claiming that in your opinion, "123_456
On Thursday, February 11, 2016 10:35 AM, Jeff Hardy wrote:
>On Thu, Feb 11, 2016 at 10:15 AM, Andrew Barnert via Python-Dev
> wrote:
>
>>That's a good point: we need style rules for PEP 8.
...
>>It might be simpler to write a "whitelist" than a "blacklist" of all the ugly
>>things people migh
On 12 February 2016 at 00:16, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 11, 2016 at 06:03:34PM +, Brett Cannon wrote:
>> On Thu, 11 Feb 2016 at 02:13 Steven D'Aprano wrote:
>>
>> > On Wed, Feb 10, 2016 at 08:41:27PM -0800, Andrew Barnert wrote:
>> >
>> > > And honestly, are you really claiming tha
On 11 February 2016 at 11:12, Chris Angelico wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 11, 2016 at 7:22 PM, Georg Brandl wrote:
The following extensions are open for discussion:
>> * Allowing underscores in string arguments to the ``Decimal`` constructor.
>> It
>> could be argued that these are akin to literals
On Thu, Feb 11, 2016 at 06:03:34PM +, Brett Cannon wrote:
> On Thu, 11 Feb 2016 at 02:13 Steven D'Aprano wrote:
>
> > On Wed, Feb 10, 2016 at 08:41:27PM -0800, Andrew Barnert wrote:
> >
> > > And honestly, are you really claiming that in your opinion, "123_456_"
> > > is worse than all of the
On Fri, Feb 12, 2016 at 3:30 AM, Nathaniel Smith wrote:
> You're almost certainly aware of this, but just to double check since you
> don't mention it in the email: cython is also a great tool for handling
> similar situations. Not quite the same since in addition to generating all
> the boilerpla
On Thu, Feb 11, 2016 at 08:50:09PM +0200, Serhiy Storchaka wrote:
> I have strong preference for more strict and simpler rule, used by most
> other languages -- "only between two digits". Main arguments:
>
> 1. Simple rule is easier to understand, remember and recognize. I care
> not about the
On 2/11/2016 12:22 AM, Georg Brandl wrote:
Hey all,
based on the feedback so far, I revised the PEP. There is now
a much simpler rule for allowed underscores, with no exceptions.
This made the grammar simpler as well.
+1 overall
Examples::
# grouping decimal numbers by thousands
On 2/11/2016 11:01 AM, Ethan Furman wrote:
On 02/11/2016 10:50 AM, Serhiy Storchaka wrote:
> I have strong preference for more strict and simpler rule, used by
> most other languages -- "only between two digits". Main arguments:
> 2. Most languages use this rule. It is better to follow non-forma
On 02/11/2016 10:50 AM, Serhiy Storchaka wrote:
> I have strong preference for more strict and simpler rule, used by
> most other languages -- "only between two digits". Main arguments:
> 2. Most languages use this rule. It is better to follow non-formal
> standard that invent the rule that diffe
On 11.02.16 10:22, Georg Brandl wrote:
Abstract and Rationale
==
This PEP proposes to extend Python's syntax so that underscores can be used in
integral, floating-point and complex number literals.
This is a common feature of other modern languages, and can aid readability o
On Thu, Feb 11, 2016 at 10:15 AM, Andrew Barnert via Python-Dev <
python-dev@python.org> wrote:
> On Feb 11, 2016, at 09:39, Terry Reedy wrote:
> >
> > If trailing _ is allowed, to simplify the implementation, I would like
> PEP 8, while on the subject, to say something like "While trailing _s on
On Feb 11, 2016, at 10:15, Andrew Barnert via Python-Dev
wrote:
>
> That's a good point: we need style rules for PEP 8.
One more point: should the tutorial mention underscores? It looks like the
intro docs for a lot of the other languages do. And it would only take one
short sentence in 3.1.1
On 11.02.16 19:40, Georg Brandl wrote:
On 02/11/2016 06:19 PM, Serhiy Storchaka wrote:
Thanks for the alternate patch. I used the two-function approach you took
in ast.c for my latest revision.
I still think that some cases (like two of the examples in the PEP,
0b__ and 1.5_j) are wor
On Feb 11, 2016, at 09:39, Terry Reedy wrote:
>
> If trailing _ is allowed, to simplify the implementation, I would like PEP 8,
> while on the subject, to say something like "While trailing _s on numbers are
> allowed, to simplify the implementation, they serve no purpose and are
> strongly di
On Thu, 11 Feb 2016 at 00:23 Georg Brandl wrote:
> Hey all,
>
> based on the feedback so far, I revised the PEP. There is now
> a much simpler rule for allowed underscores, with no exceptions.
> This made the grammar simpler as well.
>
> --
On Thu, 11 Feb 2016 at 02:13 Steven D'Aprano wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 10, 2016 at 08:41:27PM -0800, Andrew Barnert wrote:
>
> > And honestly, are you really claiming that in your opinion, "123_456_"
> > is worse than all of their other examples, like "1_23__4"?
>
> Yes I am, because 123_456_ looks li
On 02/11/2016 09:19 AM, Serhiy Storchaka wrote:
On 11.02.16 14:14, Georg Brandl wrote:
I still think that some cases (like two of the examples in the PEP,
0b__ and 1.5_j) are worth having, and therefore a more relaxed
rule is preferable.
Should I write an alternative PEP for strong r
On 02/11/2016 06:19 PM, Serhiy Storchaka wrote:
>> Thanks for the alternate patch. I used the two-function approach you took
>> in ast.c for my latest revision.
>>
>> I still think that some cases (like two of the examples in the PEP,
>> 0b__ and 1.5_j) are worth having, and therefore a m
On 2/11/2016 2:45 AM, Georg Brandl wrote:
Thanks for grabbing this issue and moving it forward. I will like being
about to write or read 200_000_000 and be sure I an right without
counting 0s.
Based on the feedback so far, I have an easier rule in mind that I will base
the next PEP revision
Hi all,
I'm planning to release 3.2.7 and 3.3.7 at the end of February.
There will be a release candidate on Feb 20, and the final on
Feb 27, if there is no holdup.
These are both security (source-only) releases. 3.2.7 will be the
last release from the 3.2 series.
If you know of any patches tha
On 11.02.16 14:14, Georg Brandl wrote:
On 02/11/2016 11:17 AM, Serhiy Storchaka wrote:
**Group 3: only between digits, only one underscore**
* Ada [8]_
* Julia (but not in the exponent part of floats) [9]_
* Ruby (docs say "anywhere", in reality only between digits) [10]_
C++ is in this grou
On Feb 11, 2016, at 05:57 PM, Georg Brandl wrote:
>D'oh :) I added (hopefully) clarifying wording.
I saw the diff - perfect! Thanks.
-Barry
___
Python-Dev mailing list
Python-Dev@python.org
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev
Unsubscr
On 11Feb2016 0651, Barry Warsaw wrote:
On Feb 11, 2016, at 09:22 AM, Georg Brandl wrote:
based on the feedback so far, I revised the PEP. There is now
a much simpler rule for allowed underscores, with no exceptions.
This made the grammar simpler as well.
I'd be +1, but there's something miss
On 02/11/2016 05:52 PM, Steve Dower wrote:
> On 11Feb2016 0651, Barry Warsaw wrote:
>> On Feb 11, 2016, at 09:22 AM, Georg Brandl wrote:
>>
>>> based on the feedback so far, I revised the PEP. There is now
>>> a much simpler rule for allowed underscores, with no exceptions.
>>> This made the gramm
On Feb 11, 2016, at 00:22, Georg Brandl wrote:
>
> Allowing underscores in string arguments to the ``Decimal`` constructor. It
> could be argued that these are akin to literals, since there is no Decimal
> literal available (yet).
I'm +1 on this. Partly for consistency (see below)--but also,
On Feb 11, 2016, at 02:13, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
>
>> On Wed, Feb 10, 2016 at 08:41:27PM -0800, Andrew Barnert wrote:
>> They're both presented as something the syntax allows, and neither one
>> looks like something I'd ever want to write, much less promote in a
>> style guide or something, b
You're almost certainly aware of this, but just to double check since you
don't mention it in the email: cython is also a great tool for handling
similar situations. Not quite the same since in addition to generating all
the boilerplate for you it then lets you use almost-python to actually
write t
I've written a Python program named fullOfEels to speed up the first
stages of writing Python extension modules in C.
It is not a replacement for SWIG, SIP, or ctypes. It's for the case
where you want to work in the opposite direction, specifying a Python
API and then writing an implementation in
On Feb 11, 2016, at 09:22 AM, Georg Brandl wrote:
>based on the feedback so far, I revised the PEP. There is now
>a much simpler rule for allowed underscores, with no exceptions.
>This made the grammar simpler as well.
I'd be +1, but there's something missing from the PEP: what the underscores
*
On 02/11/2016 11:17 AM, Serhiy Storchaka wrote:
>> **Group 3: only between digits, only one underscore**
>>
>> * Ada [8]_
>> * Julia (but not in the exponent part of floats) [9]_
>> * Ruby (docs say "anywhere", in reality only between digits) [10]_
>
> C++ is in this group too.
>
> The documenta
On 2016-02-11 00:08, Greg Ewing wrote:
The Mersenne Twister is no longer regarded as quite state-of-the art
because it can get into states that produce long sequences that are
not very random.
There is a variation on MT called WELL that has better properties
in this regard. Does anyone think it
On Thu, Feb 11, 2016 at 7:22 PM, Georg Brandl wrote:
> * Allowing underscores in string arguments to the ``Decimal`` constructor. It
> could be argued that these are akin to literals, since there is no Decimal
> literal available (yet).
>
> * Allowing underscores in string arguments to ``int(
On Thu, Feb 11, 2016 at 08:07:56PM +1000, Nick Coghlan wrote:
> Given that str.format supports a thousands separator:
>
> >>> "{:,d}".format(1)
> '100,000,000'
>
> it might be reasonable to permit "_" in place of "," in the format specifier.
+1
> However, I'm not sure when you'd use i
On 02/11/2016 11:07 AM, Nick Coghlan wrote:
> On 11 February 2016 at 19:59, Victor Stinner wrote:
>> 2016-02-11 9:11 GMT+01:00 Georg Brandl :
>>> On 02/11/2016 12:04 AM, Victor Stinner wrote:
It looks like the implementation https://bugs.python.org/issue26331
only changes the Python pars
On 11.02.16 00:20, Georg Brandl wrote:
**Group 1: liberal (like this PEP)**
* D [2]_
* Perl 5 (although docs say it's more restricted) [3]_
* Rust [4]_
* Swift (although textual description says "between digits") [5]_
**Group 2: only between digits, multiple consecutive underscores**
* C# (ope
On Wed, Feb 10, 2016 at 08:41:27PM -0800, Andrew Barnert wrote:
> And honestly, are you really claiming that in your opinion, "123_456_"
> is worse than all of their other examples, like "1_23__4"?
Yes I am, because 123_456_ looks like you've forgotten to finish typing
the last group of digits,
On 11 February 2016 at 19:59, Victor Stinner wrote:
> 2016-02-11 9:11 GMT+01:00 Georg Brandl :
>> On 02/11/2016 12:04 AM, Victor Stinner wrote:
>>> It looks like the implementation https://bugs.python.org/issue26331
>>> only changes the Python parser.
>>>
>>> What about other functions converting
2016-02-11 9:11 GMT+01:00 Georg Brandl :
> On 02/11/2016 12:04 AM, Victor Stinner wrote:
>> It looks like the implementation https://bugs.python.org/issue26331
>> only changes the Python parser.
>>
>> What about other functions converting strings to numbers at runtime
>> like int(str) and float(str
On Thu, Feb 11, 2016 at 01:08:41PM +1300, Greg Ewing wrote:
> The Mersenne Twister is no longer regarded as quite state-of-the art
> because it can get into states that produce long sequences that are
> not very random.
>
> There is a variation on MT called WELL that has better properties
> in thi
On 02/11/2016 10:10 AM, Paul Moore wrote:
> On 10 February 2016 at 23:14, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
>> On Wed, Feb 10, 2016 at 10:53:09PM +, Paul Moore wrote:
>>> On 10 February 2016 at 22:20, Georg Brandl wrote:
>>> > This came up in python-ideas, and has met mostly positive comments,
>>> > alt
On 10 February 2016 at 23:14, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 10, 2016 at 10:53:09PM +, Paul Moore wrote:
>> On 10 February 2016 at 22:20, Georg Brandl wrote:
>> > This came up in python-ideas, and has met mostly positive comments,
>> > although the exact syntax rules are up for discussi
Hey all,
based on the feedback so far, I revised the PEP. There is now
a much simpler rule for allowed underscores, with no exceptions.
This made the grammar simpler as well.
---
PEP: 515
Title: Underscores in Numeric Liter
On 02/11/2016 12:04 AM, Victor Stinner wrote:
> It looks like the implementation https://bugs.python.org/issue26331
> only changes the Python parser.
>
> What about other functions converting strings to numbers at runtime
> like int(str) and float(str)? Paul also asked for Decimal(str).
I added t
On 02/10/2016 11:42 PM, Glenn Linderman wrote:
> On 2/10/2016 2:20 PM, Georg Brandl wrote:
>> This came up in python-ideas, and has met mostly positive comments,
>> although the exact syntax rules are up for discussion.
>>
>> cheers,
>> Georg
>>
>> --
55 matches
Mail list logo
