On 6/28/2018 11:21 PM, Tim Peters wrote:
[somewhere below] this is the last time I'm going to repeat it all again ;-)
For me, this is your most convincing exposition and summary of why the
proposal is at least ok. Thank you.
[Chris]
> yes, it was a contrived example, but the simplest one
[Chris]
> yes, it was a contrived example, but the simplest one I could think of off
> the top of my head that re-bound a name in the loop -- which was what I
> thought was the entire point of this discussion?
But why off the top of your head? There are literally hundreds & hundreds
of prior mess
On 6/24/2018 5:03 AM, Ammar Askar wrote:
Is it possible, given that we are not paying for those reports, to
customize the 'exclude_lines' definitions?
Do you want to exclude python code or C code?
Python code.
For Python code, coverage.py also has some comments you can
put down to exclude l
Baptiste Carvello wrote:
x=0; [x:=x+i for i in range(5)]
what would be a
non-cryptic alternative to the above example?
Personally I wouldn't insist on trying to do it with a
comprehension at all, but if forced to come up with a
readable syntax for that, it would probably be something
like
On Thu, Jun 28, 2018 at 9:28 AM, Tim Peters wrote:
> >>> g = (x:=i for i in range(3))
> Common or not, I have no idea why anyone would write a genexp like the one
> you gave, except to contrive an example of silly behavior exhibited by
> silly code ;-)
>
yes, it was a contrived example, but the
On 6/28/2018 8:05 AM, Baptiste Carvello wrote:
Le 28/06/2018 à 01:31, Greg Ewing a écrit :
Well, I remain profoundly unconvinced that writing comprehensions
with side effects is ever a good idea, and Tim's examples did
nothing to change that.
Comprehensions with side effects feel scary indeed.
[Chris Barker]
>>> So what about:
>>>
>>> l = [x:=i for i in range(3)]
>>>
>>> vs
>>>
>>> g = (x:=i for i in range(3))
>>>
>>> Is there any way to keep these consistent if the "x" is in the regular
local scope?
[Tim]
>> I'm not clear on what the question is. The list comprehension would
>> bind `
Sent from my iPhone
> > So what about:
> >
> > l = [x:=i for i in range(3)]
> >
> > vs
> >
> > g = (x:=i for i in range(3))
> >
> > Is there any way to keep these consistent if the "x" is in the regular
> > local scope?
>
> I'm not clear on what the question is. The list comprehension would bind
Le 28/06/2018 à 01:31, Greg Ewing a écrit :
> Well, I remain profoundly unconvinced that writing comprehensions
> with side effects is ever a good idea, and Tim's examples did
> nothing to change that.
Comprehensions with side effects feel scary indeed. But I could see
myself using some variant of
✨ Congrats Nick on your 100 emails thread 😍! ✨ You won a virtual
piece of cake: 🍰
2018-06-22 16:22 GMT+02:00 Nick Coghlan :
> On 22 June 2018 at 02:26, Antoine Pitrou wrote:
>> Indeed. But, for a syntax addition such as PEP 572, I think it would be
>> a good idea to ask their opinion to teaching
Hi,
I updated my list of Python known vulnerabilities and the good news is
that Python 3.6.6 and 3.7.0 have no known vulnerability :-)
Python 3.7.0 comes with fixes for:
* CVE-2018-1000117: Buffer overflow vulnerability in os.symlink on Windows
* CVE-2018-1060: difflib and poplib catastrophic ba
11 matches
Mail list logo
