On Fri, Oct 15, 2021 at 12:22 PM Pradeep Kumar Srinivasan <
gohan...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Thanks for the responses, everyone. Overall, it seems like there were no
> strong objections to the proposal.
>
> I didn't hear much about Question 2, though: Should we propose features
> beyond present-day
Thanks for the responses, everyone. Overall, it seems like there were no strong
objections to the proposal.
I didn't hear much about Question 2, though: Should we propose features beyond
present-day `Callable` in the same PEP or defer it to a future PEP?
In case that question got lost in the
ACTIVITY SUMMARY (2021-10-08 - 2021-10-15)
Python tracker at https://bugs.python.org/
To view or respond to any of the issues listed below, click on the issue.
Do NOT respond to this message.
Issues counts and deltas:
open7401 (+27)
closed 49822 (+50)
total 57223 (+77)
Open issues
Hello,
I heard not everyone is Discourse, so I'm re-posting here as well.
Information about is current scattered over the FAQs, active
PEPs (387, 602), an active-but-severely-outdated PEP (6) and the Devguide.
I would like to consolidate as much of this as possible into user-facing
On 10/15/21, Mark Dickinson wrote:
>
> the proposal would be to remove that special role of `__trunc__` and
> reduce the `int` constructor to only looking at `__int__` and `__index__`.
For Real and Rational numbers, currently the required method to
implement is __trunc__(). ISTM that this
Meta: apologies for failing to trim the context in the previous post.
--
Mark
___
Python-Dev mailing list -- python-dev@python.org
To unsubscribe send an email to python-dev-le...@python.org
https://mail.python.org/mailman3/lists/python-dev.python.org/
I'd propose that we relegate `__trunc__` to the same status as `__floor__`
and `__ceil__`: that is, have `__trunc__` limited to being support for
`math.trunc`, and nothing more. Right now the `int` constructor potentially
looks at all three of `__int__`, `__index__` and `__trunc__`, so the
On Fri, 15 Oct 2021 12:36:15 +1100
Steven D'Aprano wrote:
> Hello Doug,
>
> On Thu, Oct 14, 2021 at 03:45:07PM -, Doug Swarin wrote:
>
> > I believe strong and valid arguments can be made about the use of None
> > being a fundamental flaw in some types of coding
>
> Can you elaborate on
