Paul,
You seem to be intent on alienating and driving away as many people as
possible. If I may play the amateur psychologist for a moment, I fear
that you are unconsciously sabotaging your own proposals.
Better to be the genius whose proposals are dragged down by jealous and
uncomprehending
Hello,
On Fri, 4 Dec 2020 15:52:01 -0800
Guido van Rossum wrote:
> I hope more of the regulars here jump on this bandwagon. It will be a
> great day when Paul posts one of his offensive posts and there is
> just deafening silence.
And I maintain my hopes where they always were - that there
On Sat, Dec 5, 2020 at 1:53 AM Guido van Rossum wrote:
> I hope more of the regulars here jump on this bandwagon. It will be a
> great day when Paul posts one of his offensive posts and there is just
> deafening silence.
>
> Paul was in my (very short) kill file for years but I decided to give
I hope more of the regulars here jump on this bandwagon. It will be a great
day when Paul posts one of his offensive posts and there is just deafening
silence.
Paul was in my (very short) kill file for years but I decided to give him
another chance. And he blew it.
There is a reason why he was
Paul Sokolovsky writes:
> Sorry, but there may be a suggestion of tactics of sneaking somebody's
> "pet feature" past the attention of core developers by employing
> sycophant techniques.
I've had enough of your random aspersions. They make it impossible
for me to continue reading your
Hello,
On Mon, 30 Nov 2020 14:45:26 +0900
"Stephen J. Turnbull" wrote:
> Paul Sokolovsky writes:
>
> > Also to clarify, [cowboy attitude] referred to difference in
> > approaches in response to particular issue(s) raised. One thing is
> > to say "it's hard to implement it better with the
Paul Sokolovsky writes:
> Also to clarify, [cowboy attitude] referred to difference in
> approaches in response to particular issue(s) raised. One thing is
> to say "it's hard to implement it better with the limited VM
> infrastructure and resources we have" (that of course leads to
>
Hello,
On Mon, 30 Nov 2020 01:54:53 +0900
"Stephen J. Turnbull" wrote:
> Paul Sokolovsky writes:
>
> > Well, I'd call that "cowboy attitude in programming language
> > design" ;-).
>
> That was uncalled for, especially since you're selling an idea without
> an implementation yourself.
Paul Sokolovsky writes:
> Well, I'd call that "cowboy attitude in programming language
> design" ;-).
That was uncalled for, especially since you're selling an idea without
an implementation yourself.
> We'd certainly make it blend well with the rest of Python.
But how long will that take?
Hello,
On Sun, 29 Nov 2020 11:36:45 +1100
Steven D'Aprano wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 29, 2020 at 12:10:39AM +0300, Paul Sokolovsky wrote:
>
> > And we don't speak about some obscure "innovative" idea. Const'ness
> > aka immutability is well-known and widely used feature in
> > programming languages.
On Sun, Nov 29, 2020 at 12:10:39AM +0300, Paul Sokolovsky wrote:
> And we don't speak about some obscure "innovative" idea. Const'ness
> aka immutability is well-known and widely used feature in programming
> languages.
Constantness and immutability are not synonyms.
Immutability refers to
Hello,
On Mon, 16 Nov 2020 12:21:35 +1300
Greg Ewing wrote:
[]
> > please explain why you chose to proceed anyway (and apply
> > workarounds), instead of first introducing the concept of constants
> > to the language. (Given that amount of work to implement pattern
> > matching is certainly
case mylib.STATUS_OK, >result:
case mylib.STATUS_OK, >>result:
case mylib.STATUS_OK, ->result:
The second problem with those is that ">" has a very strong tie to "greater
than".
I think -> or even >> *might* be enough to overcome that, but I'm not
comfortable.
(The first problem, of
On 15/11/20 10:48 pm, Paul Sokolovsky wrote:
> [from PEP 635]
Pattern matching is complimentary to the object-oriented paradigm.
BTW, there seems to be a typo here -- I think it's
meant to be "complementary".
please explain why you chose to proceed anyway (and apply workarounds),
instead of
On Sun, Nov 15, 2020 at 03:18:29PM +0300, Paul Sokolovsky wrote:
> > > amount of work to implement pattern matching is certainly an order
> > > of magnitude larger than to introduce constants
[...]
[Steve]
> > Here's a toy proposal,
> []
>
> The baseline of my version is much simpler:
>
> #
Hello,
On Sun, 15 Nov 2020 16:58:09 +
MRAB wrote:
[]
> >> Pattern matching is complimentary to the object-oriented
> >> paradigm.
> >
> That looks like a mistake to me; it should be "complementary".
This way or that, my point is that even the word "orthogonal" wouldn't
give it
On 2020-11-15 09:48, Paul Sokolovsky wrote:
Hello,
As was mentioned many times on the list, PEP634-PEP636 are thoroughly
prepared and good materials, many thanks to their authors. PEP635
"Motivation and Rationale" (https://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0635/)
stands out among the 3 however: while
Complimentary != Complementary
On Sun, Nov 15, 2020, 4:51 AM Paul Sokolovsky wrote:
> Hello,
>
> As was mentioned many times on the list, PEP634-PEP636 are thoroughly
> prepared and good materials, many thanks to their authors. PEP635
> "Motivation and Rationale"
Hello Tobias,
On Sun, 15 Nov 2020 13:22:07 +0100
Tobias Kohn wrote:
> Hi Paul,
>
> Thank you for your comments on the DLS'20 paper. I am glad to hear
> that it helps paint a clear(er) picture of pattern matching in
> Python. However, please let me set the record straight in a few
>
Hi Paul,
Thank you for your comments on the DLS'20 paper. I am glad to hear
that it helps paint a clear(er) picture of pattern matching in
Python. However, please let me set the record straight in a few
regards.
First, there is no 'shoehorning' or 'deception' in our pattern
matching
Hello,
On Sun, 15 Nov 2020 22:05:46 +1100
Steven D'Aprano wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 15, 2020 at 12:48:50PM +0300, Paul Sokolovsky wrote:
>
> > Just to give one example, literally at the very beginning, at the
> > "Pattern Matching and OO" section (3rd heading) it says:
>
> If it's the third
On Sun, Nov 15, 2020 at 12:48:50PM +0300, Paul Sokolovsky wrote:
> Just to give one example, literally at the very beginning, at the
> "Pattern Matching and OO" section (3rd heading) it says:
If it's the third heading, it's not *literally* at the very beginning.
> > Pattern matching is
22 matches
Mail list logo
