Mark, did you get the response I sent to hotpy.org 4 days ago? Is that
a real address? I ask because the typos I reported are still there and
trying to visit hotpy.org fails.
--
Terry Jan Reedy
___
Python-Dev mailing list -- python-dev@python.org
On Wed, Nov 18, 2020 at 11:39 AM Brett Cannon wrote:
> Now obviously "practicality beats purity" as well, but the argument "other
> languages do it this way" doesn't hold well for a language that doesn't use
> curly braces for scoping delineation.
>
I see your smiley, and I believe I've
Hi Brett,
Thanks for your replies.
_> But you can write `123 .bit_length()`. That's a parser limitation
more than human understanding._
Touché. I took this ambiguity of the dot so much for granted that I
would not have thought of trying that.
_> Yep, but PEP 634 not only changes the
Hi Daniel and Mark,
Sorry for being slightly late to the party, but please let me add a
few remarks of my own to the discussion here.
1. MUST HAVE PRECISELY DEFINED SEMANTICS
Yes, there are some aspects that we left open intentionally. Most
prominently the question of how often the
ACTIVITY SUMMARY (2020-11-13 - 2020-11-20)
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:
open7593 (-35)
closed 46562 (+103)
total 54155 (+68)
Open issues
But none of those limitations are there under our proposal. You can write
this if you want:
match = 1
match match:
case case: print(case, match)
And you can use _(“...”) anywhere in the case block and even in the guard.
Just not as a pattern, but you can’t use f(1) there either...
On Fri,
Not being able to use a particular variable name (such as match or case) in the
limited context of matching is only a minor wart. Unfortunately, _ for
internationalization is already a well-established convention for something
that you might well want to do within each separate case. It isn't
Hi,
I'd like to request that any pattern matching PEP and its implementation
meet certain standards before acceptance.
As one of the maintainers of the AST-to-bytecode part of the compiler
and the bytecode interpreter, I don't want to be in the situation where
we are forced to accept a
Hi all,
Some days back Mark Shannon posted his view/proposal pattern matching on github.
While reading it I realised an intermediate step between matching and variable
assignment might do away with part of the discussion.
I wrote it in an issue with the view/proposal
Hi Daniel,
On 20/11/2020 10:50 am, Daniel Moisset wrote:
Hello again Mark, I took some time looking in more detail at your
proposal, and these are my thoughts. I'm writing with the assumption
that this proposal describes some "internal" representation of match
statements which is never
Fair enough.
On Fri, Nov 20, 2020 at 11:45 AM Thomas Wouters wrote:
>
>
> On Fri, Nov 20, 2020 at 8:38 AM Steve Holden wrote:
>
>> On Thu, Nov 19, 2020 at 8:08 PM Brett Cannon wrote:
>>
>> All I will say is just because we aren't *required* to implement it in
>> __future__ that doesn't mean
On Fri, Nov 20, 2020 at 8:38 AM Steve Holden wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 19, 2020 at 8:08 PM Brett Cannon wrote:
>
> All I will say is just because we aren't *required* to implement it in
> __future__ that doesn't mean we can't or shouldn't. Everything should be
> done to underline the tentative
Hello again Mark, I took some time looking in more detail at your proposal,
and these are my thoughts. I'm writing with the assumption that this
proposal describes some "internal" representation of match statements which
is never exposed to the users (so I'd mostly steer away from
The PR already has a fair amount of good review and discussion. Me
doing a superficial review is not going to help get it merged.
___
Python-Dev mailing list -- python-dev@python.org
To unsubscribe send an email to python-dev-le...@python.org
On 11/20/2020 4:03 AM, Simon Cross wrote:
Thank you for this [cttpes] patch! > I can't help land it, but it looks sane to
me.
If you have a github account, you can help by reviewing it. Check the
spelling, grammar, and clarity of comments, docstrings, and news item.
Can the code be
Hello!
Thank you for this patch! I can't help land it, but it looks sane to me.
I fear you have discovered a fundamental truth about ctypes though --
it tries to mimic what C compilers do and this inevitably leads to
many discrepancies. E.g. if a C structure you're trying to use is
wrapped in an
16 matches
Mail list logo