On Sun, Jul 8, 2018 at 10:41 AM, Giampaolo Rodola'
wrote:
> [...]
> I find that (space between the parentheses of a function call statement)
> too unnatural as a place where to put an assignment. It is not even
> "guarded" by a keyword like "if" or "while" which can help as indicators
> that
On 7/8/2018 1:59 PM, Chris Angelico wrote:
On Mon, Jul 9, 2018 at 3:55 AM, Eric V. Smith wrote:
I agree with Chris in this case. That said, there is at least one place
where the grammar does forbid you from doing something that would otherwise
make be allowable: decorators.
@lookup[0]
I'm sure that only 1 or 2 people cares about my opinion on this, but I will
say that PEP 572 is taking one of my least favorite features of C/C++ and
adding it to Python. About the only good thing I can say about it is that
it might make some things more convenient to write. Worse to read, worse
Hi,
[Larry]
> 3.5 also got some doc-only changes related to the online "version switcher"
> dropdown.
About this I have a question: the switchers for english version of 3.4 and 3.5
are disabled (https://docs.python.org/3.5/) but not disabled for translations
(https://docs.python.org/fr/3.5/).
On Jul 8, 2018, at 14:23, Julien Palard via Python-Dev
wrote:
> [Larry]
>> 3.5 also got some doc-only changes related to the online "version switcher"
>> dropdown.
>
> About this I have a question: the switchers for english version of 3.4 and
> 3.5 are disabled (https://docs.python.org/3.5/)
On 07/07/18 22:11, Jeroen Demeyer wrote:
On 2018-07-07 15:38, Mark Shannon wrote:
Hi,
We seem to have a plethora of PEPs where we really ought to have one (or
none?).
- PEP 575 has been withdrawn.
- PEP 579 is an informational PEP with the bigger picture; it does
contain some of the
On Sun, Jul 8, 2018 at 7:24 PM Chris Angelico wrote:
>
> On Mon, Jul 9, 2018 at 3:14 AM, Giampaolo Rodola' wrote:
> >
> >
> > On Sun, Jul 8, 2018 at 6:45 PM Steve Holden wrote:
> >>
> >> On Sun, Jul 8, 2018 at 10:41 AM, Giampaolo Rodola'
> >> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> [...]
> >>> I find that (space
On Mon, Jul 9, 2018 at 7:27 AM, Giampaolo Rodola' wrote:
> 5) It has no keyword argument correspondence. If foo(x := 1) is
> allowed then why this one is not?
> >>> foo(x=(x := 1))
> (I don't think it should BTW: it's not pretty)
Actually it is. Nothing wrong with that. It assigns to 'x' in
Since you CC'ed me explicitly I feel compelled to respond. I have read your
reasoning, and I simply don't agree with it. A few months ago I would have
happily explained why (there is a reason) but given the endless debate
we've already seen I am simply too tired for another long email. Please
give
On 07/08/2018 10:05 AM, Ivan Pozdeev via Python-Dev wrote:
I'll use this opportunity to remind you that 3.4 build is broken -- it
can't be built from start to installer with the instructions given
because of outside factors (CPython has migrated from Hg to Git).
On 07/08/2018 11:50 AM, Ned Deily wrote:
On Jul 8, 2018, at 14:23, Julien Palard via Python-Dev
wrote:
[Larry]
3.5 also got some doc-only changes related to the online "version switcher"
dropdown.
About this I have a question: the switchers for english version of 3.4 and 3.5
are disabled
Fair enough. I will. Sorry for the extra pressure at this particular stage.
On Mon, 9 Jul 2018 at 00:06, Guido van Rossum wrote:
> Since you CC'ed me explicitly I feel compelled to respond. I have read
> your reasoning, and I simply don't agree with it. A few months ago I would
> have happily
On 09.07.2018 1:32, Larry Hastings wrote:
On 07/08/2018 10:05 AM, Ivan Pozdeev via Python-Dev wrote:
I'll use this opportunity to remind you that 3.4 build is broken --
it can't be built from start to installer with the instructions given
because of outside factors (CPython has migrated from
On 7/8/2018 1:05 PM, Ivan Pozdeev via Python-Dev wrote:
I'll use this opportunity to remind you that 3.4 build is broken -- it
can't be built from start to installer with the instructions given
because of outside factors (CPython has migrated from Hg to Git).
https://bugs.python.org/issue31623
On 7/8/2018 8:35 PM, Terry Reedy wrote:
On 7/8/2018 1:05 PM, Ivan Pozdeev via Python-Dev wrote:
I'll use this opportunity to remind you that 3.4 build is broken -- it
can't be built from start to installer with the instructions given
because of outside factors (CPython has migrated from Hg to
On Sun, Jul 8, 2018, 18:30 Eric V. Smith, wrote:
> On 7/8/2018 8:35 PM, Terry Reedy wrote:
> > On 7/8/2018 1:05 PM, Ivan Pozdeev via Python-Dev wrote:
> >> I'll use this opportunity to remind you that 3.4 build is broken -- it
> >> can't be built from start to installer with the instructions
On Mon, Jul 9, 2018 at 3:55 AM, Eric V. Smith wrote:
> I agree with Chris in this case. That said, there is at least one place
> where the grammar does forbid you from doing something that would otherwise
> make be allowable: decorators.
>
@lookup[0]
> File "", line 1
> @lookup[0]
>
On Sat, Jul 7, 2018 at 5:48 PM Guido van Rossum wrote:
> Enforcing such restrictions in the grammar would actually be complicated,
> due to nesting -- but even if it wasn't, I wouldn't want to, as I don't
> want to limit future generations to only the benefits of the new construct
> that we can
On 7/8/2018 5:41 AM, Giampaolo Rodola' wrote:
As for "assert" what I'm concern about is the proliferation of things
like this:
class Foo:
def __init__(self):
assert self.x := fun1()
assert self.y := fun2()
assert self.z := fun3()
When I look
On 2018-07-07 10:55, Serhiy Storchaka wrote:
The first part of
handling arguments can be made outside of the C function, by the calling
API.
Sure, it could be done but I don't see the advantage. I don't think you
will gain performance because you are just moving code from one place to
Jeroen Demeyer schrieb am 08.07.2018 um 09:07:
> On 2018-07-07 10:55, Serhiy Storchaka wrote:
>> The first part of
>> handling arguments can be made outside of the C function, by the calling
>> API.
>
> Sure, it could be done but I don't see the advantage. I don't think you
> will gain
My six-month cadence means it's time for the next releases of 3.4 and
3.5. There haven't been many changes since the last releases--two, to
be exact. These two security fixes were backported to both 3.4 and 3.5:
* bpo-32981: Fix catastrophic backtracking vulns (GH-5955)
* bpo-33001:
Eric V. Smith wrote:
there is at least one place
where the grammar does forbid you from doing something that would
otherwise make be allowable: decorators.
And that was a controversial issue at the time. I don't remember
there being much of an objective argument for the restriction --
it was
[Eric V. Smith]
> > there is at least one place
> where the grammar does forbid you from doing something that would
> > otherwise make be allowable: decorators.
>
[Greg Ewing]
> And that was a controversial issue at the time. I don't remember
there being much of an objective argument for the
On Sun, Jul 8, 2018 at 6:45 PM Steve Holden wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 8, 2018 at 10:41 AM, Giampaolo Rodola'
> wrote:
>
>> [...]
>> I find that (space between the parentheses of a function call statement)
>> too unnatural as a place where to put an assignment. It is not even
>> "guarded" by a
I'll use this opportunity to remind you that 3.4 build is broken -- it
can't be built from start to installer with the instructions given
because of outside factors (CPython has migrated from Hg to Git).
https://bugs.python.org/issue31623 about this was ignored (see
The case I find more reasonable is assignment in earlier arguments:
z = something ()
w = myfun(x := get_data(), y=calculate(x, z))
I would probably recommend against that in code review, but it's not
absurdly obfuscated.
On Sun, Jul 8, 2018, 1:15 PM Giampaolo Rodola' wrote:
>
>
> On Sun, Jul
On Mon, Jul 9, 2018 at 3:14 AM, Giampaolo Rodola' wrote:
>
>
> On Sun, Jul 8, 2018 at 6:45 PM Steve Holden wrote:
>>
>> On Sun, Jul 8, 2018 at 10:41 AM, Giampaolo Rodola'
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> [...]
>>> I find that (space between the parentheses of a function call statement)
>>> too unnatural as a
On 7/8/2018 1:23 PM, Chris Angelico wrote:
On Mon, Jul 9, 2018 at 3:14 AM, Giampaolo Rodola' wrote:
On Sun, Jul 8, 2018 at 6:45 PM Steve Holden wrote:
But the PEP 8 spellings are
foo(x=1)
and
f(x := 1).
The extra spacing makes it obvious that this isn't a regular named
29 matches
Mail list logo
