On Sun, Aug 21, 2016 at 6:08 PM, wrote:
>
> from __future__ import unicode_literals outright changes the type of object
> string literals make (in python 2). If you were to create a non-iterable,
> non-sequence text type (a horrible idea, IMO) the same thing can be
On 21.08.2016 04:52, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
Saying that these so-called "fixes" (we haven't established yet that
Python's string behaviour is a bug that need fixing) will be easier and
more obvious than the change to Unicode is not that bold a claim.
Agreed. Especially those "we need to
From: Python-ideas
[mailto:python-ideas-bounces+tritium-list=sdamon@python.org] On Behalf Of
?
Sent: Saturday, August 20, 2016 5:56 PM
To: python-ideas
Subject: Re: [Python-ideas] discontinue iterable strings
On Sun, Aug 21, 2016 at 12:28 AM Alexander Heger
On Sun, Aug 21, 2016 at 5:51 PM, Franklin? Lee
wrote:
> Speaking of which, how is this parsed?
> f"{'\n'}"
> If escape-handling is done first, the expression is a string literal holding
> an actual newline character (normally illegal), rather than an escape
On Sun, Aug 21, 2016 at 2:46 AM eryk sun wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 21, 2016 at 6:34 AM, Michael Selik
> wrote:
> > The detection of not hashable via __hash__ set to None was necessary, but
> > not desirable. Better to have never defined the
On Sun, Aug 21, 2016 at 6:34 AM, Michael Selik wrote:
> The detection of not hashable via __hash__ set to None was necessary, but
> not desirable. Better to have never defined the method/attribute in the
> first place. Since __iter__ isn't present on ``object``, we're
On Sun, Aug 21, 2016 at 1:27 AM Chris Angelico wrote:
> Hmm. It would somehow need to be recognized as "not iterable". I'm not
> sure how this detection is done; is it based on the presence/absence
> of __iter__, or is it by calling that method and seeing what comes
> back? If
On 21 August 2016 at 16:02, eryk sun wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 21, 2016 at 5:27 AM, Chris Angelico wrote:
>> Hmm. It would somehow need to be recognized as "not iterable". I'm not
>> sure how this detection is done; is it based on the presence/absence
>> of
On Sun, Aug 21, 2016 at 5:27 AM, Chris Angelico wrote:
> Hmm. It would somehow need to be recognized as "not iterable". I'm not
> sure how this detection is done; is it based on the presence/absence
> of __iter__, or is it by calling that method and seeing what comes
> back? If