[David Mertz]
> I often use doctests to verify APIs and behaviors when I update code. I
> > know I'm in a minority and most developers slightly disparage doctests.
[Steven D'Aprano]
> I don't know why you think that "most developers" disparage doctests.
> Perhaps they're the same ones who
> Someone wrote :
> Thank you for your deferred default values idea, which we're now
working on together.
>
https://github.com/petered/peters_example_code/blob/master/peters_example_code/deferral.py
Allowing to write:
from deferral import deferrable_args, deferred
@deferrable_args
def f(x, y=2,
This is a functionality I sometimes need.
Maybe you can do a pull request to more-itertools and that would be the end
of it? I don't know if that's general enough for being added to the
standard library, more-itertools seems the way to go for me. Go find out if
raising a ValueError suits their
I have never wanted this behavior myself. So that's 0% of the time for
me. I happily believe that Peter O'Connor wants it 90% of the time...
although I guess it suggests he probably organizes his algorithms
differently than I do at some broader level. For my needs, zip() is
common, and
On Fri, Jul 27, 2018 at 07:02:37PM +0200, Peter O'Connor wrote:
> I find that about 90% of the time I want want to zip iterators together, I
> expect them to be the same length and want to throw an exception if they
> aren't. Yet there is not currently a solution for this in the standard
>
Hi Peter
Thank you for your deferred default values idea, which we're now
working on together.
https://github.com/petered/peters_example_code/blob/master/peters_example_code/deferral.py
You wrote:
> I find that about 90% of the time I want want to zip iterators together, I
> expect them to be
I find that about 90% of the time I want want to zip iterators together, I
expect them to be the same length and want to throw an exception if they
aren't. Yet there is not currently a solution for this in the standard
library for this, and as a result I always have to take this function
On Fri, Jul 27, 2018 at 9:24 PM, Serhiy Storchaka wrote:
> 27.07.18 12:53, Chris Angelico пише:
>
> from collections import OrderedDict
> od = OrderedDict([('a', 1), ('b', 2)])
> dict.__repr__(od)
>>
>> "{'a': 1, 'b': 2}"
>
>
> dict.__repr__() can output items in wrong order.
>
On 26/07/18 22:28, Abe Dillon wrote:
The readability issue isn't just a matter of a new set of symbols to learn.
It isn't even that the symbols are used in a non-intuitive way (though that
doesn't help).
We could argue about how intuitive or not these operators are, but they
are used in other
On Fri, Jul 27, 2018, 1:23 AM Steven D'Aprano wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 26, 2018 at 06:50:20PM -0400, David Mertz wrote:
> > I often use doctests to verify APIs and behaviors when I update code. I
> > know I'm in a minority and most developers slightly disparage doctests.
>
> I don't know why you
27.07.18 12:53, Chris Angelico пише:
from collections import OrderedDict
od = OrderedDict([('a', 1), ('b', 2)])
dict.__repr__(od)
"{'a': 1, 'b': 2}"
dict.__repr__() can output items in wrong order.
>>> from collections import OrderedDict
>>> od = OrderedDict([('a', 1), ('b', 2)])
>>>
Sorry Steven I didn't see your clever dict.__repr__ solution that Chris
pointed out too. That's what I was looking for ^^
And now for pprint, apparently that doesn't seem difficult to implement.
About the part where "the representation looses the type information",
pformat(od) could be
On 7/26/2018 1:23 PM, Terry Reedy wrote:
On 7/26/2018 1:21 PM, Terry Reedy wrote:
On python-idea, Miro Hrončok asked today whether we can change the
OrderedDict repr from, for instance,
OrderedDict([('a', '1'), ('b', '2')]) # to
OrderedDict({'a': '1', 'b': '2'})
I am not sure what our repr
On Fri, Jul 27, 2018 at 7:45 PM, Thomas Jollans wrote:
> On 27/07/18 08:06, Robert Vanden Eynde wrote:
>
> Thanks for your response, I want to print/repr an OrderedDict() without
> relying on the fact that "dict are ordered" ie. I want a solution < python
> 3.7.
> Currently, if I do repr(
On 27/07/18 08:06, Robert Vanden Eynde wrote:
Thanks for your response, I want to print/repr an OrderedDict()
without relying on the fact that "dict are ordered" ie. I want a
solution < python 3.7.
Currently, if I do repr( OrderedDict([(1,2),(3,4)]) ), I get the
string
On Mon, Jul 23, 2018 at 22:25:14 +0100, Gustavo Carneiro wrote:
> Well, even if it is worth, i.e. your use case is not rare enough,
Reading a single byte is certainly a special case, but I think it's generic
enough to warrant its own function.
I believe there should be many binary protocols out
I *think* you are trying to find a syntax for "code blocks" like Ruby
has, but I'm not sure. Your examples are a little confusing to me
(possibly because you have at least three separate suggestions here,
"as" blocks, a mysterious "do" keyword I don't understand, and partial
application using %
Thanks for your response, I want to print/repr an OrderedDict() without relying
on the fact that "dict are ordered" ie. I want a solution < python 3.7.
Currently, if I do repr( OrderedDict([(1,2),(3,4)]) ), I get the string
"OrderedDict([(1,2),(3,4)])", I'd like a function that would return the
18 matches
Mail list logo
