On 2019-04-24 22:42, Guido van Rossum wrote:
Thanks for posting. I agree that Callable is ugly (even hideous :-), but
when we introduced type annotations in PEP 484, we didn't want to
introduce new syntax. The existing syntax (using -> in function
headings) was supported since Python 3.0.
On Tue, Apr 23, 2019 at 10:28:29AM -0700, Brett Cannon wrote:
> Given "abcdefabcdefabcdef", what is the last result of "abc"?
> x.rindex("abc") will tell you.
>
> Given [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5] where is the last result of 3?
> reversed(x).index(3) will tell you (or x[::-1]).
That first
On Wed, Apr 24, 2019 at 08:59:18AM +0800, 林自均 wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> Thanks for the explanation. Now I agree that the need for list.rindex() is
> not as common as str.rindex(). In fact, I only need list.rindex() when
> doing some algorithm problems. I guess that doesn't count as real need here.
Of
(Note: This idea is about a particular static typecheking (typing?)
annotation syntax).
The idea is that currently the use of the "->" (right arrow) is restricted
to only function definition annotation. Can we extent it to declaration of
type for functions even outside their definitions?
Example:
`dis` module was my only reference for this proposal. If majority doesn't
want a new implementation-specific module, it is best to withdraw this
proposal.
Brett Cannon , 24 Nis 2019 Çar, 20:49 tarihinde şunu
yazdı:
> Since bytecode is a CPython-specific implementaiton detail I don't know if
> it
Since bytecode is a CPython-specific implementaiton detail I don't know if
it makes sense to enshrine an assembler for it in the stdlib (if you were
to ask me today if I thought the dis module belonged in the stdlib I would
probably say "no", but I also know not everyone agrees with that view :) .
It is intentionally not included -- bytecode is a detail of the
implementation and changes with each feature release, without concern for
backwards compatibility.
On Wed, Apr 24, 2019 at 10:33 AM Batuhan Osman Taşkaya <
batuhanosmantask...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hello,
>
> Currently it is hard to
Hello,
Currently it is hard to assemble cpython bytecode without help of 3rd party
libraries (like: vstinner/bytecode). I'm proposing an assembler to standard
library and an API to cpython's peephole optimizer. Also an interface like
`ast.NodeVisitor` and `ast.NodeTransformer` for bytecode
The objective of the proposal is to increase readability.
IMO using re is even more unreadable than the and/or or any/all I mentioned.
quarta-feira, 24 de Abril de 2019 às 05:47:04 UTC+1, Robert Vanden Eynde
escreveu:
>
> Trivial with re module, which will answer thequestion in one pass.
>>
>
>
The objective of the proposal is to increase readability.
IMO your options are even more unreadable than the and/or or any/all I
mentioned.
quarta-feira, 24 de Abril de 2019 às 05:33:12 UTC+1, Terry Reedy escreveu:
>
> On 4/23/2019 4:39 PM, João Matos wrote:
> > Hello,
> >
> > If we want to
On 23/04/2019 21:39, João Matos wrote:
If we want to check if a string contains any/all of several other strings
we have to use several or/and conditions or any/all.
[snip]
I suggest adding some "sugar" to make it more readable by adding
contains_any_in and contains_all_in to look like this
11 matches
Mail list logo
