On Sat, Nov 2, 2019 at 9:52 PM MRAB wrote:
>
> On 2019-11-03 00:38, Chris Angelico wrote:
> > On Sun, Nov 3, 2019 at 11:34 AM Eric V. Smith wrote:
> >>
> >> On 11/2/2019 7:24 PM, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
> >> > I see no reason why this shouldn't be allowed. It seems like a
> >> > straight-forward f
On 2019-11-03 00:38, Chris Angelico wrote:
On Sun, Nov 3, 2019 at 11:34 AM Eric V. Smith wrote:
On 11/2/2019 7:24 PM, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
> I see no reason why this shouldn't be allowed. It seems like a
> straight-forward feature request, and one that is compatible with the
> basic idea tha
On Sun, Nov 3, 2019 at 11:34 AM Eric V. Smith wrote:
>
> On 11/2/2019 7:24 PM, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
> > I see no reason why this shouldn't be allowed. It seems like a
> > straight-forward feature request, and one that is compatible with the
> > basic idea that Path objects should be usable anywh
On 11/2/2019 7:24 PM, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
I see no reason why this shouldn't be allowed. It seems like a
straight-forward feature request, and one that is compatible with the
basic idea that Path objects should be usable anywhere you need a file
name.
The problem is that in the given example
I see no reason why this shouldn't be allowed. It seems like a
straight-forward feature request, and one that is compatible with the
basic idea that Path objects should be usable anywhere you need a file
name.
You should just add an enhancement request on the bug tracker (but check
to see if t
Recurrently, files are referenced when calling subprocesses.
Just recently, I wanted to execute a C program to efficiently process an image
and, what I had in my program, was a Path.
This idea would allow turning this (imports ommitted):
`Popen(('/path/to/program', '-o', fspath(outputPath), fspat
On Sun, Oct 27, 2019, at 19:17, Andrew Barnert via Python-ideas wrote:
> On Oct 27, 2019, at 15:07, Ben Rudiak-Gould wrote:
> >
> > throw is an expression, not a statement, in C++. I see no reason raise
> > couldn't be an expression in Python. It doesn't even need a special
> > rule in the gramma
On Sun, Oct 27, 2019, at 03:10, Andrew Barnert wrote:
> On Oct 26, 2019, at 19:59, Random832 wrote:
> >
> > A string representation considering of (say) a UTF-8 string, plus an
> > auxiliary list of byte indices of, say, 256-codepoint-long chunks [along
> > with perhaps a flag to say that the c
