Thank you so much for the work, I was very confused on how to even start
implementing it in the ProcessPoolExecutor, but you finished everything super
quick!
I'm suppose that this might be better in another thread but... Could it be
possible to changing the context manager of the executor to
People keep mentioning refactoring. It's a red herring.
No refactoring tool needs a nameof operator added to the language in order
to do its job. And certainly an operator that requires running the program
in order to use it is not going to be helpful. Refactoring tools analyze
the program; they
On 2/2/2020 8:28 PM, Soni L. wrote:
It'd be cool to attach metadata to string literals that doesn't end up
in the resulting string object. This metadata could be used by all
sorts of tools, everything from localization to refactoring.
In C, some localization libraries use macros for it, such
Andrew Barnert writes:
>> On Feb 2, 2020, at 07:18, Karl Ramm wrote:
>>
>>
>> I propose adding ! and $ as (normally unimplemented) binary operators and ?
>> as a unary operator so as to explicitly to give people the rope they want
>> but clearly tagged "here there be shenanigans".
>
> Why
> On Feb 2, 2020, at 09:14, Johan Vergeer wrote:
>
> Thank you so much for this concrete proposal. I could not have described it
> clearer myself.
>
> I'm not sure about leaving out the parentheses. But this is mostly out of
> preference. Especially since Python also has a `type()`
> On Feb 2, 2020, at 07:18, Karl Ramm wrote:
>
>
> I propose adding ! and $ as (normally unimplemented) binary operators and ?
> as a unary operator so as to explicitly to give people the rope they want
> but clearly tagged "here there be shenanigans".
Why should ? be a prefix operator and the
It'd be cool to attach metadata to string literals that doesn't end up
in the resulting string object. This metadata could be used by all sorts
of tools, everything from localization to refactoring.
In C, some localization libraries use macros for it, such as:
#define LOCALIZE(s) s
and it
Thank you so much for all your efforts on this change, Kyle! And thanks to
Brian Q and Antoine P for reviewing.
On Sun, Feb 2, 2020 at 15:40 Kyle Stanley wrote:
> > I would certainly be willing to look into it.
>
> As an update to this thread for anyone interested in this feature, it's
> been
> I would certainly be willing to look into it.
As an update to this thread for anyone interested in this feature, it's
been implemented in Python 3.9 for both ProcessPoolExecutor and
ThreadPoolExecutor as a new parameter to Executor.shutdown(),
*cancel_futures*.
For a description of the
That's based on my observation of how the discussion went. I have been
participating in such discussions for 30 years now and I can usually tell
how it will end long before most other participants. So I actually cringe
when I see discussion go on beyond the point of usefulness. This is such a
On 2020-02-02 2:00 p.m., Johan Vergeer wrote:
This would look pretty nice when it would just be used in f-strings.
My proposal isn't just about f-strings though. It should also allow developers
to get the name of a variable, class, method or function anywhere else.
where do you want to do
Thank you so much for this concrete proposal. I could not have described it
clearer myself.
I'm not sure about leaving out the parentheses. But this is mostly out of
preference. Especially since Python also has a `type()` function. I also
thought about using `name()` instead of `nameof()` to
This would look pretty nice when it would just be used in f-strings.
My proposal isn't just about f-strings though. It should also allow developers
to get the name of a variable, class, method or function anywhere else.
___
Python-ideas mailing list
On 2020-02-02 15:00, Karl Ramm wrote:
We have all shared in the observation that all but the most carefully
considered operator overloading tends to reduce code readability. There
also many programmers that feel that they need it to make there code terse
(or perhaps shiny) enough.
I propose
On 2020-02-02 12:08 p.m., Jeff Allen wrote:
On 01/02/2020 02:48, Richard Damon wrote:
On 1/31/20 9:28 PM, Christopher Barker wrote:
I am really confused by this whole thread:
My understanding is that the impetus of the request is that if you
start from an expression like nameof(foo.bar)
We have all shared in the observation that all but the most carefully
considered operator overloading tends to reduce code readability. There
also many programmers that feel that they need it to make there code terse
(or perhaps shiny) enough.
I propose adding ! and $ as (normally
On 01/02/2020 02:48, Richard Damon wrote:
On 1/31/20 9:28 PM, Christopher Barker wrote:
I am really confused by this whole thread:
My understanding is that the impetus of the request is that if you
start from an expression like nameof(foo.bar) to get to "bar" then if
you refactor your code
Hi Guido,
This thread had a lot of comments so far, both people that are pro and con.
To be honest, a lot of you are a smarter and more experienced than me, so I
receive all of it as learning moments.
What I am wondering about is your personal motivation to say the feature won't
every be a
18 matches
Mail list logo
