My point is that _Elements of Style_ is not a set of rules. It's a nice
book with generally good advice; it's not a style guide in a formal sense.
If we wanted rules, _The Chicago Manual of Style_ or the_Associated Press
Style Guide_ would be much closer to that. But neither of those actually
On Sat, Jun 27, 2020 at 12:37:35AM -0400, David Mertz wrote:
> Objectively, could I have dropped "most"? Both "most famous"?
>
> Could you have dropped "still," objectively?
Yes, we probably could have. What's your point? I'm not arguing in
favour of S here on this mailing list, and I've
On Sat, Jun 27, 2020 at 2:44 PM Soni L. wrote:
>
>
> Take word out of sentence, does sentence still mean same? Then word
> needless. Is objective test.
That sounds like the way the Heavy Weapons Guy talks (when he speaks
English - his native language is Russian). What you've done is make a
On 2020-06-27 1:33 a.m., Steven D'Aprano wrote:
On Fri, Jun 26, 2020 at 11:36:47PM -0400, David Mertz wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 26, 2020, 8:40 PM Steven D'Aprano wrote:
>
> > "Clear and easily understandable" is subjective. What is clear and
> > understandable to me may be impenetrably
On Sat, Jun 27, 2020 at 2:29 PM Steven D'Aprano wrote:
> Seriously, I genuinely thought that the existing behaviour was the
> opposite and that `add` unconditionally added the element. "Last seen
> wins". If I was designing sets, that's probably how I would design it.
> After all, it's called
Objectively, could I have dropped "most"? Both "most famous"?
Could you have dropped "still," objectively?
On Sat, Jun 27, 2020, 12:34 AM Steven D'Aprano wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 26, 2020 at 11:36:47PM -0400, David Mertz wrote:
> > On Fri, Jun 26, 2020, 8:40 PM Steven D'Aprano
> wrote:
> >
> > >
On Fri, Jun 26, 2020 at 11:36:47PM -0400, David Mertz wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 26, 2020, 8:40 PM Steven D'Aprano wrote:
>
> > "Clear and easily understandable" is subjective. What is clear and
> > understandable to me may be impenetrably confusing to others, or
> > obnoxiously dumbed down.
> >
>
>
On Fri, Jun 26, 2020 at 06:16:05AM -0500, Dan Sommers wrote:
> >already_there = seen.add(element)
> >if already_there:
> ># handle the duplicate case
> >
> >Who thinks like that? *wink*
>
> Anyone who practices EAFP rather than LBYL? Or is that why you're
> winking?
That
On Fri, Jun 26, 2020, 8:40 PM Steven D'Aprano wrote:
> "Clear and easily understandable" is subjective. What is clear and
> understandable to me may be impenetrably confusing to others, or
> obnoxiously dumbed down.
>
Strunk and White's most famous mandate of "omit needless words" is likewise
I can't say that I've ever assessed the quality of a code comment
based on how well it adheres to Strunk & White, nor have I ever been
involved with an environment that tries to strongly enforce that
specific style of writing. So FWIW, I agree that "clear and concise
English" is more relevant to
Steven just likes an argument. Nobody has ever taken the idea of a standard
for language in comments seriously. It Just doen come up.
On Fri, Jun 26, 2020 at 18:35 Bernardo Sulzbach <
berna...@bernardosulzbach.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 26, 2020 at 9:43 PM Steven D'Aprano
> wrote:
>
>> I dislike
Hmm, interesting thought! I'll try that out.
Thanks!
On Fri, Jun 26, 2020, 01:51 Antoine Pitrou wrote:
> On Thu, 25 Jun 2020 18:32:48 -0700
> Yonatan Zunger via Python-ideas
> wrote:
> >
> > So that's an example of why you might find yourself in such a situation
> in
> > userland. And
On Fri, Jun 26, 2020 at 9:43 PM Steven D'Aprano wrote:
> I dislike Strunk and White, and don't follow it myself (except by
> accident, as it were) but I've worked with neuro-atypical programmers
> who found it really useful to have a common standard that they could
> follow and reduce the
On Fri, Jun 26, 2020 at 10:45:07AM -0700, Brett Cannon wrote:
> Why can't you do `tuple(dict.items())` to get your indexable pairs?
I don't think that an immutable copy is going to help Hans with his
use-case, since he already mentions that tuples don't solve his problem.
Swapping to a list
On Fri, Jun 26, 2020 at 09:08:31PM -, Keara Berlin wrote:
> Hi all, this is a very small change, but I thought I would field it
> here to see if anyone has suggestions or ideas. Instead of requiring
> that comments be written in Strunk & White Standard English, PEP-8
> should require
Good idea - I'll submit that now.
___
Python-ideas mailing list -- python-ideas@python.org
To unsubscribe send an email to python-ideas-le...@python.org
https://mail.python.org/mailman3/lists/python-ideas.python.org/
Message archived at
Your minor change is certainly an improvement. _The Elements of Style_ (
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Elements_of_Style) is certainly a good
text, but it's not even actually a style guide in the formal sense.
On Fri, Jun 26, 2020 at 5:26 PM Keara Berlin wrote:
> Hi all, this is a very
Given I've never even heard of Strunk & White (my own privilege i'd
assume)... yeah. I don't actually know what the existing "When writing
English, follow Strunk and White." text in PEP-8 even means.
It doesn't hyperlink to an online source for English style probably because
this was written so
Hi all, this is a very small change, but I thought I would field it here to see
if anyone has suggestions or ideas. Instead of requiring that comments be
written in Strunk & White Standard English, PEP-8 should require instead that
English-language comments be clear and easily understandable by
It sounds like you're asking if the iteration order can be changed to be
something other than the original insertion order, or if you can cause a
new key-value pair to be added somewhere other than the end. I wonder if
you can achieve the desired outcome without a change to the language.
At any
I think Hans would like to do `my_dict.items()[0]` for example, which
shouldn't conflict with anything.
On Fri, Jun 26, 2020 at 7:48 PM Brett Cannon wrote:
> Why can't you do `tuple(dict.items())` to get your indexable pairs?
>
> Otherwise there are no plans as you would have to introduce a new
On Fri, 26 Jun 2020 at 14:30, Hans Ginzel wrote:
> Date: Fri, 26 Jun 2020 18:47:44 +0200
> From: Hans Ginzel
> To: Hans Ginzel
> Subject: Access (ordered) dict by index; insert slice
>
> Hello,
>
> thank you for making dict ordered.
> Is it planned to access key,value pair(s) by index? See
>
Why can't you do `tuple(dict.items())` to get your indexable pairs?
Otherwise there are no plans as you would have to introduce a new method as
you can't assume e.g. `0` is being used as a dictionary key.
On Fri, Jun 26, 2020 at 10:32 AM Hans Ginzel wrote:
> Date: Fri, 26 Jun 2020 18:47:44
Date: Fri, 26 Jun 2020 18:47:44 +0200
From: Hans Ginzel
To: Hans Ginzel
Subject: Access (ordered) dict by index; insert slice
Hello,
thank you for making dict ordered.
Is it planned to access key,value pair(s) by index? See
https://stackoverflow.com/a/44687752/2556118 for example. Both for
On Fri, Jun 26, 2020 at 7:58 PM Steven D'Aprano wrote:
> Most importantly, it matches the way people think about the task:
>
> # Task: look for duplicates
> if element in seen:
> # it's a duplicate
> ...
> else:
> # never seen before, so remember it
>
On Friday, June 26, 2020, at 04:54 -0500, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
On Thu, Jun 25, 2020 at 05:27:16PM +0300, Ben Avrahami wrote:
Hey all,
Often I've found this kind of code:
seen = set()
for i in iterable:
if i in seen:
... # do something in case of duplicates
else:
seen.add(i)
On Thu, Jun 25, 2020 at 05:27:16PM +0300, Ben Avrahami wrote:
> Hey all,
> Often I've found this kind of code:
>
> seen = set()
> for i in iterable:
> if i in seen:
> ... # do something in case of duplicates
> else:
> seen.add(i)
> ... # do something in case of first visit
>
>
On Thu, 25 Jun 2020 18:32:48 -0700
Yonatan Zunger via Python-ideas
wrote:
>
> So that's an example of why you might find yourself in such a situation in
> userland. And overall, Python's signal handling mechanism is pretty good;
> it's *way* nicer than having to deal with it in C, since signal
28 matches
Mail list logo
