[Python-ideas] Re: Bring back PEP 501

On Sat, May 8, 2021 at 8:21 AM Richard Damon wrote: > > On 5/7/21 5:56 PM, Nick Humrich wrote: > > Marc, > > > > You might have misunderstood me. I am not recommending sending the > > database raw strings without parameters, but rather that i-strings > > turn things into parameters and its

[Python-ideas] Re: Bring back PEP 501

On 5/7/21 5:56 PM, Nick Humrich wrote: > Marc, > > You might have misunderstood me. I am not recommending sending the > database raw strings without parameters, but rather that i-strings > turn things into parameters and its impossible to mess up. Let me > explain a little.  > > In sqlalchemy, you

[Python-ideas] Re: Bring back PEP 501

Marc, You might have misunderstood me. I am not recommending sending the database raw strings without parameters, but rather that i-strings turn things into parameters and its impossible to mess up. Let me explain a little. In sqlalchemy, you can use a format such as "update items set a=:value

[Python-ideas] Re: Bring back PEP 501

On 07.05.2021 22:39, Ram Rachum wrote: > Hi Marc. > > On Fri, May 7, 2021 at 11:32 PM M.-A. Lemburg > wrote: > > On 07.05.2021 21:40, Nick Humrich wrote: > > PEP 501 was deferred because more learning and time was wanted after > introducing > > f-strings.

[Python-ideas] Re: Bring back PEP 501

Hi Marc. On Fri, May 7, 2021 at 11:32 PM M.-A. Lemburg wrote: > On 07.05.2021 21:40, Nick Humrich wrote: > > PEP 501 was deferred because more learning and time was wanted after > introducing > > f-strings. Now that it has been 5 years, I wonder what the possibilities > of > > revisiting PEP

[Python-ideas] Re: Bring back PEP 501

On 07.05.2021 21:40, Nick Humrich wrote: > PEP 501 was deferred because more learning and time was wanted after > introducing > f-strings. Now that it has been 5 years, I wonder what the possibilities of > revisiting PEP 501 are.  > > I recently had the experience of using javascript "tagged

[Python-ideas] Re: Bring back PEP 501

+1 On Fri, May 7, 2021 at 10:42 PM Nick Humrich wrote: > PEP 501 was deferred because more learning and time was wanted after > introducing f-strings. Now that it has been 5 years, I wonder what the > possibilities of revisiting PEP 501 are. > > I recently had the experience of using javascript

[Python-ideas] Bring back PEP 501

PEP 501 was deferred because more learning and time was wanted after introducing f-strings. Now that it has been 5 years, I wonder what the possibilities of revisiting PEP 501 are. I recently had the experience of using javascript "tagged template literals" and was able to build a SQL string

[Python-ideas] Adding classes to modules is a tedious job. Wait! What about introducing a slot in PyModuleDef to hold the objects?

It's tedious to add classes one by one using PyModule_AddObject in PyInit_module function. Wouldn't it be much easier if there's a slot that has an array of all the classes in their PyObject form and it'll automatically add those classes. Since this is a backwards compatibility change it'll be

[Python-ideas] Re: Add support for private variables, methods and functions in Python

Ethan: > As you may have noticed, this is a mailing list -- no thread is closed. I've > seen posts to three-year-old threads. Since the discussion has come to a halt and it's decided that we'll continue to use the Pythonic way for private and it's also very hard to implement what I suggested,

[Python-ideas] Re: Add support for private variables, methods and functions in Python

On 5/6/21 10:44 PM, Shreyan Avigyan wrote: > Anyway this thread is closed. As you may have noticed, this is a mailing list -- no thread is closed. I've seen posts to three-year-old threads. -- ~Ethan~ ___ Python-ideas mailing list --