What do we gain from this?
Three characters.
I'm not sure how useful this would be.
On Mon, Jun 28, 2021, 9:29 PM David Mertz wrote:
> Umm?!
>
> items = (j for j in range(10) if j not in {2, 8})
>
> We don't need a new keyword. Nor a tortured use of an old one.
>
> On Mon, Jun 28, 2021, 8:46
Umm?!
items = (j for j in range(10) if j not in {2, 8})
We don't need a new keyword. Nor a tortured use of an old one.
On Mon, Jun 28, 2021, 8:46 PM Rob Cliffe via Python-ideas <
python-ideas@python.org> wrote:
> Another wild idea: Suppose that after a line that introduces a suite,
>
Another wild idea: Suppose that after a line that introduces a suite,
including the final colon, you could write further lines on the same
physical line, and this would be semantically equivalent to having them
on separate lines with increasing indents, but a smaller indent than the
following
On 6/28/21 5:40 PM, Max Shouman wrote:
> This is more of a syntactic sugar than an actual new feature, but...
> Exactly, 'but' is the idea: a special keyword to be used in for statements to
> exclude values from the iterable.
>
> E.g., when iterating over a generator:
for i in range(0, 10)
On Tue, Jun 29, 2021 at 7:51 AM Max Shouman wrote:
>
> This is more of a syntactic sugar than an actual new feature, but...
> Exactly, 'but' is the idea: a special keyword to be used in for statements to
> exclude values from the iterable.
>
> E.g., when iterating over a generator:
> >>> for i
This is more of a syntactic sugar than an actual new feature, but...
Exactly, 'but' is the idea: a special keyword to be used in for statements to
exclude values from the iterable.
E.g., when iterating over a generator:
>>> for i in range(0, 10) but (2, 8):
would implicitly create a new
On 28/06/2021 20.36, Brendan Barnwell wrote:
> On 2021-06-28 07:03, Thomas Grainger wrote:
>>> >but in this case the object is security sensitive, and security
>>> should be much more rigorous in ensuring correctness.
>> It looks like there's a consensus being reached, should I create a bpo?
>
>
Another problem with the assignment API is that the order the attributes
are assigned is important:
Eg check_hostname needs to be assigned before verify_mode or a warning is
raised:
https://github.com/encode/httpx/pull/1687/commits/ed9aabfeff6c18652db918bd0628c94d2513487a
On Mon, 28 Jun 2021,
On 2021-06-28 07:03, Thomas Grainger wrote:
>but in this case the object is security sensitive, and security should be much
more rigorous in ensuring correctness.
It looks like there's a consensus being reached, should I create a bpo?
If we're going to make backwards-incompatible changes to
On Mon, Jun 28, 2021 at 10:03:15AM -0400, Wes Turner wrote:
> Here's this, which IIRC I never wrote tests for, which is what needs to be
> done to specify the correct behavior:
>
> ```python
> def pathjoin(*args, **kwargs):
> """
> Arguments:
> args (list): *args list of paths
>
httpx.create_ssl_context() is one such utility function
python -m pip install httpx
python
>>> import httpx
>>> ctx = httpx.create_ssl_context()
Ironically the context returned doesn't support ctx.minimum_version
assignment due to another hangnail in the ssl.SSLContext API!
This is fixed
Thomas Grainger wrote:
It looks like there's a consensus being reached, should I create a bpo?
>
Perhaps first state what seems to be the consensus and invite further
comments before going to bpo.
Disclaimer: I'd like to see both:
1. Something on PyPi to help persons who are using ssl on
Here's this, which IIRC I never wrote tests for, which is what needs to be
done to specify the correct behavior:
```python
def pathjoin(*args, **kwargs):
"""
Arguments:
args (list): *args list of paths
if len(args) == 1, args[0] is not a string, and args[0] is
> but in this case the object is security sensitive, and security should be
> much more rigorous in ensuring correctness.
It looks like there's a consensus being reached, should I create a bpo?
Thomas Grainger
On Sat, 26 Jun 2021 at 23:03, Ethan Furman wrote:
>
> On 6/26/21 1:55 PM, Marc-Andre
On Sun, Jun 27, 2021 at 09:55:34PM -0400, Wes Turner wrote:
> "[Python-ideas] Sanitize filename (path part) 2nd try"
> https://mail.python.org/archives/list/python-ideas@python.org/thread/LRIKMG3G4I4YQNK6BTU7MICHT7X67MEF/
>
> "[Python-ideas] Sanitize filename (path part)"
>
On Sun, Jun 27, 2021 at 10:13:25PM +0100, Barry Scott wrote:
>
> > On 27 Jun 2021, at 12:07, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek
> > wrote:
> >
> > [this is a continuation of https://bugs.python.org/issue44452]
> >
> > pathlib.Path() has a concatenation operator "/" that allows the
> >
16 matches
Mail list logo
