On Sun, Oct 17, 2021 at 4:38 PM Steven D'Aprano wrote:
> Right-o, the old "heterogeneous tuples versus homogeneous lists"
> distinction, I remember that from the old 1.5 days. I haven't heard it
> mentioned for a long time!
>
You must not have looked at type annotations then. :-) Type
We don't have tuple comprehensions, and this proposal isn't to add them,
so this post is edging into off-topic for the thread so feel free to
skip it.
On Sat, Oct 16, 2021 at 03:18:20PM -0400, David Mertz, Ph.D. wrote:
> Rather, I'm concerned with readability and programmer expectations.
On Sun, Oct 17, 2021 at 02:48:48PM +0100, Rob Cliffe via Python-ideas wrote:
> I'm sending this to python-list because my emails to python-dev keep
> getting bounced back (after a few days delay). I've no idea why.
If you are getting a bounce message, as opposed to the email just
disappearing
> On Oct 17, 2021, at 3:40 AM, Serhiy Storchaka wrote:
>
> 16.10.21 17:07, Erik Demaine пише:
>> (*it for it in its) # tuple with the concatenation of iterables in 'its'
>
> As others already have said, it should evaluate to a generator, not to a
> tuple.
>
> But other question is occurred
17.10.21 16:08, Eric V. Smith пише:
> Serhiy: could you explain the difference?
The difference between `for x in it: yield x` and `yield from it` is
than in the latter case any values passed in with send() and any
exceptions passed in with throw() are passed to the underlying iterator
if it has
I'm sending this to python-list because my emails to python-dev keep
getting bounced back (after a few days delay). I've no idea why.
Instead of `except group ...`, what about `except for ...`?
No new keywords.
Reads naturally in English.
Hints that there is more than one kind of exception
I guess you could work around this by exploiting the slicing operator:
GenericClass[:(A, B)]
It makes sense to use the : in the context of typing, but I can see how this
syntax can be confusing. The least confusing implementation I could think of is
to limit the use of GenericClass[:_] to
On Sun, Oct 17, 2021 at 8:26 PM Steven D'Aprano wrote:
> (I think the difference has to do with sending values into the
> generator, throwing and catching exceptions, but I can't think of a
> simple example where it would make a difference.)
Yeah mainly. And genexps don't usually do that. So it
We can already easily simulate your first alternative in a generator
comprehension:
(x for it in its for x in it)
# equivalent to
def gen(its):
for it in its:
for x in it:
yield x
so anyone who wants that behaviour can easily get it. So
08.10.21 22:23, Jeremiah Paige пише:
Point = namedtuple(<<<, 'x, y, z')
Point
>
>
>
UUIDType = NewType(<<<, str)
UUIDType
> __main__.UUIDType
In many cases similar to namedtuple and NewType this is not enough. You
need to pass to the constructor not only name, but module
16.10.21 17:07, Erik Demaine пише:
> (*it for it in its) # tuple with the concatenation of iterables in 'its'
As others already have said, it should evaluate to a generator, not to a
tuple.
But other question is occurred now. Should it be equivalent to
def gen(its):
for it in its:
11 matches
Mail list logo
