Andrew Barnert wrote:
> On Jul 14, 2019, at 13:46, Nima Hamidi ham...@stanford.edu... wrote:
> > Andrew Barnert wrote:
> > But in your proposal, wouldn’t this have to be
> > written as dt[price <
> > 1]? I think the cost of putting the expression in ticks is at least
Andrew Barnert wrote:
> (Re-sending, because this was originally a reply to an off-list message by
> Nima
> Hamidi)
> On Jul 13, 2019, at 14:12, Nima Hamidi ham...@stanford.edu... wrote:
> >
> > Sometimes it's necessary not to evaluate the expression. Two such
Thank you very much for your feedback!
I'm convinced that backtick is a bad choice for doing this. What about
something like q"x"? It resembles other python syntaxes like b"x" or f"x".
___
Python-ideas mailing list -- python-ideas@python.org
To unsubscr
ly a reply to an off-list message
> by Nima Hamidi)
>
> On Jul 13, 2019, at 14:12, Nima Hamidi
> <mailto:ham...@stanford.edu>> wrote:
>>
>> Sometimes it's necessary not to evaluate the expression. Two such
>> applications
ds, f() %>% g() is equivalent to g(f()). This is pretty useful for long
pipelines. The way that it works is that the operator %>% changes AST and then
evaluates the modified expression. In this example, evaluating g() is
undesirable.
From: Andrew Barnert
Date: Saturday, July 13, 2019 at 4
Hello all,
I would like to briefly share my thoughts on non-standard evaluation (NSE),
why this is useful, and how, potentially, it can be added to Python. In
most languages, functions have access only to the *value* of their
arguments, and not to the expressions that yielded those values. Howeve
