> It's much simpler to rename April 1 to February 29.
That will create a gap of one 1 day beetween shity regular callendar and
our new one for 2 month.
An algorithm distributing leap seconds near 1 first april, is maybe more
complicated but reduce side effect with the world.
__
Greg Ewing writes:
> In light of that, I propose that the datetime module in Python 4
> be changed so that April 1 does not exist:
>
> >>> m31 = date(2019, 3, 31)
> >>> m31 + timedelta(days = 1)
> datetime.date(2019, 4, 2)
>
> This would remove a large amount of confusion from the worl
On Tue, Apr 2, 2019 at 9:34 AM Jonathan Goble wrote:
>
> On Mon, Apr 1, 2019 at 6:12 PM Greg Ewing wrote:
>>
>> Obviously, removing a whole day from the year will create problems
>> keeping the calendar in step with the seasons. To compensate, it
>> will be necessary to add approximately 1.25 day
On Mon, Apr 1, 2019 at 6:12 PM Greg Ewing
wrote:
> Obviously, removing a whole day from the year will create problems
> keeping the calendar in step with the seasons. To compensate, it
> will be necessary to add approximately 1.25 days worth of leap
> seconds to each year. This works out to about
On 02Apr2019 10:43, Greg Ewing wrote:
Paul Moore wrote:
now that Python has type
inference, it should be possible for users to just type {} and have
the interpreter work out which was intended from context.
Or have {} return an ambiguous object that turns into a dict or
set depending on what
Anders Hovmöller wrote:
Please let's all agree that April 1 is the worst day of the year.
Agreed.
In light of that, I propose that the datetime module in Python 4
be changed so that April 1 does not exist:
>>> m31 = date(2019, 3, 31)
>>> m31 + timedelta(days = 1)
datetime.date(2019, 4, 2)
Th
Paul Moore wrote:
now that Python has type
inference, it should be possible for users to just type {} and have
the interpreter work out which was intended from context.
Or have {} return an ambiguous object that turns into a dict or
set depending on what is done to it.
We could call it a quict
On 4/1/19 11:35 AM, Anders Hovmöller wrote:
Please let's all agree that April 1 is the worst day of the year.
I can't reproduce your problem. What version of Python are
you running, and on what OS?
Please show us your program, and tell us what you expected it
to do and what it did that failed
Am I being fooled ? I guess yes
That’s the worst idea I ever heard. Python is supposed to be easy to use,
don’t change it into Rust !
On Mon 1 Apr 2019 at 22:06, Jelle Zijlstra wrote:
>
>
> El lun., 1 abr. 2019 a las 7:28, Antoine Pietri (<
> [email protected]>) escribió:
>
>> While the
El lun., 1 abr. 2019 a las 7:28, Antoine Pietri ()
escribió:
> While the switch to Python 3 did an excellent job in removing some of
> the old inconsistencies we had in the language, pretty much everyone
> agrees that some other backwards-incompatible changes could be made to
> remove some old war
On 2019-04-01 19:33, Paul Moore wrote:
On Mon, 1 Apr 2019 at 16:36, Anders Hovmöller wrote:
Please let's all agree that April 1 is the worst day of the year.
Maybe in Python 4, datetime.datetime should silently convert 1st April
to the 2nd? :-P
Converting silently is not Pythonic. It shoul
On Mon, 1 Apr 2019 at 16:36, Anders Hovmöller wrote:
>
> Please let's all agree that April 1 is the worst day of the year.
Maybe in Python 4, datetime.datetime should silently convert 1st April
to the 2nd? :-P
Paul
___
Python-ideas mailing list
Python-
Please let's all agree that April 1 is the worst day of the year.
> On 1 Apr 2019, at 16:27, Antoine Pietri wrote:
>
> While the switch to Python 3 did an excellent job in removing some of
> the old inconsistencies we had in the language, pretty much everyone
> agrees that some other backwards-
On Mon, 1 Apr 2019 at 15:59, Todd wrote:
> Currently there is no empty set literal. This is a hold-over from when there
> were no sets. Now would be a good opportunity to add one. I suggest {}
> become an empty set and {:} be an empty dict.
There should be no need for two styles - now that
On Mon, Apr 1, 2019, 10:28 Antoine Pietri
wrote:
> While the switch to Python 3 did an excellent job in removing some of
> the old inconsistencies we had in the language, pretty much everyone
> agrees that some other backwards-incompatible changes could be made to
> remove some old warts and bri
On Mon, Apr 1, 2019 at 7:50 AM Antoine Pitrou wrote:
>
> And 01 / 04 / 2019 should return a April 1st datetime.
>
> (except in the US, of course)
>
Where it would of course be I / / MMXV, unless you have ISO-8601
set in which case it would be MMXV - - I
On Mon, 1 Apr 2019 10:41:40 -0400
Dan Sommers
<[email protected]>
wrote:
> On 4/1/19 10:27 AM, Antoine Pietri wrote:
>
> > - The / operator returns floats, which loses information when both of
> > the operands are integer. In Python 4, “1 / 2” should return a
> > decimal.Decimal.
On 4/1/19 10:27 AM, Antoine Pietri wrote:
- The / operator returns floats, which loses information when both of
the operands are integer. In Python 4, “1 / 2” should return a
decimal.Decimal. To ease the transition, we propose to add a new “from
__future__ import decimal_division” in Python 3.9
While the switch to Python 3 did an excellent job in removing some of
the old inconsistencies we had in the language, pretty much everyone
agrees that some other backwards-incompatible changes could be made to
remove some old warts and bring even more consistency to Python.
Since Python 4 is getti
19 matches
Mail list logo
