*de-lurks*
On Wed, Jun 26, 2019 at 1:21 AM Steven D'Aprano wrote:
>
> On Mon, Jun 24, 2019 at 12:37:48PM -0700, Andrew Barnert wrote:
>
> > And the one-time hassle of figuring out how to configure your MUA, or
> > even switching to a better one
>
> "Better" is subjective, and just because a
On Mon, Jun 24, 2019 at 12:37:48PM -0700, Andrew Barnert wrote:
> Since you bring up “feeble mail clients”:
>
> Good mail clients can be configured to collapse and expand quotes, and
> to automatically start long nested quotes collapsed.
Indeed you are correct, and my own mail client
On 24/06/2019 20:50, Jonathan Fine wrote:
I'm concerned that in this thread, and elsewhere, we're not paying
sufficient attention to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_load.
I was under the impression that most of the counter-arguments could be
rephrased as "this increases cognitive load
James Lu wrote:
I think
print("Remember to wear sunscreen!") if hot_outside unless Weather.is_raining()
Is more readable than
if hot_outside and not Weather.is_raining(): print("Remember to wear
sunscreen!")
That's very much a matter of opinion -- I find the second version
considerably
I'm concerned that in this thread, and elsewhere, we're not paying
sufficient attention to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_load.
Adding a feature to a system can increase the cognitive load in
learning the system, and it can also reduce the cognitive load in
using the system. Sometimes
On Jun 24, 2019, at 10:27, Dan Sommers <2qdxy4rzwzuui...@potatochowder.com>
wrote:
>
> On 6/24/19 12:32 PM, James Lu wrote:
>
> > I think
> >
> > print("Remember to wear sunscreen!") if hot_outside unless
> > Weather.is_raining()
> >
> > Is more readable than
> >
> > if hot_outside and not
On 6/24/19 12:32 PM, James Lu wrote:
> I think
>
> print("Remember to wear sunscreen!") if hot_outside unless
Weather.is_raining()
>
> Is more readable than
>
> if hot_outside and not Weather.is_raining(): print("Remember to wear
sunscreen!")
I disagree, but that's bound to happen in a
On 2019-06-24 17:32, James Lu wrote:
I think
print("Remember to wear sunscreen!") if hot_outside unless Weather.is_raining()
Is more readable than
if hot_outside and not Weather.is_raining(): print("Remember to wear
sunscreen!")
I think the unless syntax would be especially useful when
On Tue, Jun 25, 2019 at 3:01 AM James Lu wrote:
>
> I think
>
> print("Remember to wear sunscreen!") if hot_outside unless
> Weather.is_raining()
>
> Is more readable than
>
> if hot_outside and not Weather.is_raining(): print("Remember to wear
> sunscreen!")
>
> I think the unless syntax would
Folks,
Can I please remind people to trim their quoting? We readers shouldn't
have to hit the Page Down key eight or nine times, or scroll down
through five or six pages, to see the first new content.
(I have a rule: if I haven't reached new content after nine screens of
quoting, I give up
On 2019-06-24 09:23, Chris Angelico wrote:> On Mon, Jun 24, 2019 at 6:03
PM Andrew Barnert wrote:
>>
>> On Sunday, June 23, 2019, 10:13:07 PM PDT, Chris Angelico
wrote:
>>
>> > The biggest problem with this proposal is the way that, being a
>> > syntactic construct, it's going to be
On Mon, Jun 24, 2019 at 6:03 PM Andrew Barnert wrote:
>
> On Sunday, June 23, 2019, 10:13:07 PM PDT, Chris Angelico
> wrote:
>
> > The biggest problem with this proposal is the way that, being a
> > syntactic construct, it's going to be non-composable.
>
> > # Oops, syntax error
> > with
On Sunday, June 23, 2019, 10:13:07 PM PDT, Chris Angelico
wrote:
> The biggest problem with this proposal is the way that, being a
> syntactic construct, it's going to be non-composable.
> # Oops, syntax error
> with (some_expr as q,
> some_other_expr as w):> pass
I don't
On Mon, Jun 24, 2019 at 2:44 PM Andrew Barnert via Python-ideas
wrote:
> But dict displays, that could be confusing. Do you have to pass-value the
> key, or the value, or either of the two, or both consistently? If the key,
> does that short-circuit the value expression? So I think you’re
On Jun 23, 2019, at 19:57, MRAB wrote:
>
>> On 2019-06-24 02:43, Andrew Barnert wrote:
>> On Jun 23, 2019, at 13:33, MRAB wrote:
>>
>> > Finally, under "For consideration: alternative syntaxes", my offering
>> > would be:
>> > > expr if condition1 and not condition2 else pass
>>
>> This
On 2019-06-24 02:43, Andrew Barnert wrote:
On Jun 23, 2019, at 13:33, MRAB wrote:
> Finally, under "For consideration: alternative syntaxes", my offering would
be:
>
> expr if condition1 and not condition2 else pass
This seems a lot more tenable than the original proposal. The “unless”
> print([
> 3,
> if False never_called() unless False,
> if False never_called() unless False,
> 2,
> if True 5 unless False,
> 4
>]) # => [3, 2, 5, 4]
Do you mean this ?Currently what I use is the `*` operator on lists :
```
print([
3,
]
+
17 matches
Mail list logo
