On Sep 9, 2019, at 17:43, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
>
> But for me, I am not comfortable with this style and
> would not use it because I have seen far too many people (including
> myself) waste too much time farting about fixing formatting and
> alignment issues instead of doing productive work.
On Sat, Sep 07, 2019 at 08:22:58PM +0100, Rob Cliffe via Python-ideas wrote:
> in which of the following is it easier to spot the mistake?
>
> # Version 1:
> if max_results > 0: querydata['max_results'] = max_results
> if active is not None : querydata['active'] = active
>
On 08/09/2019 19:34:33, Chris Angelico wrote:
On Mon, Sep 9, 2019 at 4:13 AM Rob Cliffe via Python-ideas
wrote:
On 07/09/2019 18:59:49, Chris Angelico wrote:
On Sat, Sep 7, 2019 at 11:27 PM Rob Cliffe via Python-ideas
wrote:
A chance for me to bang the drum on one of my pet themes:
Someti
On Sep 8, 2019, at 11:34, Chris Angelico wrote:
>
> You're right that the triple repeated name is not caused by your
> style. However, your suggestion also doesn't solve it. What I'd
> probably want to do, here, is build the dictionary with everything,
> and then have a separate pass that removes
On Mon, Sep 9, 2019 at 4:13 AM Rob Cliffe via Python-ideas
wrote:
>
> On 07/09/2019 18:59:49, Chris Angelico wrote:
> > On Sat, Sep 7, 2019 at 11:27 PM Rob Cliffe via Python-ideas
> > wrote:
> >> A chance for me to bang the drum on one of my pet themes:
> >> Sometimes the readability of code is i
On 07/09/2019 18:59:49, Chris Angelico wrote:
On Sat, Sep 7, 2019 at 11:27 PM Rob Cliffe via Python-ideas
wrote:
A chance for me to bang the drum on one of my pet themes:
Sometimes the readability of code is improved by breaking the sacred
taboo of 1 statement per line, if it allows similar c
On Sat, Sep 7, 2019 at 11:27 PM Rob Cliffe via Python-ideas
wrote:
> A chance for me to bang the drum on one of my pet themes:
> Sometimes the readability of code is improved by breaking the sacred
> taboo of 1 statement per line, if it allows similar constructs to be
> vertically aligned:
>
>
On Sat, 7 Sep 2019 at 01:24, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
> On Sat, Sep 07, 2019 at 12:35:09AM -0300, Joao S. O. Bueno wrote:
>
> > Well - the idea showed up here, and got an immediate "that is nice, let's
> > do it" from you, followed by approval from a lot more people, and
> > very little controverse
On 04/09/2019 23:25:32, r...@hwyl.org wrote:
Hi list
I have a proposal for a minor (improvement?) to dict declarations.
I find a common requirement I have is to include one or more entries in a dict
only if some condition is met. Currently, the usual way of doing that is to add
one or more
On Sat, Sep 07, 2019 at 12:35:09AM -0300, Joao S. O. Bueno wrote:
> Well - the idea showed up here, and got an immediate "that is nice, let's
> do it" from you, followed by approval from a lot more people, and
> very little controverse. So, it is pretty much "approved", even if not yet
> detailed
On Fri, 6 Sep 2019 at 01:54, Guido van Rossum wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 5, 2019 at 8:37 PM Joao S. O. Bueno
> wrote:
>
>> Also, if one have in mind that dict addition with the `+` operator had
>> been
>> recelently approved
>>
>
> Where did you hear this? I am not aware that this was even made into a
On Friday, September 6, 2019, 11:22:08 AM PDT, Rich Smith
wrote:
> On Thu, 5 Sep 2019 at 16:51, Andrew Barnert wrote:
>> You say here “the dict insertion code” does it. Would they mean
>> d[key]=d.skip doesn’t insert anything? > Yes.
OK, then I go from +0 on your proposal to -1.
Constructing d
On Thu, 5 Sep 2019 at 16:51, Andrew Barnert wrote:
>
> You say here “the dict insertion code” does it. Would they mean
> d[key]=d.skip doesn’t insert anything?
Yes.
If so, then how could I put skip in a dict at all?
The intention is that you couldn't. This could raise some implementation
iss
Just to be clear, PEP 584 (dictionary operators) is currently in draft form and
is undergoing a new round of revisions. Nothing has been finalized, much less
approved.
Brandt
___
Python-ideas mailing list -- python-ideas@python.org
To unsubscribe send
On Thu, Sep 5, 2019 at 8:37 PM Joao S. O. Bueno
wrote:
> Also, if one have in mind that dict addition with the `+` operator had been
> recelently approved
>
Where did you hear this? I am not aware that this was even made into a PEP
let alone that such a PEP was approved.
--
--Guido van Rossum
Also, if one have in mind that dict addition with the `+` operator had been
recelently approved, as of Python 3.9 it will be ok to write:
```
return ({
'user_id': user_id,} +
({'max_results': max_results} if max_results else {}) +
({'active': active} if active is not None
> On Sep 5, 2019, at 07:46, Sebastian Kreft wrote:
>
> How is this different to the discussion
> https://mail.python.org/archives/list/python-ideas@python.org/thread/MFSL3U6V74PZN4AT4JFQMQXSMGOJ6F27/#MFSL3U6V74PZN4AT4JFQMQXSMGOJ6F27
> ?
Well, that discussion started with an unworkable proposal
Also worth noting is that dict.skip would live in dict.__dict__... which is a
dict.
Brandt
> On Sep 5, 2019, at 08:51, Andrew Barnert via Python-ideas
> wrote:
>
>> On Sep 4, 2019, at 15:25, r...@hwyl.org wrote:
>>
>> ..."skip" being a unique object defined in and accessible from dict (there
On Sep 4, 2019, at 15:25, r...@hwyl.org wrote:
>
> ..."skip" being a unique object defined in and accessible from dict (there
> may be better places to make it available). The dict insertion code then
> simply ignores those entries when creating the dict.
I’m a bit confused about exactly when t
How is this different to the discussion
https://mail.python.org/archives/list/python-ideas@python.org/thread/MFSL3U6V74PZN4AT4JFQMQXSMGOJ6F27/#MFSL3U6V74PZN4AT4JFQMQXSMGOJ6F27
?
On Thu, Sep 5, 2019 at 9:24 AM wrote:
> Okie, looks like my code got munched in the web view -- how do I make
> i
Okie, looks like my code got munched in the web view -- how do I make it
not do that?
___
Python-ideas mailing list -- python-ideas@python.org
To unsubscribe send an email to python-ideas-le...@python.org
https://mail.python.org/mailman3/lists/python
I thought of something similar, but where the dict-literal construction is
desired:
>>> foo = True
>>> bar = False
>>> baz = False
>>> d = {
... 'foo' if foo else None: 1,
... 'bar' if bar else None: 2,
... 'baz' if baz else None: 3,
... }
>>> d
{'foo': 1, None: 3}
>>> d.pop(None)
3
>>> d
{
I was thinking more in this direction:
d = dict()
d[action in not None and 'action'] = action
d[minval > 0 and 'minval'] = minval
...
del d[False]
There are few things I do not particularly like about this (assigning to
dict, even when value is discarded later, or necessity of the del
d[False]),
On Thu, 5 Sep 2019 at 11:19, wrote:
> I find a common requirement I have is to include one or more entries in a
> dict only if some condition is met. Currently, the usual way of doing that is
> to add one or more if statements.
>
> Simple (but hopefully relatable-to-real-world-code) example.
[..
24 matches
Mail list logo
