On 24/05/2020 19:01, David Mertz wrote:
The old images I find lack the '1', but not the '0'. What model was
this you had?
Sorry, no way I can remember that far back. I'm not even certain about
the missing 0.
On Sun, May 24, 2020 at 1:48 PM Rob Cliffe via Python-ideas
On 22/05/2020 13:28, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
On Thu, May 21, 2020 at 09:43:33AM -0400, Dan Sommers wrote:
I had a customer who was old enough to
use upper case letter O for zero and lower case letter l for 1 because
she was old enough to have learned to type before typewriters had number
Wouldn't it be better implemented on an editor as a display option instead of
changing python?
Because, as I understand, it's an issue of appearing nice on screen,
rather than storing (and parsing) `'\u2192'` as an alias to `'->'` on type
hints.
It *would* look nice, though
On 5/23/2020 8:52 AM, Stephen J. Turnbull wrote:
> Executive summary:
>
> I'd like to make three points.
>
> 1. Accessibility matters, and I think this change would be
> inaccessible to users of screen readers.
> 2. Yes, a variety of tools imposes a burden, but also confers
> benefits.
>
Executive summary:
I'd like to make three points.
1. Accessibility matters, and I think this change would be
inaccessible to users of screen readers.
2. Yes, a variety of tools imposes a burden, but also confers
benefits.
3. There's no such thing as "pretty source code." There are
On 22/05/2020 20:40, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
Imagine the confusion if somebody had variables spam, Spam, sPAM, SPam,
sPAm. Or worse, SPΑM, SPАM and SPAM.
Randall is way ahead of you. https://xkcd.com/2309/
:-)
--
Rhodri James *-* Kynesim Ltd
___
On Thu, May 21, 2020 at 06:48:55PM +0300, Serhiy Storchaka wrote:
> 21.05.20 16:45, Alex Hall пише:
> >≥ instead of >= might be an improvement because that's a
> >symbol learned in school, but ultimately the student still needs to
> >learn what `>=` means as it will be used most of the time.
>
On 22/05/2020 18:21, Mike Miller wrote:
More importantly, does it help readability? I think it does, however
not strongly. I'm perhaps +0.5 on a few of these characters. Word
processors do upgrades to hyphens, for example, to make the resulting
doc more readable. Is that kind of thing
On 2020-05-22 05:57, Joao S. O. Bueno wrote:
render . However, that does not mean it will render ok
as a single-cell character in a mono-spaced font - as the
character "east asian width" property is marked as "A" (Ambiguous),
Yes, though I'm sure no one is seriously proposing using wide, or
On Fri, May 22, 2020 at 11:21 AM David Mertz wrote:
> The main point of this, is that the code is still just plain ASCII, it
> just happens to look "fancier." It requires no plugins, and it does not
> require a JetBrains IDE or editor. I haven't tried every editor, but I
> believe that most
As is... my editor looks like this. I don't type all those special things,
except once in a configuration file. But the "prettification" is handled
transparently when I type some ASCII sequences.
[image: Python-arrow.png]
> that’s nice ! it’s a real shame though, and a bit of a waste
On Fri, May 22, 2020 at 11:02 PM Joao S. O. Bueno wrote:
> I am recording a video series trying to present Python programing to
> absolute beginners - and to keep things timely, the ambiguity between
> two valid quote types is already a _pain_ - which I simply try to avoid
> by making consistent
On Friday, May 22, 2020, at 8:28, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
> On Thu, May 21, 2020 at 09:43:33AM -0400, Dan Sommers wrote:
>
>> I had a customer who was old enough to
>> use upper case letter O for zero and lower case letter l for 1 because
>> she was old enough to have learned to type before
On Thu, 21 May 2020 at 18:15, Mike Miller wrote:
>
>
> On 2020-05-21 05:48, Joao S. O. Bueno wrote:
> > Input _is_ hard or rare. Deal with it.
> > Even the font is not uniformily configured across systems, and a glyph one
> > does see here may not show properly on the terminal, or other
>
>
>
On Thu, May 21, 2020 at 09:43:33AM -0400, Dan Sommers wrote:
> I had a customer who was old enough to
> use upper case letter O for zero and lower case letter l for 1 because
> she was old enough to have learned to type before typewriters had number
> keys; that made a real mess of sorting street
>
> I believe I speak for a significant majority of professional programmers
> when I say that eye-candy like this adds no value to the language for me.
> It gives me no new capabilities, I don't see it making me more productive,
> and we have syntax that works quite well already.
>
This speaks
On 5/21/2020 5:51 PM, Thierry Parmentelat wrote:
>>
>>
>> Python-arrow.png
>
> that’s nice ! it’s a real shame though, and a bit of a waste honestly, that
> everybody needs to cook their own brew of an editor to get there
> and primarily all I’m trying to say is that, one day, this will be a
On Thu, May 21, 2020 at 04:04:20PM +0200, Thierry Parmentelat wrote:
> for all the rest, I am sorry, all the arguments about people having
> trouble inputing those characters are not relevant, it’s not as if
> using unicode characters was mandatory
If we still have to come up with a good
On Thu, May 21, 2020, 5:51 PM Thierry Parmentelat <
thierry.parmente...@inria.fr> wrote:
> You are SERIOUSLY suggesting that typing 'Ctrl-Shift-U 2 1 9 2 ' is
> easier for me than typing '->' as I do now!?
>
> that’s not how I’d do it; and I dont think I said or suggested anything to
> that
> On 21 May 2020, at 23:03, David Mertz wrote:
>
> You are SERIOUSLY suggesting that typing 'Ctrl-Shift-U 2 1 9 2 ' is
> easier for me than typing '->' as I do now!?
that’s not how I’d do it; and I dont think I said or suggested anything to that
effect
> And it remains easier if I use a
On 21/05/2020 22:11, Mike Miller wrote:
The only thing I've seen recently that doesn't is the Linux console,
which I use rarely for admin tasks. (Oddly enough, it does handle right
arrow properly.)
Guess what I use. In conjunction with Emacs, of course :-/
--
Rhodri James *-* Kynesim Ltd
On 2020-05-21 05:48, Joao S. O. Bueno wrote:
Input _is_ hard or rare. Deal with it.
Even the font is not uniformily configured across systems, and a glyph one
does see here may not show properly on the terminal, or other
Maybe long ago. My terminals support even color emoji, have for
You are SERIOUSLY suggesting that typing 'Ctrl-Shift-U 2 1 9 2 ' is
easier for me than typing '->' as I do now!?
And it remains easier if I use a different computer where I have to figure
out or remember some different way of getting the Unicode code point into
the editor?
The goal of this being
On 2020-05-20 14:56, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
Not everyone is programming in a GUI environment all the time
Well, I gave a number of examples to show there are many ways to do it. Not
every example will work well for everyone. The best that works for your
platform and tools should be
On Thursday, May 21, 2020 1:14 PM MRAB [mailto:pyt...@mrabarnett.plus.com] wrote
> On 2020-05-21 16:48, Serhiy Storchaka wrote:
> > 21.05.20 16:45, Alex Hall пише:
> >> ≥ instead of >= might be an improvement because that's a
> >> symbol learned in school, but ultimately the student still needs to
On 2020-05-21 16:48, Serhiy Storchaka wrote:
21.05.20 16:45, Alex Hall пише:
≥ instead of >= might be an improvement because that's a
symbol learned in school, but ultimately the student still needs to
learn what `>=` means as it will be used most of the time.
But in my school I learned ⩾,
21.05.20 16:45, Alex Hall пише:
≥ instead of >= might be an improvement because that's a
symbol learned in school, but ultimately the student still needs to
learn what `>=` means as it will be used most of the time.
But in my school I learned ⩾, not ≥. It was used in USSR and I believe
in
On Thu, May 21, 2020 at 4:36 PM Thierry Parmentelat <
thierry.parmente...@inria.fr> wrote:
> > Again, if I saw a unicode arrow used as syntax on GitHub or something in
> the wild right now, I would think it's an error, which incidentally would
> be correct. Wouldn't you?
>
> yes, like I would
On Thursday, May 21, 2020 9:20 AM Joao S. O. Bueno
[mailto:jsbu...@python.org.br] wrote
> On Thu, 21 May 2020 at 10:06, Thierry Parmentelat
> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > > On 21 May 2020, at 14:48, Joao S. O. Bueno wrote:
> > >
> > > (I had a coleague once which did
> > > set a special VIM config
> On 21 May 2020, at 16:18, Alex Hall wrote:
>
> What I mean is that they would only have seen ASCII symbols used for Python
> syntax i.e. not counting the contents of strings.
and identifiers
> Currently that's the experience of 100% of all Python coders. That percentage
> will drop a
Hello,
On Thu, 21 May 2020 13:26:32 +0200
Thierry Parmentelat wrote:
[]
> Do we want to get stuck in the 20th century just because everything
> is not yet perfect in a non-purely ASCII world ?
Short answer: yes. Long answer: ASCII was defined in 1963 and hasn't
won over yet, e.g. EBCDIC is
On 21/05/2020 15:29, Thierry Parmentelat wrote:
On 21/05/2020 15:09, Thierry Parmentelat wrote:
clearly the experienced Python programmers are not the main target here
our 7-year old schoolboys are used to typing é's and ç and ü’s and À’s, and
this is Europe, not China, so...
You say that,
> On 21/05/2020 15:09, Thierry Parmentelat wrote:
>> clearly the experienced Python programmers are not the main target here
>> our 7-year old schoolboys are used to typing é's and ç and ü’s and À’s, and
>> this is Europe, not China, so...
>
> You say that, but it is a source of endless
On Thu, May 21, 2020 at 4:09 PM Thierry Parmentelat <
thierry.parmente...@inria.fr> wrote:
>
>
> > On 21 May 2020, at 15:45, Alex Hall wrote:
> >
> > Many (probably most) people are going to come across a unicode symbol
> having previously only encountered ASCII symbols and probably thinking
On 21/05/2020 15:09, Thierry Parmentelat wrote:
clearly the experienced Python programmers are not the main target here
our 7-year old schoolboys are used to typing é's and ç and ü’s and À’s, and
this is Europe, not China, so...
You say that, but it is a source of endless annoyance to me that
> On 21 May 2020, at 15:45, Alex Hall wrote:
>
> Many (probably most) people are going to come across a unicode symbol having
> previously only encountered ASCII symbols and probably thinking that was the
> only option. That includes all currently experienced Python programmers who
> aren't
> On 21 May 2020, at 15:19, Joao S. O. Bueno wrote:
>
> That is, if you answered the question about
> which right arrow to use, asked above)
that’s an easy one, see the OP
In [1]: print("\u2192”)
→
for all the rest, I am sorry, all the arguments about people having trouble
inputing those
On Wed, May 20, 2020 at 8:36 AM Thierry Parmentelat <
thierry.parmente...@inria.fr> wrote:
> Plus, it’s not only IDE’s, I’m prominently concerned by beginners and
> students, who start reading code on sources like github, or teaching
> websites, or notebooks; one cannot expect all these stacks to
On Thursday, May 21, 2020, at 8:48, Joao S. O. Bueno wrote:
> On Wed, 20 May 2020 at 17:17, Mike Miller wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 2020-05-20 00:44, Chris Angelico wrote:
>> > If you think that a keyboard with fancy arrows on it will take off any
>> > quicker, you're extremely hopeful.
>>
>> While I'm
On Thu, 21 May 2020 at 10:06, Thierry Parmentelat
wrote:
>
>
>
> > On 21 May 2020, at 14:48, Joao S. O. Bueno wrote:
> >
> > (I had a coleague once which did
> > set a special VIM config to display "!=" as
> > "[can't type, math 'different' sign from here]"
> > and even that was mostly a toy
> On 21 May 2020, at 14:48, Joao S. O. Bueno wrote:
>
> (I had a coleague once which did
> set a special VIM config to display "!=" as
> "[can't type, math 'different' sign from here]"
> and even that was mostly a toy than anything
> really useful.
I guess that is my point exactly: the main
On Wed, 20 May 2020 at 17:17, Mike Miller wrote:
>
>
> On 2020-05-20 00:44, Chris Angelico wrote:
> > If you think that a keyboard with fancy arrows on it will take off any
> > quicker, you're extremely hopeful.
>
> While I'm not sure how useful this is in the long run, the oft mentioned
>
> On 20 May 2020, at 23:56, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
>
>> I've been using Unicode everywhere for about a decade—it's time to retire
>> the argument that input is still hard or rare.
>
> I can sincerely say that I am very happy that your experience is so
> good, but I'm also exceedingly
On Wed, May 20, 2020 at 01:13:10PM -0700, Mike Miller wrote:
>
> On 2020-05-20 00:44, Chris Angelico wrote:
> >If you think that a keyboard with fancy arrows on it will take off any
> >quicker, you're extremely hopeful.
>
> While I'm not sure how useful this is in the long run, the oft mentioned
On Thu, May 21, 2020 at 01:58:29AM +1000, Chris Angelico wrote:
> On Thu, May 21, 2020 at 1:48 AM Ethan Furman wrote:
> > > If you think that a keyboard with fancy arrows on it will take off any
> > > quicker, you're extremely hopeful.
> >
> > I wouldn't be surprised if it did, although a
On 2020-05-20 00:44, Chris Angelico wrote:
If you think that a keyboard with fancy arrows on it will take off any
quicker, you're extremely hopeful.
While I'm not sure how useful this is in the long run, the oft mentioned
drawback of "hard to type/view" Unicode chars isn't as insurmountable
On Thu, May 21, 2020 at 1:48 AM Ethan Furman wrote:
>
> On 05/20/2020 12:44 AM, Chris Angelico wrote:
> > On Wed, May 20, 2020 at 4:36 PM Thierry Parmentelat wrote:
>
> >> I also reckon it is still cumbersome to simply enter Unicode characters
> >> from a keyboard sometimes; I guess if the big
On 05/20/2020 12:44 AM, Chris Angelico wrote:
On Wed, May 20, 2020 at 4:36 PM Thierry Parmentelat wrote:
I also reckon it is still cumbersome to simply enter Unicode characters
from a keyboard sometimes; I guess if the big players were located in
other countries that would maybe be
17.05.20 13:47, Thierry Parmentelat пише:
well it’s all in the title
the specific character that I am referring to is this one
In [1]: print("\u2192”)
→
https://unicode-table.com/en/2192/
——
just curious about how people would feel about taking better advantage
of non-ascii characters when
On Wed, May 20, 2020 at 4:36 PM Thierry Parmentelat
wrote:
> I also reckon it is still cumbersome to simply enter Unicode characters from
> a keyboard sometimes; I guess if the big players were located in other
> countries that would maybe be different
> But that will change over time, no
> On 19 May 2020, at 20:27, Brett Cannon wrote:
>
> I'm going to ask that people please try to keep this thread on-topic to the
> question of using Unicode characters directly for things that we currently
> use two ASCII characters to represent. Other ideas that spring up from this
>
On Tue, May 19, 2020 at 11:31 AM Brett Cannon wrote:
> I'm going to ask that people please try to keep this thread on-topic to
> the question of using Unicode characters directly for things that we
> currently use two ASCII characters to represent.
>
Indeed -- and also: please refer to earlier
I'm going to ask that people please try to keep this thread on-topic to the
question of using Unicode characters directly for things that we currently
use two ASCII characters to represent. Other ideas that spring up from this
question are totally welcome to be done as new threads of discussion.
On 2020-05-18 02:25, Greg Ewing wrote:
On 18/05/20 1:59 am, Paul Sokolovsky wrote:
But even
{(int): str} is a better type annotation for a function than
Callable[[int], str].
I don't agree -- it looks more like some kind of dict type, and
would be better reserved for that purpose.
And if we
On 18/05/20 1:59 am, Paul Sokolovsky wrote:
But even
{(int): str} is a better type annotation for a function than
Callable[[int], str].
I don't agree -- it looks more like some kind of dict type, and
would be better reserved for that purpose.
And if we e.g. talk about making "->" a special
On Sun, 17 May 2020 at 15:45, Thierry Parmentelat <
thierry.parmente...@inria.fr> wrote:
>
>
> > On 17 May 2020, at 16:31, Bernardo Sulzbach <
> berna...@bernardosulzbach.com> wrote:
> >
> > I would like to comment that the graphical presentation, at least in
> IDEs/where the font can be
> Before this goes too a big shaky bikeshed over almost nothing, let me
> point out that if you're looking to improve something in type
> annotations, I would suggest to look for true ugliness there.
> Something like Callable[[Dict[str, int], Sequence[Foo]],
> Dict[PrimaryKey, List[int]]].
> On 17 May 2020, at 16:31, Bernardo Sulzbach
> wrote:
>
> I would like to comment that the graphical presentation, at least in
> IDEs/where the font can be controlled, can be achieved using fonts:
>
> Precisely. Nicer than the arrow symbol, it would be to type "-" + ">" and get
> an arrow
>
> I would like to comment that the graphical presentation, at least in
> IDEs/where the font can be controlled, can be achieved using fonts:
>
Precisely. Nicer than the arrow symbol, it would be to type "-" + ">" and
get an arrow visually. The same can be done about getting >= as a single
Hello,
On Sun, 17 May 2020 14:31:34 +0200
Alex Hall wrote:
[]
> If we consider the arrow, what about ≤ instead of <=, ≥ instead of
> >=, ≠ instead of !=, × instead of `*`, and math.π instead of math.pi?
Before this goes too a big shaky bikeshed over almost nothing, let me
point out that if
I would like to comment that the graphical presentation, at least in
IDEs/where the font can be controlled, can be achieved using fonts:
https://stackoverflow.com/questions/41774046/enabling-intellijs-fancy-%E2%89%A0-not-equal-to-operator
On Sun, 17 May 2020 at 13:26, Thierry Parmentelat <
> math.π instead of math.pi
That is already possible, just not done in the standard library, no? Your
point still stands, but it's rather different to your other examples, which
are actual changes to syntax.
With regards to the actual proposal, I quite like the idea of being able to
use them,
On Sun, May 17, 2020 at 2:24 PM Thierry Parmentelat <
thierry.parmente...@inria.fr> wrote:
> well it’s all in the title
>
> the specific character that I am referring to is this one
>
> In [1]: print("\u2192”)
> →
>
> https://unicode-table.com/en/2192/
>
> ——
>
> just curious about how people
63 matches
Mail list logo
