Steven D'Aprano writes:
> In other words, ² behaves as a unary postfix operator that squares
> its argument. Likewise for ³, etc. You can even combine them: x³³
> would be the same as x**33. There's more here:
I hope that's configurable. I use superscripts to indicate an index
as often as I u
Chris Barker writes:
> pretty slick -- but any hope of it being as fast as a C implemented method?
I would expect not in CPython, but if "fast" matters, why are you
using CPython rather than PyPy or Cython? If it matters *that* much,
you can afford to write your own C implementation. But I dou
Hi Folks,
We have released PythonQL, a query language extension to Python (we have
extended Python’s comprehensions with a full-fledged query language,
drawing from the useful features of SQL, XQuery and JSONiq). Take a look at the
project here: http://www.pythonql.org and lets us know what yo
On 1 November 2016 at 08:33, Pavel Velikhov wrote:
> We have released PythonQL, a query language extension to Python (we have
> extended Python’s comprehensions with a full-fledged query language,
> drawing from the useful features of SQL, XQuery and JSONiq). Take a look at
> the project here:
On 1 November 2016 at 01:51, Mark E. Haase wrote:
> Stephen J. Turnbull wrote:
>>
>> I gather you think you have a deadlock here. The way to break it is
>> to just do it. Pick a syntax and do the rewriting. My memory of some
>> past instances is that many of the senior devs (especially Guido) w
On 1 November 2016 at 10:11, Nick Coghlan wrote:
>
> I do think it would be worth covering the symbol+keyword option
> discussed in PEP 531 (i.e. "?else" instead of "??", but keeping "?.",
> and "?[")
FWIW, I'm not keen on it.
As a technical question, would it be treated in the syntax as a
keywo
On 1 November 2016 at 20:28, Paul Moore wrote:
> On 1 November 2016 at 10:11, Nick Coghlan wrote:
>>
>> I do think it would be worth covering the symbol+keyword option
>> discussed in PEP 531 (i.e. "?else" instead of "??", but keeping "?.",
>> and "?[")
>
> FWIW, I'm not keen on it.
>
> As a tech
I personally find the ?keyword pattern has less appeal than ?, ?? or ?. .
On Tue, Nov 1, 2016 at 4:02 AM, Nick Coghlan wrote:
> On 1 November 2016 at 20:28, Paul Moore wrote:
> > On 1 November 2016 at 10:11, Nick Coghlan wrote:
> >>
> >> I do think it would be worth covering the symbol+keyword
Cool!
https://github.com/pythonql/pythonql/wiki/PythonQL-Intro-and-Tutorial
How do I determine how much computation is pushed to the data? (Instead of
pulling all the data and running the computation with one local node) ...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bulk_synchronous_parallel (MapReduce,)
-
Hi Wes!
Right now we don’t push anything yet, we fetch everything into the Python’s
runtime.
But going forward the current idea is to push as much computation to the
database as
possible (most of the time the database will do a better job then our engine).
If we run on top PySpark/Hadoop I t
On Tuesday, November 1, 2016, Pavel Velikhov
wrote:
> Hi Wes!
>
> Right now we don’t push anything yet, we fetch everything into the
> Python’s runtime.
> But going forward the current idea is to push as much computation to the
> database as
> possible (most of the time the database will do a b
On 2016-11-01 07:10, Stephen J. Turnbull wrote:
Steven D'Aprano writes:
> In other words, ² behaves as a unary postfix operator that squares
> its argument. Likewise for ³, etc. You can even combine them: x³³
> would be the same as x**33. There's more here:
I hope that's configurable. I use
How do you see this as different from Blaze (
http://blaze.readthedocs.io/en/latest/index.html)?
A
On Nov 1, 2016 1:34 AM, "Pavel Velikhov" wrote:
> Hi Folks,
>
> We have released PythonQL, a query language extension to Python (we have
> extended Python’s comprehensions with a full-fledged que
Hi David!
I haven’t used blaze, but its looks quite similar to pandas, at least
conceptually. Thanks for
the reference!
The big difference with PythonQL is that we actually extend the syntax of
Python with a few
constructs that are typically used in query languages (group by, order by,
win
On Mon, Oct 31, 2016 at 05:44:07PM -0400, Random832 wrote:
> Right now, foo.bar.baz(bletch) is Call(Attribute(Attribute(Name('foo'),
> 'bar'), 'baz'), [Name('bletch')])), which is identical to
> (foo.bar).baz(bletch) or (foo.bar.baz)(bletch). These are treated,
> essentially, as postfix operators,
MRAB writes:
> That's a strange thing to do. It's more usual to use a _subscript_ to
> indicate an index: a₃ vs a³
Oh, we economic theorists do that too. It's typically a
double-indexed array of parameters, where both rows and columns can be
meaningfully be treated as vectors. So a₃ is the v
On Wed, Nov 2, 2016 at 11:09 AM, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
> I don't know when I would ever want to actually do this in practice, but
> allowing the ?. operator to magically effect code outside of the
> parentheses definitely counts as "spooky action at a distance". Guido's
> rule of "everything to t
Geez.
--Guido (mobile)
On Nov 1, 2016 8:10 PM, "Chris Angelico" wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 2, 2016 at 11:09 AM, Steven D'Aprano
> wrote:
> > I don't know when I would ever want to actually do this in practice, but
> > allowing the ?. operator to magically effect code outside of the
> > parentheses d
18 matches
Mail list logo
