Ok I see this is nothing for any 3.x release.
I imagine this now either ‚clean‘ for users with compatibility break or
just leave things as they are.
So, if at all, maybe something for Python 4 :)
Coincidence I watched yesterday Armin Ronachers talk related to seeing
compatibility as the holy cow -
On Sun, Apr 01, 2018 at 07:39:31AM +, Marius Räsener wrote:
> Ok I see this is nothing for any 3.x release.
[...]
> So, if at all, maybe something for Python 4 :)
No, that's the wrong conclusion to draw.
There are four options:
(1) Change the behaviour of triple-quoted strings, immediately a
On 1 April 2018 at 02:58, Jeroen Demeyer wrote:
> On 2018-03-31 18:09, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
>> Seems to me that if you want a fast, exact (no subclasses) check, you
>> should use "type(obj) is Class" rather than isinstance. If the *only*
>> reason to prohibit subclassing is to make isinstance a
On 3/31/2018 9:48 PM, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
On Sun, Apr 01, 2018 at 02:20:16AM +0100, Rob Cliffe via Python-ideas wrote:
New unordered 'd' and 'D' prefixes, for 'dedent', applied to multiline
strings only, would multiply the number of alternatives by about 5 and
would require another rewrite o
On Sun, Apr 1, 2018 at 7:11 PM, Eric V. Smith wrote:
> Interestingly, in 2.7 'ur' is a valid prefix, but not in 3.6. I don't recall
> if that was deliberate or not. And 'ru' isn't valid in either version.
I believe it was. The 'ur' string literal in Py2 was a bizarre hybrid
of raw-but-allowing-Un
On 1 April 2018 at 19:24, Chris Angelico wrote:
> Since the entire point of the Py3 u"..." prefix is compatibility with
> Py2, the semantics have to be retained. There's no point supporting
> ur"..." in Py3 if it's not going to produce the same result as in Py2.
Right, "ur" strings were originall
A "d" prefix to do textwrap.dedent is something I wished for a long time.
It's like the "f" one: we already can do it, be hell is it convenient to
have a shortcut.
This is especially if, like me, you take a lot of care in the error
messages you give to the user. I write a LOT of them, very long,
On 4/1/18 5:11 AM, Eric V. Smith wrote:
> On 3/31/2018 9:48 PM, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
>> On Sun, Apr 01, 2018 at 02:20:16AM +0100, Rob Cliffe via Python-ideas
>> wrote:
>>
New unordered 'd' and 'D' prefixes, for 'dedent', applied to multiline
strings only, would multiply the number of al
Hi,
On 03/31/2018 09:47 PM, Terry Reedy wrote:
> With no padding, I would not argue with someone who prefers
> textwrap.dedent, but dedent cannot add the leading space.
Couldn't one use use the 'indent' method on the 'textwrap' module for
that purpose?
Thanks,
--francis
_
On Sun, Apr 01, 2018 at 08:08:41AM -0400, Richard Damon wrote:
> One comment about the 'combitorial explosion' is that it sort of assumes
> that each individual combination case needs to be handled with distinct
> code.
No -- as I said in an earlier post, Terry and I (and Eric) are talking
about
On 03/26/2018 10:35 AM, Roberto Martínez wrote:
> Hi,
>
> sometimes I need to use contextlib.close but over methods with a different
> name, for example stop(), halt(), etc. For those cases I have to write my
> own contextlib.close specialized version with a hard-coded method name.
>
> I think
On Sun, Apr 1, 2018 at 10:36 PM, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
> And that *mental complexity* is (in my opinion) the biggest issue with
> adding a new d-prefix, and why I would rather make it a method.
>
> Another big advantage of a method is that we can apply it to
> non-literals too.
I'd like to expan
On 4/1/2018 8:55 AM, Chris Angelico wrote:
On Sun, Apr 1, 2018 at 10:36 PM, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
And that *mental complexity* is (in my opinion) the biggest issue with
adding a new d-prefix, and why I would rather make it a method.
Another big advantage of a method is that we can apply it to
On 4/1/2018 8:36 AM, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
On Sun, Apr 01, 2018 at 08:08:41AM -0400, Richard Damon wrote:
One comment about the 'combinatorial explosion' is that it sort of assumes
that each individual combination case needs to be handled with distinct
code.
No -- as I said in an earlier po
Hey again,
Thx all for the active discussion.
Since I‘m the OP and though want to make clear that I didn‘t had a `d`
string literal in mind.
So the Idea was to support this just as default, with any more effords to
support it I don‘t see a real advantage or that I‘d think it is ‚solved‘.
So I‘m
On 4/1/18 8:36 AM, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 01, 2018 at 08:08:41AM -0400, Richard Damon wrote:
>
>> One comment about the 'combitorial explosion' is that it sort of assumes
>> that each individual combination case needs to be handled with distinct
>> code.
> No -- as I said in an earlie
On Mon, Apr 2, 2018 at 5:25 AM, Marius Räsener wrote:
> Actually I‘d rather like to see Python develop backwards and remove string
> literals and not getting even more ... so maybe just `r` and `b`?
Yeah, that's not gonna happen :)
ChrisA
___
Python-id
On 2018-04-01 05:36, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
On Sun, Apr 01, 2018 at 08:08:41AM -0400, Richard Damon wrote:
One comment about the 'combitorial explosion' is that it sort of assumes
that each individual combination case needs to be handled with distinct
code.
No -- as I said in an earlier post,
On 4/1/18 4:31 PM, Brendan Barnwell wrote:
> On 2018-04-01 05:36, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
>> On Sun, Apr 01, 2018 at 08:08:41AM -0400, Richard Damon wrote:
>>
>>> One comment about the 'combitorial explosion' is that it sort of
>>> assumes
>>> that each individual combination case needs to be handle
On Mon, Mar 26, 2018 at 10:35 AM, Roberto Martínez <
robertomartin...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> sometimes I need to use contextlib.close but over methods with a different
> name, for example stop(), halt(), etc. For those cases I have to write my
> own contextlib.close specialized version with a
On 2018-04-01 20:10, Terry Reedy wrote:
On 4/1/2018 8:36 AM, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
On Sun, Apr 01, 2018 at 08:08:41AM -0400, Richard Damon wrote:
One comment about the 'combinatorial explosion' is that it sort of assumes
that each individual combination case needs to be handled with distinct
On 2018-04-01 05:36, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
You are right that many of the prefixes can be handled by the same code:
rfd rfD rFd rFD rdf rdF rDf rDF
Rfd RfD RFd RFD Rdf RdF RDf RDF
frd frD fRd fRD fdr fdR fDr fDR
Frd FrD FRd FRD Fdr FdR FDr FDR
drf drF dRf dRF dfr dfR d
22 matches
Mail list logo
