Are you all REALY=LU proposing more operators?
Adding @ made sense because there was an important use case for which there
was no existing operator to use.
But in this case, we have + and | available, both of which are pretty good
options.
Finally, which dicts are a very important ue ase, do we
On Fri, Mar 8, 2019 at 6:23 PM Steven D'Aprano wrote:
> A sets the argument tuple to (1, 2)
> B sets the argument tuple to (2, 3)
> B calls spam()
> A calls spam() # Oops!
I'm pretty sure the idea was to have constant tuples (1, 2) and (3, 4)
in the module instead of LOAD_CONST
On Mon, Mar 11, 2019 at 9:02 AM Simon wrote:
>
> Python's 'in' keyword has already several use cases, whether it's for testing
> inclusion in a set, or to iterate over that set, nevertheless, I think we
> could add one more function to that keyword.
>
> It's not uncommon to see star imports in
Python's 'in' keyword has already several use cases, whether it's for
testing inclusion in a set, or to iterate over that set, nevertheless, I
think we could add one more function to that keyword.
It's not uncommon to see star imports in some sources. The reason that
people use star imports are
This is a horrible idea.
I proposed to Mr. Fine earlier that we adopt a << operator.
d1 << d2 merges d2 into a copy of d1 and returns it, with keys from d2
overriding keys from d2.
On Sat, Mar 9, 2019 at 4:50 PM Jonathan Fine wrote:
> A good starting point for discussing the main idea is:
>