On Mon, Dec 28, 2020 at 11:36:55PM -0800, Christopher Barker wrote:
> Side Question: when should one use __dict__ vs vars() vs getattr() ??? all
> three work in this case, but I'm never quite sure which is prefered, and
> why.
`vars(obj)` is defined as returning `obj.__dict__` so technically it
On Tue, Dec 29, 2020 at 8:11 AM Steven D'Aprano wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 28, 2020 at 11:36:55PM -0800, Christopher Barker wrote:
>
> > Side Question: when should one use __dict__ vs vars() vs getattr() ???
> all
> > three work in this case, but I'm never quite sure which is prefered, and
> > why.
>
>
So, I’m ready to admit that I was mistaken in considering `**` as an operator.
Therefore, my further reasoning and suggestions were not correct.
If I had the right to vote, I would vote for `dict.update()` like behaviour.
Thanks for your attention and clarification.
I think it is worth creating a
On Mon, Dec 28, 2020 at 11:36 PM Christopher Barker
wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 28, 2020 at 12:33 PM Guido van Rossum
> wrote:
>
>> On Mon, Dec 28, 2020 at 12:15 PM Christopher Barker
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Though frankly, I would rather have had it use .items() -- seems more
>>> efficient to me, and you do
On 2020-12-29 10:30, Guido van Rossum wrote:
I don't understand why LBYL is considered such an anti-pattern. It helps
produce much clearer error messages in this case for users who are
exploring this feature, and distinguishing *early* between sequences and
mappings is important for that. Long ag
Example task:
```
from dataclasses import dataclass, asdict, fields
from typing import List
@dataclass
class Point:
x: int
y: int
@dataclass
class Axes:
title: str
points: List[Point]
def plot(title: str, points: List[Point]):
print(title)
for point in points:
pr
Way 5: Add default `False` `iter` flag to `dataclass` decorator.
```
def __iter__(self) :
return ((f.name, getattr(axes, f.name)) for f in fields(axes))
```
And use: `plot(**dict(axes))`
___
Python-ideas mailing list -- python-ideas@python.org
On Tue, Dec 29, 2020 at 11:18 AM Brendan Barnwell
wrote:
> On 2020-12-29 10:30, Guido van Rossum wrote:
> > Long ago we decided that the distinctive
> > feature is that mappings have a `keys()` method whereas sequences don't
>
It seems the real issue here is one of documentation.
Exac
What about a parameter, false by default, that suppresses the
FileNotFoundError exception if true for os.remove()? Something similar
to exist_ok for os.makedirs().
___
Python-ideas mailing list -- python-ideas@python.org
To unsubscribe send an email to py
29.12.20 22:58, Marco Sulla пише:
> What about a parameter, false by default, that suppresses the
> FileNotFoundError exception if true for os.remove()? Something similar
> to exist_ok for os.makedirs().
You have two options (and it's too much in my opinion):
try:
os.remove(filename)
On Tue, Dec 29, 2020 at 10:30 AM Guido van Rossum wrote:
> Interesting -- thanks for taking up the challenge. I still suspect that if
> we ran the corresponding benchmark at the C level, the first form would win,
>
I was thinking that might be the case -- but either way, there is little
differen
Hi Sergio,
The pathlib module includes this feature:
https://docs.python.org/3/library/pathlib.html#pathlib.Path.unlink
Best,
Eelke
On Tue, Dec 29, 2020, 22:12 Serhiy Storchaka wrote:
> 29.12.20 22:58, Marco Sulla пише:
> > What about a parameter, false by default, that suppresses the
> > Fil
On 2020-12-29 12:44, Christopher Barker wrote:
On Tue, Dec 29, 2020 at 11:18 AM Brendan Barnwell mailto:brenb...@brenbarn.net>> wrote:
On 2020-12-29 10:30, Guido van Rossum wrote:
> Long ago we decided that the distinctive
> feature is that mappings have a `keys()` method whereas
On Wed, Dec 30, 2020 at 8:49 AM Brendan Barnwell wrote:
> To my mind, every time a change is made to Python behavior there must
> be a corresponding change to the main documentation describing the
> change. I would go so far as to say that the lack of such documentation
> updates should b
On 2020-12-28 23:33, Stephen J. Turnbull wrote:
The thing is, this is a destructive capability. In some cases it only
clears the "screen" (whatever that means), which may cost you some
diagnostics. Probably (but not always) you can recreate them by
repeating a command from history. But in so
On Tue, Dec 29, 2020 at 1:51 PM Brendan Barnwell
wrote:
> > they all overlap a bit in purpose. And "protocols" seem to be the least
> > clearly specified. Indeed, the "iteration protocol" is well known and
> > talked about, but not well documented in the standard docs:
>
> No offense to a
On Wed, Dec 30, 2020 at 9:57 AM Mike Miller wrote:
> Also, I'd argue the likelihood of a newbie clearing important work... is not
> very high.
>
Disputed on the basis of having seen it all too often :)
ChrisA
___
Python-ideas mailing list -- python-id
On 2020-12-29 13:54, Chris Angelico wrote:
Documentation bugs are bugs to be fixed, just like any other. Rather
than complaining that this should have prevented the feature from
being released, just propose an improvement. Where should this be
documented? How should it be worded?
Well, I did p
On Tue, Dec 29, 2020 at 10:30:16AM -0800, Guido van Rossum wrote:
[Christopher]
> > Does there need to be a single defined "protocol" for a mapping (other
> > than the ABC)? -- that is, would **unpacking be able to use .items() and
> > keys() be used in other contexts?
Yes, I think there should b
On Tue, Dec 29, 2020 at 02:20:05PM -0800, Brendan Barnwell wrote:
> So, to give an example, the iterator protocol should be documented
> right where the `for` statement is documented, and it should be
> explicitly framed as "this is the definition of what the `for` statement
> does", not
On 30/12/20 9:44 am, Christopher Barker wrote:
So there are dunders, and protocols, and ABCs, and
they all overlap a bit in purpose. And "protocols" seem to be the least
clearly specified.
> there are various protocols described in the C API docs, including
> the Mapping protocol:
>
> https://
On 30/12/20 11:20 am, Brendan Barnwell wrote:
So, to give an example, the iterator protocol should be documented
right where the `for` statement is documented, and it should be
explicitly framed as "this is the definition of what the `for` statement
does",
Not sure about that -- there ar
On 2020-12-29 16:18, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
On Tue, Dec 29, 2020 at 02:20:05PM -0800, Brendan Barnwell wrote:
So, to give an example, the iterator protocol should be documented
right where the `for` statement is documented, and it should be
explicitly framed as "this is the definition o
On 2020-12-29 15:07, Chris Angelico wrote:
On Wed, Dec 30, 2020 at 9:57 AM Mike Miller wrote:
Also, I'd argue the likelihood of a newbie clearing important work... is not
very high.
Disputed on the basis of having seen it all too often :)
Note, I added the word *important* on purpose.
24 matches
Mail list logo
