Hi David, I read the PEP and I think it would be useful to expand the
Motivation and Examples sections.
While indeed Dask uses lazy evaluation to build a complex computation
without executing it, I don't think that it is the whole story.
Dask takes this deferred complex computation and *plans* h
I think I have an idea how to do something like what you're asking with less
magic, and I think an example implementation of this could actually be done in
pure Python code (though a more performant implementation would need support at
the C level).
What if a deferred object has 1 magic method
Hi Martin,
Short answer: yes, I agree.
Slightly longer: I would be eternally grateful if you wish to contribute to
the PEP with any such expansion of the Motivation and Expansion.
On Wed, Jun 22, 2022 at 10:47 AM Martin Di Paola
wrote:
> Hi David, I read the PEP and I think it would be useful t
On Wed, 22 Jun 2022 at 18:35, David Mertz, Ph.D. wrote:
>
> Hi Martin,
>
> Short answer: yes, I agree.
> Slightly longer: I would be eternally grateful if you wish to contribute to
> the PEP with any such expansion of the Motivation and Expansion.
One concern I have, triggered by Martin's Dask,
> On Jun 22, 2022, at 2:12 PM, Paul Moore wrote:
>
> On Wed, 22 Jun 2022 at 18:35, David Mertz, Ph.D.
> wrote:
>>
>> Hi Martin,
>>
>> Short answer: yes, I agree.
>> Slightly longer: I would be eternally grateful if you wish to contribute to
>> the PEP with any such expansion of the Motivat
On Wed, Jun 22, 2022 at 10:47 AM Martin Di Paola
wrote:
> Hi David, I read the PEP and I think it would be useful to expand the
> Motivation and Examples sections.
> While indeed Dask uses lazy evaluation to build a complex computation
> without executing it, I don't think that it is the whole st
On Wed, Jun 22, 2022 at 2:17 PM Eric V. Smith wrote:
> Every time I’ve looked at this, I come back to: other than the clunky
> syntax, how is explicit evaluation different from a zero-argument lambda?
The difference is in composition of operations. I can write a dozen
zero-argument lambdas eas
Could this idea be used to specify the default factory of a dataclass
field? For example,
@dataclass
class X:
x: list[int] = deferred []
instead of
@dataclass
class X:
x: list[int] = field(default_factory=list)
If so, it might be worth adding to your proposal as another common
motivating
> On 22 Jun 2022, at 19:09, Paul Moore wrote:
>
> I suspect that you consider evaluation-on-reference as an important
> feature of your proposal, but could you consider explicit evaluation
> as an alternative? Or at the very least address in the PEP the fact
> that this would close the door on
On Wed, Jun 22, 2022 at 02:30:14PM -0400, David Mertz, Ph.D. wrote:
The difference is in composition of operations. I can write a dozen
zero-argument lambdas easily enough. But those are all isolated.
But basically, think about `x = (later expensive1() + later expensive2()) /
later expensive3(
On Wed, 22 Jun 2022 at 22:52, Martin Di Paola wrote:
> Perhaps this is the real focus to analyze. The PEP suggests that
> x.compute() does something *fundamentally* different from just executing
> the intermediate expressions.
Hang on, did the PEP change? The version I saw didn't have a compute()
This is based on previous discussions of possible ways of matching all
remaining items during destructuring but without iterating of remaining final
items. This is not exactly a direct replacement for that idea though, and
skipping iteration of final items might or might not be part of the goal.
Steve Jorgensen wrote:
> This is based on previous discussions of possible ways of matching all
> remaining items during destructuring but without iterating of remaining final
> items. This is not exactly a direct replacement for that idea though, and
> skipping iteration of final items might or
On Thu, 23 Jun 2022 at 08:56, Steve Jorgensen wrote:
>
> This is based on previous discussions of possible ways of matching all
> remaining items during destructuring but without iterating of remaining final
> items. This is not exactly a direct replacement for that idea though, and
> skipping
Thank you for your proposal David. At last we have a counter-proposal
to talk about. A few points:
(1) (As I pointed out in an earlier post) There is a flaw in using the
syntax of an expression PRECEDED by a SOFT keyword:
x = later -y
With your proposal, x is assigned a deferre
On Thu, 23 Jun 2022 at 10:44, Rob Cliffe via Python-ideas
wrote:
>
> Thank you for your proposal David. At last we have a counter-proposal to
> talk about. A few points:
>
> (1) (As I pointed out in an earlier post) There is a flaw in using the syntax
> of an expression PRECEDED by a SOFT keyw
Martin Di Paola wrote:
> Three cases: Dask/PySpark, Django's ORM and selectq. All of them
> implement deferred expressions but all of them "compute" them in very
> specific ways (aka, they plan and execute the computation differently).
So - I've been hit with the "transparency execution of deferr
On Wed, Jun 22, 2022 at 11:22:05PM +0100, Paul Moore wrote:
Hang on, did the PEP change? The version I saw didn't have a compute()
method, deferred objects were just evaluated when they were
referenced.
You are right, the PEP does not mention a compute() method but uses the
that term. I just
Thanks Rob,
I recognize that I have so-far skirted the order-of-precedence concern. I
believe I have used parens in my example everywhere there might be a
question... But that's not a general description or rule.
I have a bunch of issues that I know I need to flesh out, many coming as
suggestions
> No need to have an object there - you could just define it as a syntactic
> construct instead. Assignment targets aren't themselves objects (although the
> same syntax can often be used on the RHS, when it would resolve to one).
Right. Thanks. That _should_ have been obvious. :)
> Having a wa
The idea is to have a `default_factory` like argument (either in the `field`
function, or a new function entirely) that takes a function as an argument, and
that function, with the value provided by `__init__`, is called and the return
value is used as the value for the respective field. For exa
>
> On Wed, Jun 22, 2022 at 02:30:14PM -0400, David Mertz, Ph.D. wrote:
> >But basically, think about `x = (later expensive1() + later expensive2())
> /
> >later expensive3()`. How can we make `x` itself be a zero argument
> >lambda? [... see below ...]
>
x = lambda: (expensive1() + expensive2
On Wed, Jun 22, 2022 at 6:36 PM Joao S. O. Bueno
wrote:
> implement "all possible"
> dunder methods, and proxy those to the underlying object, for a "future
> type" that was
> calculated off-process, and did not need any ".value()" or ".result()"
> methods to be called.
>
Here's a package on PyP
On Thu, 23 Jun 2022 at 11:35, Joao S. O. Bueno wrote:
>
> Martin Di Paola wrote:
> > Three cases: Dask/PySpark, Django's ORM and selectq. All of them
> > implement deferred expressions but all of them "compute" them in very
> > specific ways (aka, they plan and execute the computation differently)
24 matches
Mail list logo
