Re: [Python-ideas] Fwd: Define a method or function attributeoutsideof a class with the dot operator

On Sun, Feb 12, 2017, at 21:55, Steven D'Aprano wrote: > But honestly, no. This is not going to happen. .Net VB and C# have > something like this, as does Lua, and people still write classes the > ordinary way 99.99% of the time. The VB/C# thing you are referring to is, I assume, extension

Re: [Python-ideas] Contraction for "for x in range()"

On 15 February 2017 at 00:41, Nick Timkovich wrote: > Make some shim object that you can index into to get that functionality, > could even call it Z (for the set of all integers). Short, and requires no > new syntax. > > class IndexableRange: > def __getitem__(self,

Re: [Python-ideas] Contraction for "for x in range()"

Make some shim object that you can index into to get that functionality, could even call it Z (for the set of all integers). Short, and requires no new syntax. class IndexableRange: def __getitem__(self, item): if isinstance(item, slice): start = item.start if item.start

Re: [Python-ideas] Contraction for "for x in range()"

On 14 February 2017 at 22:41, MRAB wrote: > On 2017-02-14 21:09, Zachary Ware wrote: > >> On Tue, Feb 14, 2017 at 3:06 PM, Mikhail V wrote: >> >>> I have a small syntax idea. >>> In short, contraction of >>> >>> for x in range(a,b,c) : >>> >>>

Re: [Python-ideas] Efficient debug logging

> On 14 Feb 2017, at 17:03, Cory Benfield wrote: > > >> On 14 Feb 2017, at 15:51, Barry Scott wrote: >> And have the evaluation of the argument skipped unless its dbg_log is >> enabled. >> >> I cannot see how to do this with python as it stands. >>

Re: [Python-ideas] Efficient debug logging

> On 14 Feb 2017, at 17:39, Kyle Lahnakoski wrote: > > > Can you wrap the expensive functions in lambdas? And have your logger > evaluate it, only if required? > >> debugLog( ‘info is %r’ % (lambda: expensiveFunction(),) ) Interesting idea. I will bench mark and see

Re: [Python-ideas] Efficient debug logging

There are several mechanisms in the logging module to handle this use-case. First, note that logging functions can take multiple arguments ( https://docs.python.org/3/library/logging.html?highlight=logging#logging.Logger.debug ): >>> import logging >>> msg = "hello, %s! %s to %s you!" >>> args =

Re: [Python-ideas] Contraction for "for x in range()"

for i in range(...) is *sometimes* indicative of code smell, especially when then doing x[i], though it has its uses. I've never had a need to shorten a for...range line though. Other than it being "cute", do you have an example where it's definitively better? On Tue, Feb 14, 2017 at 4:03 PM,

Re: [Python-ideas] Contraction for "for x in range()"

On Tue, Feb 14, 2017 at 4:41 PM, MRAB wrote: > On 2017-02-14 21:09, Zachary Ware wrote: > >> On Tue, Feb 14, 2017 at 3:06 PM, Mikhail V wrote: >> >>> I have a small syntax idea. >>> In short, contraction of >>> >>> for x in range(a,b,c) : >>>

Re: [Python-ideas] Define a method or function attribute outside of a class with the dot operator

On Feb 14, 2017, at 12:48 PM, Steven D'Aprano wrote: >On Fri, Feb 10, 2017 at 09:05:49PM -0500, Terry Reedy wrote: >> Saving about 10 keystrokes is close to trivial. > >The same argument can be made for @decorator syntax. > >And, if I understand correctly, the same argument *was* made against

Re: [Python-ideas] Contraction for "for x in range()"

I would be surprised if this hasn't been suggested many times before. It's similar to Matlab's syntax: for x = start:step:finish end Any such change would represent a large departure from normal python syntax for dubious gain. In general, you can put any expression after the `in` keyword so

Re: [Python-ideas] Contraction for "for x in range()"

On Tue, Feb 14, 2017 at 3:06 PM, Mikhail V wrote: > I have a small syntax idea. > In short, contraction of > > for x in range(a,b,c) : > > to > > for x in a,b,c : > > I really think there is something cute in it. > So like a shortcut for range() which works only in for-in

[Python-ideas] Contraction for "for x in range()"

I have a small syntax idea. In short, contraction of for x in range(a,b,c) : to for x in a,b,c : I really think there is something cute in it. So like a shortcut for range() which works only in for-in statement. So from syntactical POV, do you find it nice syntax? Visually it seems to me less

Re: [Python-ideas] Efficient debug logging

On 2017-02-14 15:51, Barry Scott wrote: A common pattern I use is to have logging calls for debug and information with my applications. The logging calls can be separately enabled and disabled. For example: debug_log_enabled = False def debugLog( msg ): If debug_log_enabled:

Re: [Python-ideas] Efficient debug logging

Seems slightly simpler to just make debugLog accept a callable as an alternative to a string. debugLog(lambda:( ‘info is %s’ % expensiveFunction()) ) Op 14 feb. 2017 18:42 schreef "Kyle Lahnakoski" : Can you wrap the expensive functions in lambdas? And have your

Re: [Python-ideas] Efficient debug logging

Can you wrap the expensive functions in lambdas? And have your logger evaluate it, only if required? > debugLog( ‘info is %r’ % (lambda: expensiveFunction(),) ) On 2017-02-14 10:51, Barry Scott wrote: > A common pattern I use is to have logging calls for debug and information > with my

Re: [Python-ideas] Efficient debug logging

> On 14 Feb 2017, at 15:51, Barry Scott wrote: > And have the evaluation of the argument skipped unless its dbg_log is enabled. > > I cannot see how to do this with python as it stands. > > Something would have to be added to allow python to short circuit the >