Re: [Python-ideas] Dictionary destructing and unpacking.

> In python 3.6+ this is better since the dictionary is insertion-ordered, but is still not really what one would probably want. Be careful: ordered dict is an implementation detail. You must use explicitly collections.OrderedDict() to avoid bad surprises. In CPython 3.7, dict might change

Re: [Python-ideas] Dictionary destructing and unpacking.

Thank you! This overview really helps! On Thu, Jun 08, 2017 at 11:18:06AM +1000, Steven D'Aprano wrote: > On Wed, Jun 07, 2017 at 06:14:08PM +, Nick Humrich wrote: > > > It would be cool to have a syntax that would unpack the dictionary to > > values based on the names

Re: [Python-ideas] Dictionary destructing and unpacking.

On Wed, Jun 07, 2017 at 06:14:08PM +, Nick Humrich wrote: > It would be cool to have a syntax that would unpack the dictionary to > values based on the names of the variables. Something perhaps like: > > a, b, c = **mydict This was discussed (briefly, to very little interest) in March/April

Re: [Python-ideas] Dictionary destructing and unpacking.

On Jun 7, 2017 5:54 PM, "Erik" wrote: On 07/06/17 23:42, C Anthony Risinger wrote: > Neither of these are really comparable to destructuring. > No, but they are comparable to the OP's suggested new built-in method (without requiring each mapping type - not just dicts

Re: [Python-ideas] Dictionary destructing and unpacking.

On Jun 7, 2017 5:42 PM, "C Anthony Risinger" wrote: On Jun 7, 2017 5:15 PM, "Matt Gilson" wrote: On Wed, Jun 7, 2017 at 3:11 PM, Erik wrote: > On 07/06/17 19:14, Nick Humrich wrote: > >> a, b, c = mydict.unpack('a',

Re: [Python-ideas] Dictionary destructing and unpacking.

On 07/06/17 23:42, C Anthony Risinger wrote: Neither of these are really comparable to destructuring. No, but they are comparable to the OP's suggested new built-in method (without requiring each mapping type - not just dicts - to implement it). That was what _I_ was responding to. E.

Re: [Python-ideas] Dictionary destructing and unpacking.

On Wed, Jun 7, 2017 at 3:11 PM, Erik wrote: > On 07/06/17 19:14, Nick Humrich wrote: > >> a, b, c = mydict.unpack('a', 'b', 'c') >> > > def retrieve(mapping, *keys): >return (mapping[key] for key in keys) > > > Or even: from operator import itemgetter retrieve =

Re: [Python-ideas] Dictionary destructing and unpacking.

On 07/06/17 19:14, Nick Humrich wrote: a, b, c = mydict.unpack('a', 'b', 'c') def retrieve(mapping, *keys): return (mapping[key] for key in keys) $ python3 Python 3.5.2 (default, Nov 17 2016, 17:05:23) [GCC 5.4.0 20160609] on linux Type "help", "copyright", "credits" or "license" for

[Python-ideas] Dictionary destructing and unpacking.

In python, we have beautiful unpacking: a, b, c = [1,2,3] and even a, b, *c = [1,2,3,4,5] We also have dictionary destructing for purposes of keywords: myfunc(**mydict) You can currently unpack a dictionary, but its almost certainly not what you would intend. a, b, c = {'a': 1, 'c': 3, 'b':

Re: [Python-ideas] π = math.pi

On 2017-06-07 02:03, Mikhail V wrote: > Greg Ewing wrote: > >> Steven D'Aprano wrote: >>> There's not much, if any, benefit to writing: >>> >>> ∫(expression, lower_limit, upper_limit, name) > >> More generally, there's a kind of culture clash between mathematical >> notation and programming

Re: [Python-ideas] π = math.pi

As already mentioned, Vim can display <= as ≤ using the ' conceal' feature. (And in fact arbitrary substitutions, of course.) Stephan Op 7 jun. 2017 8:48 a.m. schreef "Brice PARENT" : Le 07/06/17 à 07:34, Greg Ewing a écrit : > Yes, there are a few symbols it would be

Re: [Python-ideas] π = math.pi

Le 07/06/17 à 07:34, Greg Ewing a écrit : Yes, there are a few symbols it would be nice to have. A proper ≠ symbol would have avoided the wars between <> and !=. :-) I'm not sure it's worth any change in the language, it's already really easy to read and write as is. But I agree this can

Re: [Python-ideas] π = math.pi

07.06.17 08:34, Greg Ewing пише: Mikhail V wrote: I find actually symbols ≤ ≥ (inclusive comparison) nice. Yes, there are a few symbols it would be nice to have. A proper ≠ symbol would have avoided the wars between <> and !=. :-) But this would start the war between ≤ and ⩽ (symbols used