On Mon, Jul 23, 2018 at 12:59:20AM +0200, Giampaolo Rodola' wrote:
> You're back at "since we have X that justifies the addition of Y" [1]
> and AFAICT that's the only argument you have provided so far in a 100+
> messages discussion.
The PEP itself justifies the addition of Y.
Chris' argument,
On Sun, Jul 22, 2018 at 05:09:39PM +0200, Giampaolo Rodola' wrote:
> > > I personally don't find "a ?? b" too bad (let's say I'm -0 about it)
> > > but idioms such as "a?.b", "a ??= b" and "a?[3] ?? 4" look too
> > > Perl-ish to me, non pythonic and overall not explicit, no matter what
> > > the
On Sun, Jul 22, 2018 at 11:26:15PM +1000, Chris Angelico wrote:
> You forget that the operator will *short-circuit*. It will not
> evaluate the second argument if the first argument is None. You cannot
> do this with a function, other than with a hack like a lambda
> function.
We keep running up
On Mon, Jul 23, 2018 at 12:08 AM Chris Angelico wrote:
>
> On Mon, Jul 23, 2018 at 7:51 AM, Giampaolo Rodola' wrote:
> > On Sun, Jul 22, 2018 at 10:55 PM Chris Angelico wrote:
> >>
> >> On Mon, Jul 23, 2018 at 6:43 AM, Giampaolo Rodola'
> >> wrote:
> >> > On Sun, Jul 22, 2018 at 10:01 PM
On Mon, Jul 23, 2018 at 7:51 AM, Giampaolo Rodola' wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 22, 2018 at 10:55 PM Chris Angelico wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, Jul 23, 2018 at 6:43 AM, Giampaolo Rodola'
>> wrote:
>> > On Sun, Jul 22, 2018 at 10:01 PM Chris Angelico wrote:
>> >>
>> >> On Mon, Jul 23, 2018 at 1:09 AM,
On Sun, Jul 22, 2018 at 10:55 PM Chris Angelico wrote:
>
> On Mon, Jul 23, 2018 at 6:43 AM, Giampaolo Rodola' wrote:
> > On Sun, Jul 22, 2018 at 10:01 PM Chris Angelico wrote:
> >>
> >> On Mon, Jul 23, 2018 at 1:09 AM, Giampaolo Rodola'
> >> wrote:
> >> > On Sun, Jul 22, 2018 at 3:38 PM Chris
On Sun, Jul 22, 2018 at 11:51 PM Giampaolo Rodola' wrote:
>
> On Sun, Jul 22, 2018 at 10:55 PM Chris Angelico wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, Jul 23, 2018 at 6:43 AM, Giampaolo Rodola'
> > wrote:
> > > On Sun, Jul 22, 2018 at 10:01 PM Chris Angelico wrote:
> > >>
> > >> On Mon, Jul 23, 2018 at 1:09
On Sun, Jul 22, 2018, 4:56 PM Chris Angelico wrote:
> It means people place crazily high demands on new proposals.
>
I think the bar has been much too low for introducing new features over the
last 5 years or so. Internal changes like the new dictionary implementation
are fine, but user-facing
On Mon, 23 Jul 2018 06:53:53 +1000
Chris Angelico wrote:
>
> >> Which is back to what Steven said: people demand such a high
> >> bar for new syntax that few existing pieces of syntax would pass it.
> >
> > Probably. That's what happens when a language is mature. Personally I
> > don't think
On 2018-07-22 10:33:23 -0700, Michael Selik wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 21, 2018, 6:55 PM Steven D'Aprano wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 22, 2018 at 01:56:35AM +0200, Giampaolo Rodola' wrote:
> > On Thu, Jul 19, 2018 at 3:39 PM Steven D'Aprano
> > wrote:
> > > Tens of thousands of non-English
On Mon, Jul 23, 2018 at 6:43 AM, Giampaolo Rodola' wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 22, 2018 at 10:01 PM Chris Angelico wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, Jul 23, 2018 at 1:09 AM, Giampaolo Rodola'
>> wrote:
>> > On Sun, Jul 22, 2018 at 3:38 PM Chris Angelico wrote:
>> > I find it less explicit mainly because it does
On Sun, 22 Jul 2018 22:43:15 +0200
"Giampaolo Rodola'"
wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 22, 2018 at 10:01 PM Chris Angelico wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, Jul 23, 2018 at 1:09 AM, Giampaolo Rodola'
> > wrote:
> > > On Sun, Jul 22, 2018 at 3:38 PM Chris Angelico wrote:
> > > I find it less explicit mainly
On Sun, Jul 22, 2018 at 10:01 PM Chris Angelico wrote:
>
> On Mon, Jul 23, 2018 at 1:09 AM, Giampaolo Rodola' wrote:
> > On Sun, Jul 22, 2018 at 3:38 PM Chris Angelico wrote:
> > I find it less explicit mainly because it does 3 things at once: check
> > if attribute is None, use it if it's not
On Mon, Jul 23, 2018 at 1:09 AM, Giampaolo Rodola' wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 22, 2018 at 3:38 PM Chris Angelico wrote:
>>
>> On Sun, Jul 22, 2018 at 11:35 PM, Giampaolo Rodola'
>> wrote:
>> > On Sun, Jul 22, 2018 at 2:10 PM Steven D'Aprano
>> > wrote:
>> >>
>> >> On Sun, Jul 22, 2018 at
On 2018-07-22 08:10, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
> Indeed. And I think we ought to think carefully about the benefits and
> costs of all of those variants separately.
>
> To me, the ?? operator seems like a clear and obvious win. The other
> variants are more complex and the benefit is not as
22.07.18 22:03, Todd пише:
For basic slices, the normal "slice(start, stop, step)" syntax works
well. But it becomes much more verbose to create more complicated
slices that you want to re-use for multiple multidimensional data
structures, like numpy, pandas, xarray, etc.
One idea I had was
Todd schrieb am 22.07.2018 um 21:03:
> For basic slices, the normal "slice(start, stop, step)" syntax works well.
> But it becomes much more verbose to create more complicated slices that you
> want to re-use for multiple multidimensional data structures, like numpy,
> pandas, xarray, etc.
>
>
For basic slices, the normal "slice(start, stop, step)" syntax works well.
But it becomes much more verbose to create more complicated slices that you
want to re-use for multiple multidimensional data structures, like numpy,
pandas, xarray, etc.
One idea I had was to allow creating slices by
On Sat, Jul 21, 2018, 6:55 PM Steven D'Aprano wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 22, 2018 at 01:56:35AM +0200, Giampaolo Rodola' wrote:
> > On Thu, Jul 19, 2018 at 3:39 PM Steven D'Aprano
> wrote:
> > > Tens of thousands of non-English speakers have had to learn the meaning
> > > of what might as well be
On 2018-07-22 09:01:58 -0400, David Mertz wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 22, 2018, 8:11 AM Steven D'Aprano wrote:
> To me, the ?? operator seems like a clear and obvious win. The other
> variants are more complex and the benefit is not as obvious to me, so I
> haven't decided where I stand on
On Sun, Jul 22, 2018 at 3:38 PM Chris Angelico wrote:
>
> On Sun, Jul 22, 2018 at 11:35 PM, Giampaolo Rodola'
> wrote:
> > On Sun, Jul 22, 2018 at 2:10 PM Steven D'Aprano wrote:
> >>
> >> On Sun, Jul 22, 2018 at 12:13:04PM +0200, Giampaolo Rodola' wrote:
> >> > On Sun, Jul 22, 2018 at 3:55 AM
Steven D'Aprano writes:
> In my opinion, writing
>
> expression if expression is None else default
>
> is the *opposite* of Pythonic, it is verbose and the DRY violation is
> inelegant (as well as inefficient). I'd much rather use:
>
> expression ?? default
Sure, if
Short circuit if the first argument is NOT None, I guess? ;-)
Yes, so a short circuit is sometimes good. Not often imho, for a default
triggered by None, but sometimes...
In the case it is, do you want it to be hidden in an expression? Usually it
would be better to draw attention, when the
On Sun, Jul 22, 2018 at 11:35 PM, Giampaolo Rodola' wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 22, 2018 at 2:10 PM Steven D'Aprano wrote:
>>
>> On Sun, Jul 22, 2018 at 12:13:04PM +0200, Giampaolo Rodola' wrote:
>> > On Sun, Jul 22, 2018 at 3:55 AM Steven D'Aprano
>> > wrote:
>> [...]
>> > > I don't think that "+"
On Sun, Jul 22, 2018 at 2:10 PM Steven D'Aprano wrote:
>
> On Sun, Jul 22, 2018 at 12:13:04PM +0200, Giampaolo Rodola' wrote:
> > On Sun, Jul 22, 2018 at 3:55 AM Steven D'Aprano wrote:
> [...]
> > > I don't think that "+" is harder to read than
> > >
On Sun, Jul 22, 2018 at 11:22 PM, Grégory Lielens
wrote:
> The ?? operator is probably the less scary one regarding legibility, and in
> guessing (or remembering) what it exactly does...
> Well, at least I think I understand what it does exactly, but if I'm not
> wrong there, what it does is
The ?? operator is probably the less scary one regarding legibility, and in
guessing (or remembering) what it exactly does...
Well, at least I think I understand what it does exactly, but if I'm not wrong
there, what it does is also quite simple and minimal.
A function returning it's first
On Sun, Jul 22, 2018 at 10:10 PM, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
> As a community, we're risk-adverse. I understand why we should be
> conservative in what we add to the language (once added, it cannot
> easily be removed if it turns out to be a mistake) but on Python-Ideas
> we regularly demand levels
On Sun, Jul 22, 2018 at 12:13:04PM +0200, Giampaolo Rodola' wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 22, 2018 at 3:55 AM Steven D'Aprano wrote:
[...]
> > I don't think that "+" is harder to read than
> > "standard_mathematics_operators_numeric_addition"
>
>
> Please let's drop the argument that + - * / = and ? are
Hello,
I'm implementing a protocol where I need to read individual bytes until
a condition is met (value & 0x80 == 0).
My current approach is: value = (await reader.readexactly(1))[0]
To speed this up, I propose that a new function is added to
asyncio.StreamReader: value = await
Aargh, I hate Google Groups with a vengeance. If people *have* to post
from there, can they please change reply-to so that replies don't get
messed up. Or is that not possible, and yet another way that GG is
just broken?
Paul
-- Forwarded message --
From: Paul Moore
Date: 22
Except that the third possibility is not possible...if a is None, a[2] will
throw an exception...
For now at least ;-)
___
Python-ideas mailing list
Python-ideas@python.org
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-ideas
Code of Conduct:
On Sun, Jul 22, 2018 at 12:26 PM Paul Moore wrote:
> On 22 July 2018 at 11:13, Giampaolo Rodola' wrote:
> > - "a?[2] ?? 3" means "index 2 of list a is picked up if a is not None,
> else
> > use 3"
>
> Actually, doesn't it mean
>
> if a is not None, pick up index 2 of the list.
> If a is None,
On 22 July 2018 at 11:13, Giampaolo Rodola' wrote:
> - "a?[2] ?? 3" means "index 2 of list a is picked up if a is not None, else
> use 3"
Actually, doesn't it mean
if a is not None, pick up index 2 of the list.
If a is None, OR IF a[2] IS NONE, then use 3.
If a is None but a[2] is not None, use
On Sun, Jul 22, 2018 at 3:55 AM Steven D'Aprano wrote:
> Indeed we do. But we also say:
>
> - we say "+" instead of "add"
> - we say "//" instead of "floor division"
> - we say "**" instead of "exponentiation"
> - we say "&" instead of "bitwise AND"
> - we say "f( ... )" instead of "call f with
To get rid of the two other ( ?. And ?[] ), we could also define getitem and
getattr for None to always return None...;-)
I'm joking, although such an "absorbing" None may have been a good choice when
None was introduced, and maybe a way to do an absorbing-None per-statement
maybe nice...Nice
On 22 July 2018 at 02:54, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
> I'll admit that the number and variety of new operators gives me some
> reason to pause, but for the simplest and most obvious case, the
> proposed ?? operator, I think that the fears about readability are
> grossly exaggerated.
Certainly *my*
37 matches
Mail list logo
