This is a horrible idea.
I proposed to Mr. Fine earlier that we adopt a << operator.
d1 << d2 merges d2 into a copy of d1 and returns it, with keys from d2
overriding keys from d2.
On Sat, Mar 9, 2019 at 4:50 PM Jonathan Fine wrote:
> A good starting point for discussing the main idea is:
>
On Mon, Mar 11, 2019 at 9:02 AM Simon wrote:
>
> Python's 'in' keyword has already several use cases, whether it's for testing
> inclusion in a set, or to iterate over that set, nevertheless, I think we
> could add one more function to that keyword.
>
> It's not uncommon to see star imports in
Python's 'in' keyword has already several use cases, whether it's for
testing inclusion in a set, or to iterate over that set, nevertheless, I
think we could add one more function to that keyword.
It's not uncommon to see star imports in some sources. The reason that
people use star imports are
Are you all REALY=LU proposing more operators?
Adding @ made sense because there was an important use case for which there
was no existing operator to use.
But in this case, we have + and | available, both of which are pretty good
options.
Finally, which dicts are a very important ue ase, do we
On Fri, Mar 8, 2019 at 6:23 PM Steven D'Aprano wrote:
> A sets the argument tuple to (1, 2)
> B sets the argument tuple to (2, 3)
> B calls spam()
> A calls spam() # Oops!
I'm pretty sure the idea was to have constant tuples (1, 2) and (3, 4)
in the module instead of LOAD_CONST
