(Un)Happily we have the keyword "as" already. They can make their own
aliases.
On Tue, Feb 25, 2020, 11:46 PM Steven D'Aprano wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 25, 2020 at 10:08:57PM -0500, David Mertz wrote:
>
> > >>> from statistics import stdev as σ
> > >>> σ([5, 6, 4, 6, 3, 7])
> > 1.4719601443879744
>
On Wed, Feb 26, 2020 at 3:43 PM Steven D'Aprano wrote:
>
> On Tue, Feb 25, 2020 at 10:08:57PM -0500, David Mertz wrote:
>
> > >>> from statistics import stdev as σ
> > >>> σ([5, 6, 4, 6, 3, 7])
> > 1.4719601443879744
> >
> > :-)
>
> You know what you've done now, don't you? Somebody is going to
On Tue, Feb 25, 2020 at 10:08:57PM -0500, David Mertz wrote:
> >>> from statistics import stdev as σ
> >>> σ([5, 6, 4, 6, 3, 7])
> 1.4719601443879744
>
> :-)
You know what you've done now, don't you? Somebody is going to propose a
whole series of aliased names for statistics and math modules:
>
> For example, the function for calculating standard deviation is written
>
`statistics.stdev` not `σ`.
>
What do you mean?
>>> from statistics import stdev as σ
>>> σ([5, 6, 4, 6, 3, 7])
1.4719601443879744
:-)
--
Keeping medicines from the bloodstreams of the sick; food
from the bellies
Hi Nathan,
On Tue, Feb 25, 2020 at 11:58:58PM +, Nathan Edwards wrote:
> I love regular expressions.
Regexes' terse syntax are normally considered rather the opposite of
Pythonic.
> I would love to see Bra-Ket notation and many of the popular
> mathematical forms commonly practiced in
On Sun, 23 Feb 2020 at 11:25, Michael Foord wrote:
> In unittest.mock.MagicMock I solve this problem by having __new__ create a
> new subclass for every instantiation. Setting any magic method on the
> instance is promoted to the type via __setattr__. That way every instance
> can have unique
Can you provide short, but non-trivial, clear examples of "before" (current
Python) and "after" (what you propose it looks like) to demonstrate the
advantage?
Will it be ambiguous with existing syntax?
On Tue, Feb 25, 2020 at 6:10 PM Nathan Edwards
wrote:
> I love regular expressions. I would
I love regular expressions. I would love to see Bra-Ket notation and many of
the popular mathematical forms commonly practiced in engineering and science
supported by the Python language in an expressive and logical way. I feel the
need for expressing mathematical concepts in a standardized and
> 2. Looking it up is hard. If I Google "python ignore warnings" the top
result is a Stack Overflow question where neither the accepted answer nor
the most upvoted answer mention specifying a module. The second Google
result is the Python docs which are not easy to read through.
Hmm, I think we
>
> Is there a reason mypy could not assume that all AtomicStr methods that
> return strings actually return an AtomicStr, without impacting runtime
> behavior...? Maybe it's not possible and I'm just not familiar enough with
> the behavior of the type checkers.
>
I don't know but I could say
This is inspired by the [discussion on iterable
strings](https://mail.python.org/archives/list/python-ideas@python.org/thread/WKEFHT4JYCL2PMZ5LB6HJRLVP3OGZI56/),
although I think it has applications elsewhere.
Sometimes programs emit warnings that need to be filtered out. Maybe they're
coming
I can imagine the hypothetical binary tilde being pretty for some kind of
equivalence. This is definitely not enough to motivate me to actually want
to add it. But I think this would read OK as equivalent:
numpy.allclose(arr1, arr2)
arr1 ~ arr2
However, the problem is that there are
On 24/02/2020 21:07, Alex Hall wrote:
This response honestly seems to ignore most of the paragraph that it's
responding to. It being a sharp distinction doesn't matter because
consistency isn't axiomatically valuable.
Actually I think it is. Or more precisely, I think inconsistency is
On Mon, 24 Feb 2020 at 17:47, Aaron Hall via Python-ideas
wrote:
>
> The context for this is statistics , so I'll quote Wolfram on tilde in the
> context of statistics: http://mathworld.wolfram.com/Tilde.html
>
> "In statistics, the tilde is frequently used to mean "has the distribution
>
Steven D'Aprano wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 23, 2020 at 11:25:12PM +0200, Alex Hall wrote:
> > "Strings are not iterable - you cannot loop over them
> > or treat them as a
> > collection.
> > Are you implying that we should deprecate the in operator for
> strings
> too?
I would not get rid of the `in`
15 matches
Mail list logo
