Re: [Python-ideas] Python docs page: In what ways is None special

On Jul 23, 2018 8:43 PM, "Chris Barker - NOAA Federal via Python-ideas" < python-ideas@python.org> wrote: > Procedures return None > == a = [3,1,2] b = a.sort() a, b > ([1, 2, 3], None) This is less about None than about the convention that mutating methods return

Re: [Python-ideas] PEP 505: None-aware operators

On Mon, Jul 23, 2018 at 7:46 AM, Grégory Lielens wrote: > Paul Moore wrote: >> >> This is my impression, as well. It seems like something that's helpful >> in dealing with unstructured object hierarchies with lots of optional >> attributes - which is where JSON tends to be used. >> >> But given

Re: [Python-ideas] A "local" pseudo-function

let[x](EXPR) x == EXPR let[x](a=1) x == 1 let[x](a=1, EXPR) x == EXPR let[x, y](a=1, EXPR) x == 1 y == EXPR let[x, y](a=1, b=2, EXPR) x == 2 y == EXPR z = let[x, y](a=1, EXPR) x == 1 y == EXPR z == (1, EXPR) Anybody seeing how the above might be useful, and address some of the concerns I've

Re: [Python-ideas] Non-intrusive debug logging

On Thu, Jan 25, 2018 at 5:09 PM, Nick Timkovich wrote: > I think part of the reason that logging appears complicated is because > logging actually is complicated. In the myriad different contexts a Python > program runs (daemon, command line tool, interactively), the

Re: [Python-ideas] How assignment should work with generators?

On Nov 29, 2017 10:09 PM, "Steven D'Aprano" wrote: > On Thu, Nov 30, 2017 at 11:21:48AM +1300, Greg Ewing wrote: > > > It seems that many people think about unpacking rather > > differently from the way I do. I think the difference > > is procedural vs. declarative. > > > >

Re: [Python-ideas] How assignment should work with generators?

On Mon, Nov 27, 2017 at 3:49 PM, Greg Ewing <greg.ew...@canterbury.ac.nz> wrote: > C Anthony Risinger wrote: > >> * Perhaps existence of `__len__` should influence unpacking? There is a >> semantic difference (and typically a visual one too) between 1-to-1 >> m

Re: [Python-ideas] How assignment should work with generators?

On Nov 28, 2017 12:32 AM, "Steven D'Aprano" wrote: On Tue, Nov 28, 2017 at 06:15:47PM +1300, Greg Ewing wrote: > Steven D'Aprano wrote: > >How does "stop iterating here" equate to a wildcard? > > The * means "I don't care what else the sequence has in it". > > Because I

Re: [Python-ideas] How assignment should work with generators?

This proposal resonates with me. I've definitely wanted to use unpacking to crank an iterator a couple times and move on without exhausting the iterator. It's a very natural and intuitive meaning for unpacking as it relates to iterators. In my mind, this ask is aligned with, and has similar

Re: [Python-ideas] LOAD_NAME/LOAD_GLOBAL should be use getattr()

On Thu, Sep 14, 2017 at 8:07 AM, Steven D'Aprano wrote: > On Wed, Sep 13, 2017 at 12:24:31PM +0900, INADA Naoki wrote: > > I'm worring about performance much. > > > > Dict has ma_version from Python 3.6 to be used for future optimization > > including global caching. > >

Re: [Python-ideas] lazy import via __future__ or compiler analysis

On Mon, Sep 11, 2017 at 1:09 PM, Neil Schemenauer < nas-python-id...@arctrix.com> wrote: > On 2017-09-11, C Anthony Risinger wrote: > > I'm not sure I follow the `exec(code, module)` part from the other > thread. > > `exec` needs a dict to exec code into [..] > [..]

Re: [Python-ideas] lazy import via __future__ or compiler analysis

On Fri, Sep 8, 2017 at 11:36 AM, Neil Schemenauer < nas-python-id...@arctrix.com> wrote: > On 2017-09-09, Chris Angelico wrote: > > Laziness has to be complete - or, looking the other way, eager > > importing is infectious. For foo to be lazy, bar also has to be lazy; > > Not with the approach

Re: [Python-ideas] PEP 562

I'd really love to find a way to enable lazy loading by default, maybe with a way to opt-out old/problem/legacy modules instead of opt-in via __future__ or anything else. IME easily 95%+ of modules in the wild, today, will not even notice (I wrote an application bundler in past that enabled it

Re: [Python-ideas] namedtuple literals [Was: RE a new namedtuple]

On Sun, Jul 23, 2017 at 8:54 PM, Stephen J. Turnbull < turnbull.stephen...@u.tsukuba.ac.jp> wrote: > C Anthony Risinger writes: > > > A tuple is a tuple is a tuple. No types. Just convenient accessors. > > That's not possible, though. A *tuple* is an immuta

Re: [Python-ideas] namedtuple literals [Was: RE a new namedtuple]

On Jul 23, 2017 1:56 PM, "MRAB" wrote: On 2017-07-23 17:08, Todd wrote: > On Jul 20, 2017 1:13 AM, "David Mertz" > wrote: > > I'm concerned in the proposal about losing access to type > information (i.e. name) in this

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

On Jun 8, 2017 1:35 AM, "Greg Ewing" <greg.ew...@canterbury.ac.nz> wrote: C Anthony Risinger wrote: > Incredibly useful and intuitive, and for me again, way more generally > applicable than iterable unpacking. Maps are ubiquitous. > Maps with a known, fixed set of key

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

On Jun 7, 2017 5:54 PM, "Erik" <pyt...@lucidity.plus.com> 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

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

On Jun 7, 2017 5:42 PM, "C Anthony Risinger" <c...@anthonyrisinger.com> wrote: On Jun 7, 2017 5:15 PM, "Matt Gilson" <m...@getpattern.com> wrote: On Wed, Jun 7, 2017 at 3:11 PM, Erik <pyt...@lucidity.plus.com> wrote: > On 07/06/17 19:14, Nick Hu

[Python-ideas] Relative import of self or parent package?

I occasionally want to do something like this: import .. as parent or: import . as self The pattern is a little less useful for namespace packages (which I've been trying to use almost exclusively, along with relative imports) than it is for __init__.py based packages, but there is still some

Re: [Python-ideas] Passive tracing of function objects (was: Efficient debug logging)

On Wed, Feb 15, 2017 at 10:45 AM, C Anthony Risinger <anth...@xtfx.me> wrote: > On Tue, Feb 14, 2017 at 3:55 PM, Barry <ba...@barrys-emacs.org> wrote: >> >> >> The point is that the cost of creating the msg argument can be very high. >> >> At

[Python-ideas] Passive tracing of function objects (was: Efficient debug logging)

On Tue, Feb 14, 2017 at 3:55 PM, Barry wrote: > > > The point is that the cost of creating the msg argument can be very high. > > At the point that logging decides to skip output it is to late to save the > cost of creating the arg tuple. > Awhile back I was playing with

Re: [Python-ideas] Using Python for end user applications

On Sat, Jan 28, 2017 at 5:26 AM, Paul Moore <p.f.mo...@gmail.com> wrote: > On 28 January 2017 at 02:11, C Anthony Risinger <anth...@xtfx.me> wrote: > > I can't articulate it we'll, or even fully isolate the reasons for it. > All I > > really know is how I feel

Re: [Python-ideas] A more readable way to nest functions

On Fri, Jan 27, 2017 at 3:28 PM, Ethan Furman wrote: > On 01/27/2017 01:07 PM, Brent Brinkley wrote: > >> Suggested structure: >> >> print() <| some_func() <| another_func("Hello") >> > > My first question is what does this look like when print() and some_func() > have

Re: [Python-ideas] Is it Python 3 yet?

On Jan 27, 2017 4:51 PM, "Random832" <random...@fastmail.com> wrote: On Fri, Jan 27, 2017, at 12:54, C Anthony Risinger wrote: > I know the scientific community is a big and important part of the > Python ecosystem, but I honestly believe other parts of Python are > su

Re: [Python-ideas] Is it Python 3 yet?

So I realize this is subjective and just a personal experience, but over the last 3-5 years I've really watched Python usage and popularity decline in the "hearts and minds" of my peers, across a few different companies I work with. At my current gig we don't even use Python anymore for tools that

Re: [Python-ideas] Order of loops in list comprehension

On Oct 22, 2016 2:51 AM, "Alexander Heger" wrote: >>> >>> For me the current behaviour does not seem unreasonable as it resembles the order in which you write out loops outside a comprehension >>> >>> >>> That's true, but the main reason for having comprehensions >>> syntax

Re: [Python-ideas] async objects

On Oct 3, 2016 7:09 PM, "Stephen J. Turnbull" < turnbull.stephen...@u.tsukuba.ac.jp> wrote: > > Rene Nejsum writes: > > > I believe that you should be able to code concurrent code, without > > being to explicit about it, but let the runtime handle low-level > > timing, as long as you know your

Re: [Python-ideas] if-statement in for-loop

On Sep 11, 2016 7:11 AM, "Chris Angelico" wrote: > > That said, though, filtered iteration isn't common enough to demand > its own syntax IMO. I do it fairly often, I do it often enough to want this. When I first started writing Python this struck me as an inconsistency... if