On Thu, Nov 4, 2021 at 4:56 AM Steven D'Aprano wrote:
>
> On Thu, Nov 04, 2021 at 04:36:27AM +1100, Chris Angelico wrote:
>
> > You use the name because you can't refer to it other than by name, and
> > that's fine. But it's the *default* that is differ
On Thu, Nov 4, 2021 at 5:28 AM Stephen J. Turnbull
wrote:
>
> > And that's what happens when you need to be pedantically correct. Not
> > particularly useful to a novice, especially with the FUD at the
> > end.
>
> I have no idea what you mean by "that's what happens," except that
> apparently
On Thu, Nov 4, 2021 at 5:54 AM Ethan Furman wrote:
>
> On 11/3/21 12:13 AM, Chris Angelico wrote:
>
> > Python has a strong policy of evaluating things immediately, or being
> > very clear about when they will be evaluated
>
> Putting the marker in the middle of the
On Thu, Nov 4, 2021 at 6:37 AM Ethan Furman wrote:
>
> On 11/3/21 12:21 PM, Florian Wetschoreck wrote:
>
> > In order to prevent confusion, I want to point out that the primary
> scenario that I meant is not that the file imports
> > itself but another file in the same directory with the name o
On Thu, Nov 4, 2021 at 9:33 AM Ethan Furman wrote:
>
> On 11/3/21 2:31 PM, Chris Angelico wrote:
> > On Thu, Nov 4, 2021 at 5:54 AM Ethan Furman wrote:
> >> On 11/3/21 12:13 AM, Chris Angelico wrote:
>
> >>> Python has a strong policy of evaluating thin
On Thu, Nov 4, 2021 at 12:42 PM David Mertz, Ph.D.
wrote:
> This seems exactly opposite the real situation. Late binding is completely
> and straightforwardly handled by a sentinel. Yes, it doesn't make the
> automatic help() that pretty. Yes it takes an extra line in the body. But the
> semant
On Thu, Nov 4, 2021 at 3:56 PM Christopher Barker wrote:
> All that being said, like any other PEP, there are two questions:
>
> 1) will this be an improvement?
> 2) if so, is it worth the churn?
>
> And the SC will need to make those decisions.
>
> FWIW, I’m not totally sure where I come down on
On Fri, Nov 5, 2021 at 7:36 AM Rob Cliffe via Python-ideas
wrote:
> But consider this: AFAICS, *everything* you can do with early binding, you
> can do with late binding, but *not* vice versa. (To simulate early binding
> if you actually only have late binding, simply put the default value in a
On Sat, Nov 6, 2021 at 1:06 AM one last Day wrote:
>
>
> Call two or more functions with one args.
> one last Day
> إلى python-dev-owner
> قبل 7 أيام
> التفاصيل
>
> #While reading about functions in mathematics, a figure representing the sum
> of two functions caught my attention.
> #I found it w
On Sat, Nov 6, 2021 at 2:57 AM Stephen J. Turnbull
wrote:
> Still on the agenda as far as I can see:
>
> 1. Syntax. The proposals I can recall are
> a. x=>default
> b. *x=default
> c. x=@default
> d. maybe putting * or @ on the opposite component in b and c?
> e. a keyw
On Sat, Nov 6, 2021 at 10:46 AM David Mertz, Ph.D.
wrote:
>
> My "vote" if one has to be chosen:
Preferences are very important. This isn't a "vote" in the sense that
the one with the most choices will be selected, but I always want to
hear people's preferences.
> #1: x=defer default
> #2: @x=
On Wed, Nov 10, 2021 at 6:02 PM Christopher Barker wrote:
>
> On Mon, Nov 8, 2021 at 11:22 PM Rob Cliffe via Python-ideas
> wrote:
>>
>> I have more than once advocated
>> x:=default
>> (and there is no clash with the walrus operator, even if others have
>> said/implied that there is).
>
>
On Wed, Nov 10, 2021 at 6:02 PM Christopher Barker wrote:
>
> On Mon, Nov 8, 2021 at 11:22 PM Rob Cliffe via Python-ideas
> wrote:
>>
>> I have more than once advocated
>> x:=default
>> (and there is no clash with the walrus operator, even if others have
>> said/implied that there is).
>
>
On Fri, Nov 12, 2021 at 12:41 AM Matt del Valle wrote:
> 2) It's always been an extra thing to explain when teaching python to
> someone. I always try to cover pep8 very early to discourage people I'm
> training from internalizing bad habits, and it means you have to explain that
> the very sta
On Fri, Nov 12, 2021 at 2:22 AM Matt del Valle wrote:
>>
>> ISTM that this indicates that you're putting too much focus on PEP 8
>> too early. At no time does the document ever state that all Python
>> code ever written must comply with it. New Python programmers should
>> not feel like they're be
On Fri, Nov 12, 2021 at 11:47 AM Steven D'Aprano wrote:
>
> I know this suggestion is withdrawn and the thread all but finished, but
> for completion, I'd like to answer one of Chris' questions:
>
> On Fri, Nov 12, 2021 at 04:48:58AM +1100, Chris Angelico wrote:
On Mon, Nov 15, 2021 at 4:18 AM Peter O'Connor
wrote:
>
> On Mon, Mar 22, 2021 at 1:28 PM Caleb Donovick
> wrote:
>>
>> ... One could do something like:
>> ```
>> def fun(a, b=0): ...
>> def wraps_fun(args, b=inspect.signature(fun).parameters['b'].default): ...
>> ```
>> But I would hardly call
On Mon, Nov 15, 2021 at 4:57 AM Christopher Barker wrote:
>
> On Sun, Nov 14, 2021 at 9:51 AM Chris Angelico wrote:
>>
>> Also, it's entirely possible that future
>> versions of Python will have a concept of optional arguments that
>> don't *have* de
On Mon, Nov 15, 2021 at 5:05 AM Christopher Barker wrote:
>
> On Sun, Nov 14, 2021 at 6:05 AM Steven D'Aprano wrote:
>>
>> global a = 3
>
>
> The issue i see is that Python doesn't have declarations. So you could use
> the name, a in multiple places. what would this mean:
>
> a = 34
>
> glob
On Thu, Nov 18, 2021 at 7:44 PM Stephen J. Turnbull
wrote:
>
> Steven D'Aprano writes:
> > On Wed, Nov 17, 2021 at 02:26:16PM -, tmkehrenb...@gmail.com wrote:
> >
> > > @dataclass
> > > class A:
> > > """Docstring for class A."""
> > > x: int
> > > """Docstring for x"""
> >
On Tue, Nov 23, 2021 at 1:18 AM Remy wrote:
>
> Hi, I'd like to revive this thread after what seemed like a decade and see
> where this might take us 😃
>
> I like this idea that the OP suggested but I'd like to extend this to all
> iterator objects (range_iterators, list_iterators etc.).
>
> 📌Id
On Tue, Nov 23, 2021 at 7:47 PM Stephen J. Turnbull
wrote:
>
> Chris Angelico writes:
>
> > It's not too hard to create your own dataflow class if you want one.
> > It can start with any arbitrary iterable, and then have your map and
> > filter methods just t
On Wed, Nov 24, 2021 at 12:39 AM Stephen J. Turnbull
wrote:
>
> Chris Angelico writes:
> > On Tue, Nov 23, 2021 at 7:47 PM Stephen J. Turnbull
> > wrote:
>
> > > There's also implementing zip's strict argument, eg,
> > >
> > > def z
On Fri, Nov 26, 2021 at 12:02 PM Rob Cliffe via Python-ideas
wrote:
> On 26/11/2021 00:12, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
> > Personally, I think that this is the right design. People can pick and
> > choose which, if any, linter they use, and how strict they want it to
> > be. But I can also understand t
On Fri, Nov 26, 2021 at 6:22 PM Abdulla Al Kathiri
wrote:
>
> Chris,
>
> Will we able to use late-bound arguments in dataclass when it’s creating the
> __init__ function?
>
> @dataclass
> class C:
> x: int
> y: int
> ls: list[int] => [x, y]
>
With that syntax, no, because there's no
On Sat, Nov 27, 2021 at 1:39 AM Raimi bin Karim wrote:
> So this is more of a heartfelt note rather than an objective one — I would
> love
> my fellow Python programmers to be exposed to this mental model, and that
> could only be done by implementing it in the standard library.
I'm not certain
On Sat, Nov 27, 2021 at 3:03 AM wrote:
>
> i wonder whether:
>
> from myutils import myprint as print
>
> or
>
> _print = print
> print = myprint
>
> is really the pythonic way?
Seems fine to me, what's unpythonic about it?
> my use case for multiple files on top of the stdout, is when using e.g
On Sat, Nov 27, 2021 at 10:52 PM Stephen J. Turnbull
wrote:
>
> Raimi bin Karim writes:
>
> > 📌Proposed implementation
> > Earlier in the thread, Chris proposed a custom class for this kind
> > of pipeline.
> > But what if we exposed this as a Python module in the standard library,
> > parkin
On Mon, Nov 29, 2021 at 5:54 AM Christopher Barker wrote:
>
> On Sun, Nov 28, 2021 at 9:30 AM Evpok Padding wrote:
>>
>> All apologies if it has been clarified earlier, but if you dislike nested
>> method calls what is wrong with operating on generators as in
>>
>> ```pycon
>> >>> itr = (i**2 fo
On Mon, Nov 29, 2021 at 6:01 AM Christopher Barker wrote:
> Hmm -- I jsut had a whacky idea:
>
> As pointed out, adding a bunch of chaining methods to the Iterator ABC isn't
> really helpful, as it would A) potentially break / override existing classes
> that happen to use teh same names, and B)
On Mon, Nov 29, 2021 at 4:13 PM David Mertz, Ph.D.
wrote:
>
> Or anyway, what would you call `bar := Bar()` if not "an iterator?!
>
A "broken iterator".
ChrisA
___
Python-ideas mailing list -- python-ideas@python.org
To unsubscribe send an email to pyt
On Tue, Nov 30, 2021 at 4:39 AM Christopher Barker wrote:
>
>
>
> On Mon, Nov 29, 2021 at 2:12 AM Steven D'Aprano wrote:
>
>> Since most iterators don't have many methods, it's not clear to me that
>> iterators are even a little bit relevant.
>
>
> I think you just answered your own question.
>
>
On Wed, Dec 1, 2021 at 9:09 AM Abdulla Al Kathiri
wrote:
>
> How about using the typing return arrow -> to indicate the return of the
> preceding goes as a first parameter in the function:
> 1 -> add(2)
That's a possibility. The same arrow then means "this function
produces that value" in a defi
I've just updated PEP 671 https://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0671/
with some additional information about the reference implementation,
and some clarifications elsewhere.
*PEP 671: Syntax for late-bound function argument defaults*
Questions, for you all:
1) If this feature existed in Python 3.1
On Wed, Dec 1, 2021 at 6:14 PM Abdulla Al Kathiri
wrote:
>
> Thanks for the clarification. Yeah I agree it will look ugly if we use it not
> as a first argument many times in a row but what if there is one or two
> functions in the middle that they are not playing along and don’t have
> teamwor
On Wed, Dec 1, 2021 at 6:43 PM Abdulla Al Kathiri
wrote:
> > On 1 Dec 2021, at 10:16 AM, Chris Angelico wrote:
> > 3) If "yes" to question 1, would you use it for any/all of (a) mutable
> > defaults, (b) referencing things that might have changed, (c)
> &g
On Wed, Dec 1, 2021 at 7:07 PM Chris Angelico wrote:
>
> On Wed, Dec 1, 2021 at 6:58 PM Steven D'Aprano wrote:
> > You say that now, but if you read function definitions that looked
> > like this:
> >
> > def process(func:List->int=>xs=>expression)
On Wed, Dec 1, 2021 at 6:58 PM Steven D'Aprano wrote:
>
> On Wed, Dec 01, 2021 at 07:47:49AM -, Jeremiah Vivian wrote:
>
> > > 2) Independently: Is the syntactic distinction between "=" and "=>" a
> > > cognitive burden?
> > No, it isn't much of a cognitive burden.
>
> You say that now, but if
On Wed, Dec 1, 2021 at 7:12 PM Jeremiah Vivian
wrote:
>
> > I'll reply to this comment once I've done so.
> I just realized that this message replied on a comment instead of the thread.
> Anyways, it's a really impressive implementation (hope this statement doesn't
> spark some sort of debate).
On Wed, Dec 1, 2021 at 7:35 PM Abdulla Al Kathiri
wrote:
>
>
> Sometimes when I do complicated regular expressions, I like to divide the
> patterns from a big pattern to small patterns until I reach what I want. re
> module functions take the text as a second argument. Furthermore, you can’t
>
On Wed, Dec 1, 2021 at 8:18 PM Abdulla Al Kathiri
wrote:
>
>
>
> > On 1 Dec 2021, at 12:01 PM, Chris Angelico wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, Dec 1, 2021 at 6:43 PM Abdulla Al Kathiri
> > wrote:
> >>> On 1 Dec 2021, at 10:16 AM, Chris Angelico wrote:
>
On Wed, Dec 1, 2021 at 8:57 PM Neil Girdhar wrote:
>
>
>
> On Wednesday, December 1, 2021 at 1:18:33 AM UTC-5 Chris Angelico wrote:
>>
>> I've just updated PEP 671 https://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0671/
>> with some additional information about the re
On Wed, Dec 1, 2021 at 9:09 PM Steven D'Aprano wrote:
>
> On Wed, Dec 01, 2021 at 07:07:20PM +1100, Chris Angelico wrote:
>
> > > def process(func:List->int=>xs=>expression)->int:
> > > ...
>
> > I'm not sure what that'
On Wed, Dec 1, 2021 at 10:30 PM André Roberge wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 1, 2021 at 2:17 AM Chris Angelico wrote:
>>
>> I've just updated PEP 671 https://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0671/
>> with some additional information about the reference implementation,
>> a
On Thu, Dec 2, 2021 at 12:42 AM David Mertz, Ph.D.
wrote:
>> 4) If "no" to question 1, is there some other spelling or other small
>> change that WOULD mean you would use it? (Some examples in the PEP.)
>
>
> Yes, the delay/later/defer keyword approach is not confusing, and does not
> preempt a l
On Thu, Dec 2, 2021 at 1:21 AM Paul Moore wrote:
>
> On Wed, 1 Dec 2021 at 06:19, Chris Angelico wrote:
> > 3) If "yes" to question 1, would you use it for any/all of (a) mutable
> > defaults, (b) referencing things that might have changed, (c)
> > referencing o
On Thu, Dec 2, 2021 at 2:24 AM David Mertz, Ph.D. wrote:
>
> On Wed, Dec 1, 2021 at 9:24 AM Paul Moore wrote:
>>
>> I think that the only
>> thing I might use it for is to make it easier to annotate defaults (as
>> f(a: list[int] => []) rather than as f(a: list[int] | None = None).
>
>
> Why not
On Thu, Dec 2, 2021 at 1:33 AM André Roberge wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 1, 2021 at 7:51 AM Chris Angelico wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, Dec 1, 2021 at 10:30 PM André Roberge
>> wrote:
>>
>> >> 2) Independently: Is the syntactic distinction between "=" and &qu
On Thu, Dec 2, 2021 at 2:47 AM David Lukeš wrote:
>
> This was probably mentioned at some point (apologies, can't afford to
> read the entire thread), but since the issue of left-to-right vs.
> early-first-then-late binding was hotly debated, I just want to point out
> that left-to-right better pr
On Thu, Dec 2, 2021 at 2:40 AM David Mertz, Ph.D. wrote:
>
> On Wed, Dec 1, 2021 at 10:12 AM Chris Angelico wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, Dec 2, 2021 at 12:42 AM David Mertz, Ph.D.
>> wrote:
>> >> 4) If "no" to question 1, is there some other spelling o
On Thu, Dec 2, 2021 at 4:40 AM Barry Scott wrote:
>
> On 1 Dec 2021, at 06:16, Chris Angelico wrote:
> 3) If "yes" to question 1, would you use it for any/all of (a) mutable
> defaults, (b) referencing things that might have changed, (c)
> referencing other argu
On Thu, Dec 2, 2021 at 8:50 AM Barry Scott wrote:
>
>
>
> > On 1 Dec 2021, at 17:59, Chris Angelico wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, Dec 2, 2021 at 4:40 AM Barry Scott wrote:
> >>
> >> On 1 Dec 2021, at 06:16, Chris Angelico wrote:
> >> 3) If &
On Thu, Dec 2, 2021 at 12:42 PM David Lukeš wrote:
>
> > That's an oversimplification:
> >
> > foo = 42
> > def bar():
> > print(foo)
> > foo = 1
> >
> > This won't print 42.
>
> Oh, right. I've run afoul of this in the past, but clearly not often
> enough to make it second nature :) Thank
On Thu, Dec 2, 2021 at 1:30 PM Steven D'Aprano wrote:
>
> On Wed, Dec 01, 2021 at 12:26:33PM +, Matt del Valle wrote:
>
> > If anything I think
> > the symmetry between the proposed '=>' syntax and the arrow syntax for
> > lambdas in other languages (potentially even in python in the future)
>
On Thu, Dec 2, 2021 at 6:12 PM wrote:
>
> Brendan Barnwell wrote:
> > > No. As I mentioned in the earlier thread, I don't support any proposal
> > in which an argument can "have a default" but that default is not a
> > first-class Python object of some sort.
>
> What if a default is a function?
>
On Thu, Dec 2, 2021 at 6:27 PM Brendan Barnwell wrote:
>
> On 2021-12-01 18:35, Chris Angelico wrote:
> > In my reference implementation, there is no object that stores it;
> > it's simply part of the function. A good parallel is the if/else
> > expression:
> >
On Thu, Dec 2, 2021 at 6:59 PM Brendan Barnwell wrote:
>
> On 2021-12-01 23:36, Chris Angelico wrote:
> > That's exactly why it's such a close parallel. The late-evaluated
> > default is just code, nothing else. It's not "stored" in any way - it
> &g
On Thu, Dec 2, 2021 at 7:31 PM Paul Moore wrote:
>
> On Wed, 1 Dec 2021 at 22:27, Greg Ewing wrote:
> >
> > On 2/12/21 4:40 am, Paul Moore wrote:
> > > the
> > > intended use is that people must supply a list[int] or not supply the
> > > argument *at all*.
> >
> > I don't think this is a style of
On Thu, Dec 2, 2021 at 7:36 PM Paul Moore wrote:
>
> Actually, Chris - does functools.wraps work properly in your
> implementation when wrapping functions with late-bound defaults?
>
> >>> def dec(f):
> ... @wraps(f)
> ... def inner(*args, **kw):
> ... print("Calling")
> ...
On Thu, Dec 2, 2021 at 8:40 PM Steven D'Aprano wrote:
> Depending on the implementation, you *might* be able to inspect the
> function and see the default expression as some sort of callable
> function, or evaluatable code object. (That would be nice.)
Unfortunately not, since the default express
On Fri, Dec 3, 2021 at 12:43 AM David Mertz, Ph.D.
wrote:
>
> On Thu, Dec 2, 2021 at 3:33 AM Chris Angelico wrote:
>>
>> > But it IS stored! There is no way for it to be evaluated without
>> > it
>> > being stored!
>> >
>> I&#
On Fri, Dec 3, 2021 at 1:53 AM Steven D'Aprano wrote:
>
> On Thu, Dec 02, 2021 at 11:00:33PM +1100, Chris Angelico wrote:
> > On Thu, Dec 2, 2021 at 8:40 PM Steven D'Aprano wrote:
> > > Depending on the implementation, you *might* be able to inspect the
>
On Fri, Dec 3, 2021 at 2:11 AM Rob Cliffe via Python-ideas
wrote:
>
>
>
> On 02/12/2021 14:47, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
> > On Thu, Dec 02, 2021 at 11:00:33PM +1100, Chris Angelico wrote:
> > I'm still unsure whether this is a cool feature or an
On Fri, Dec 3, 2021 at 2:17 AM Steven D'Aprano wrote:
>
> On Wed, Dec 01, 2021 at 09:58:11PM -0600, Abe Dillon wrote:
>
> > My favorite alternative is ?= if people think => and -> are getting
> > overly loaded. What I really don't like is @param=[] because it puts the
> > emphasis on the paramet
On Fri, Dec 3, 2021 at 4:22 AM Nicholas Cole wrote:
> There is nothing that this proposal makes possible that is not already
> possible with more explicit code.
It's worth noting that "explicit" does not mean "verbose". For
instance, this is completely explicit about what it does:
x += 1
It doe
On Fri, Dec 3, 2021 at 6:24 AM Brendan Barnwell wrote:
> What I'm saying is that I want that "thing" to exist. At the time the
> function is defined, I want there to be a Python object which represents
> the behavior to be activated at call time if the argument is not passed.
> In the c
On Fri, Dec 3, 2021 at 6:50 AM Oscar Benjamin
wrote:
>
> On Thu, 2 Dec 2021 at 17:28, Chris Angelico wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, Dec 3, 2021 at 4:22 AM Nicholas Cole
> > wrote:
> > > There is nothing that this proposal makes possible that is not already
>
On Fri, Dec 3, 2021 at 7:54 AM Eric V. Smith wrote:
>
> On 12/2/2021 2:21 PM, Brendan Barnwell wrote:
> > On 2021-12-02 01:35, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
> > >4) If "no" to question 1, is there some other spelling or other
> small
> > >change that WOULD mean you would use it? (Some exam
On Fri, Dec 3, 2021 at 8:07 AM David Mertz, Ph.D. wrote:
>
> On Thu, Dec 2, 2021 at 2:40 PM Chris Angelico wrote:
>>
>> How is a late-bound default different from half of a conditional expression?
>
>
>>
>> def f(lst=>[], n=>len(lst)):
>>
>
On Fri, Dec 3, 2021 at 9:26 AM Brendan Barnwell wrote:
>
> On 2021-12-02 00:31, Chris Angelico wrote:
> > Here's how a ternary if looks:
> >
> >>>> >>>def f(n):
> > ... return 0 if n == 0 else 42/n
> > ...
> >>
On Fri, Dec 3, 2021 at 12:48 PM Steven D'Aprano wrote:
>
> On Fri, Dec 03, 2021 at 02:10:12AM +1100, Chris Angelico wrote:
>
> > > > Unfortunately not, since the default expression could refer to other
> > > > parameters, or closure variables, or anythin
On Fri, Dec 3, 2021 at 2:27 PM Steven D'Aprano wrote:
>
> On Fri, Dec 03, 2021 at 10:36:55AM +1100, Chris Angelico wrote:
>
> > Same again. If you consider the equivalent to be a line of code in the
> > function body, then the signature has become MASSIVELY more use
On Fri, Dec 3, 2021 at 2:24 PM Steven D'Aprano wrote:
>
> On Fri, Dec 03, 2021 at 01:08:50PM +1100, Chris Angelico wrote:
>
> > How, with external calling, are you going to know which name
> > references to look up, and where to get their values from?
>
> Isn&
On Fri, Dec 3, 2021 at 2:30 PM Brendan Barnwell wrote:
>
> On 2021-12-02 15:40, Chris Angelico wrote:
> > Actually, no. I want to put the default arguments into the signature,
> > and the body in the body. The distinction currently has a technical
> > restriction tha
On Fri, Dec 3, 2021 at 3:47 PM Abe Dillon wrote:
> This seems like an exceedingly minor complaint. The obvious answer is: you
> invoke the default behaviour by not passing the argument. And yes, I know
> that's less explicit, but that's kinda the whole point of defaults to begin
> with. It's be
On Sat, Dec 4, 2021 at 3:47 AM Andrew Jaffe wrote:
> b) I think another motivation that hasn't been highlighted is teaching
> -- perhaps surprisingly, I think adding this will make some aspects of
> teaching *easier*. Mutable defaults are known to be confusing to Python
> neophytes; I have certain
On Sat, Dec 4, 2021 at 4:48 AM Eric V. Smith wrote:
>
> On 12/2/2021 6:36 PM, Chris Angelico wrote:
> > On Fri, Dec 3, 2021 at 7:54 AM Eric V. Smith wrote:
> >>
> >> Say I have a function with an early-bound default. I can inspect it and
> >> I can change
On Sat, Dec 4, 2021 at 8:18 AM Rob Cliffe via Python-ideas
wrote:
>
>
>
> On 03/12/2021 19:32, Adam Johnson wrote:
> >
> > The first unwelcome surprise was:
> >
> > >>> def func(a=>[]):
> > ... return a
> > ...
> >
> > >>> import inspect
> > >>> inspect.signature(func)
On Sat, Dec 4, 2021 at 6:33 AM Adam Johnson wrote:
> > 5) Do you know how to compile CPython from source, and would you be
> > willing to try this out? Please? :)
>
> I have.
>
> The first unwelcome surprise was:
>
> >>> def func(a=>[]):
> ... return a
> ...
>
> >>> import insp
On Sat, Dec 4, 2021 at 11:59 AM Rob Cliffe via Python-ideas
wrote:
>
>
>
> On 03/12/2021 22:38, Chris Angelico wrote:
> > On Sat, Dec 4, 2021 at 8:18 AM Rob Cliffe via Python-ideas
> > wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> On 03/12/2021 19:32, Adam Jo
On Sat, Dec 4, 2021 at 2:52 PM Rob Cliffe via Python-ideas
wrote:
>
>
>
> On 04/12/2021 01:06, Chris Angelico wrote:
> > On Sat, Dec 4, 2021 at 11:59 AM Rob Cliffe via Python-ideas
> > wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> On 03/12/2021 22:38, Chris Angel
On Sat, Dec 4, 2021 at 2:34 PM Steven D'Aprano wrote:
>
> On Fri, Dec 03, 2021 at 10:40:42AM +1100, Chris Angelico wrote:
>
> > Here's what you get:
> >
> > >>> def f(lst=>[], n=>len(lst)): ...
> > ...
> > >>> f.__defaults_
On Sat, Dec 4, 2021 at 8:48 PM Steven D'Aprano wrote:
>
> On Sat, Dec 04, 2021 at 03:14:46PM +1100, Chris Angelico wrote:
>
> > Lots and lots and lots of potential problems. Consider:
> >
> > def f():
> > a = 1
> > def f(b, x=>a+b):
> >
On Sun, Dec 5, 2021 at 6:16 AM Brendan Barnwell wrote:
>
> On 2021-12-04 03:50, Chris Angelico wrote:
> > On Sat, Dec 4, 2021 at 8:48 PM Steven D'Aprano wrote:
> >> And third, when the interpreter fetches a default from
> >> func.__defaults__, if it is a LB fu
On Sun, Dec 5, 2021 at 5:29 AM Barry Scott wrote:
>
>
>
> > On 1 Dec 2021, at 06:16, Chris Angelico wrote:
> >
> > I've just updated PEP 671 https://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0671/
> > with some additional information about the reference implementation,
On Sun, Dec 5, 2021 at 11:34 AM Steven D'Aprano wrote:
>
> On Sat, Dec 04, 2021 at 10:50:14PM +1100, Chris Angelico wrote:
>
> > > syntactic sugar for this:
> > >
> > > def f(b, x=lambda b: a+b): ...
> > >
> > > except that the lambda
On Sun, Dec 5, 2021 at 2:14 PM Rob Cliffe via Python-ideas
wrote:
>
> Thank you for doing this research, Steven.
> The designers of 12 languages have chosen to provide late binding; those
> of 3 or 4 have provided early binding.
> I think this is at least tenuous evidence in favour of my belief th
On Sun, Dec 5, 2021 at 3:03 PM David Mertz, Ph.D. wrote:
> Probably fewer than half of functions I've written use named parameters at
> all.
>
Not sure I'm understanding you correctly; in what way are named
parameters relevant here?
ChrisA
___
Python-
On Sun, Dec 5, 2021 at 3:08 PM Stephen J. Turnbull
wrote:
>
> Barry Scott writes:
>
> > There are many possible implementation of the late bound idea that
> > could create an object/default expression.
> > But is it reasonable to bother with that added
> > complexity/maintenance burden for a f
On Sun, Dec 5, 2021 at 3:17 PM David Mertz, Ph.D. wrote:
>
> On Sat, Dec 4, 2021, 11:13 PM Chris Angelico
>>
>> Not sure I'm understanding you correctly; in what way are named parameters
>> relevant here?
>
>
> def add(a, b):
> return a+b
>
>
On Sun, Dec 5, 2021 at 3:39 PM David Mertz, Ph.D. wrote:
>
> On Sat, Dec 4, 2021 at 11:25 PM Chris Angelico wrote:
>>
>> > def add(a, b):
>> > return a+b
>> > How could you write that differently with your PEP
>>
>> I wouldn't. There a
On Sun, Dec 5, 2021 at 5:41 PM <2qdxy4rzwzuui...@potatochowder.com> wrote:
> Also FWIW, I still think that if you're doing (b) or (c), then you're
> *not* doing default values anymore, you're moving pieces of the logic or
> the design into the wrong place. One example of (b) goes something like
>
On Sun, Dec 5, 2021 at 9:58 PM Barry Scott wrote:
>> def inner(timestamp=>time.time()):
> >if timestamp is None: timestamp = time.time()
>
>
> And, obviously, if you end up needing the write the explicit check for None
> there is no
> advantage to using late bound default.
Hmm, I wouldn't s
On Mon, Dec 6, 2021 at 1:45 AM Steven D'Aprano wrote:
>
> On Sat, Dec 04, 2021 at 06:11:08PM +, Barry Scott wrote:
>
> > There are many possible implementation of the late bound idea that
> > could create an object/default expression. But is it reasonable to
> > bother with that added complexi
On Mon, Dec 6, 2021 at 1:48 AM <2qdxy4rzwzuui...@potatochowder.com> wrote:
>
> On 2021-12-05 at 20:30:53 +1100,
> Chris Angelico wrote:
>
> > On Sun, Dec 5, 2021 at 5:41 PM <2qdxy4rzwzuui...@potatochowder.com> wrote:
> > > Also FWIW, I still think that
On Mon, Dec 6, 2021 at 2:56 AM Steven D'Aprano wrote:
> > > What sort of "behave differently" do you think would prevent us from
> > > introspecting the function object? "Differently" from what?
> >
> > Wrapping it in a function means the walrus would assign in that
> > function's context, not the
On Mon, Dec 6, 2021 at 4:13 AM Steven D'Aprano wrote:
>
> On Mon, Dec 06, 2021 at 02:08:46AM +1100, Chris Angelico wrote:
>
> > I want to have them syntactically as part of the body
> > of the function, and semantically as part of the function call.
>
> Then you
On Mon, Dec 6, 2021 at 5:20 AM Christopher Barker wrote:
>
> On Sun, Dec 5, 2021 at 3:28 AM Chris Angelico wrote:
>>
>> (That said, though: it would be rather nice to be able to do algebra
>> with function signatures. For instance, you could say "my signature is
&
On Mon, Dec 6, 2021 at 5:38 AM David Mertz, Ph.D. wrote:
>
> On Sun, Dec 5, 2021, 12:33 PM Chris Angelico
>>
>> And quite frankly, the tone of this list is sounding like "shut up, go away,
>> don't do anything, because there are other proposals that nobody can
On Mon, Dec 6, 2021 at 5:51 AM David Mertz, Ph.D. wrote:
>
> On Sun, Dec 5, 2021, 1:48 PM Chris Angelico
>>
>> You: "Keep the status quo, all done"
>> Also you: "Let's wait for something better"
>
>
> Now is better than never.
> Altho
501 - 600 of 2716 matches
Mail list logo
