I shouldn't let it bother me, but that "Sent from my iPhone" cruft really
gets under my skin.
-- Carl Smith
carl.in...@gmail.com
On Mon, 4 Feb 2019 at 11:17, Paul Moore wrote:
> On Mon, 4 Feb 2019 at 05:36, Christopher Barker
> wrote:
> >
> > This is getting pretty off toipic, but I want to
On Mon, 4 Feb 2019 at 05:36, Christopher Barker wrote:
>
> This is getting pretty off toipic, but I want to point out hat as a rule,
> Python has been critisised more for having too MUCH cnage than too little
> over the last few years:
[...]
> Finally, what the heck is wrong with datetime.now ?
This is getting pretty off toipic, but I want to point out hat as a rule,
Python has been critisised more for having too MUCH cnage than too little
over the last few years:
The py2 -> 3 transition
Adding "yet another" formatting option (f-strings)
Adding :=
The async stuff
Granted, these are
I agree with everything all of you have said in reply to me.
Sent from my iPhone
> On Feb 3, 2019, at 7:34 PM, Ned Batchelder wrote:
>
>> On 2/3/19 6:01 PM, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
>> (1) Taking the group discussion off-list should be done rarely, and
>> usually only for personal messages that
On Mon, Feb 4, 2019 at 10:02 AM Steven D'Aprano wrote:
> (3) In the thread about improving communication, I mentioned that the
> easier it is to make comments, the more likely it is for people to make
> poor-quality comments. In my experience, posting from a phone is one of
> those tools that
On Sun, Feb 03, 2019 at 04:07:22PM +, Steve Barnes wrote:
> Better yet why not also rename datetime.datetime to datetime.DateTime
> and include the line: datetime = DateTime.
That was already discussed in this thread.
--
Steven
___
Python-ideas
On Sat, Feb 02, 2019 at 11:56:47PM -0500, James Lu wrote:
> > I accept that datetime.datetime reads a bit funny and is a bit annoying.
> > If we had the keys to the time machine and could go back a decade to
> > version 3.0, or even further back to 1.5 or whenever the datetime module
> > was
James, Ned, and everyone else,
(I'm intentionally leaving the subject line untouched, but since James'
message was sent to the list, I'm replying to the list.)
In another thread, you (James) asked for ways to not feel like such a
n00b, and you attempted (with mixed success) to start a
James, frankly, it sounds to me like you have found things you don't
like about Python, and are frustrated that your ideas here have not been
celebrated. That's far from "decline." The process for changing Python
is fundamentally conservative, which can be frustrating. I understand
that. I
Python’s decline is in not growing.
Sent from my iPhone
> On Feb 3, 2019, at 11:20 AM, Ned Batchelder wrote:
>
> James, you say below, "This kind of readability issue, datetime.now, is an
> example of what’s contributing to Python’s decline."
>
> Do you have any evidence of Python's
I know I argued for changing this but really I think this is better handled by
linters and IDEs by STRONGLY discouraging "import datetime" so people don't get
the annoying "'module' object is not callable" or "module 'datetime' has no
attribute 'now'" messages.
As I said before, this is what
On 2/2/2019 11:56 PM, James Lu wrote:
Sent from my iPhone
On Feb 2, 2019, at 3:41 AM, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
Python has been around not quite 30 years now, so we can expect that it
will probably last another 30 years. But chances are not good that it
will be around in 300 years.
A big
On Sun, Feb 3, 2019 at 7:57 AM James Lu wrote:
>
> This kind of readability issue, datetime.now, is an example of what’s
> contributing to Python’s decline.
>
Python's decline??? https://pypl.github.io/PYPL.html
___
Python-ideas mailing list
Sent from my iPhone
> On Feb 2, 2019, at 3:41 AM, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
>
>> On Sat, Feb 02, 2019 at 12:06:47AM +0100, Anders Hovmöller wrote:
>>
>>> - the status quo means "no change", so there is no hassle there;
>>
>> Not quite true. There is a constant hassle of "do I need to write
>>
> Python has been around not quite 30 years now, so we can expect that it
> will probably last another 30 years. But chances are not good that it
> will be around in 300 years.
With that attitude the odds go up *wink*
/ Anders
___
Python-ideas
On Sat, Feb 02, 2019 at 12:06:47AM +0100, Anders Hovmöller wrote:
>
> > - the status quo means "no change", so there is no hassle there;
>
> Not quite true. There is a constant hassle of "do I need to write
> datetime.datetime.now() or datetime.now()?"
My point was that there is no hassle from
> - the status quo means "no change", so there is no hassle there;
Not quite true. There is a constant hassle of "do I need to write
datetime.datetime.now() or datetime.now()?"
I solved this at work by changing all imports to follow the "from datetime
import datetime" pattern and hard
On Fri, Feb 01, 2019 at 11:07:04PM +0100, Anders Hovmöller wrote:
>
> > The only exception to that is that I wish that ``object`` would be
> > renamed to Object. That would distinguish between Object, the base class
> > of all types, and object, an instance of some class. In my personal
> >
> The only exception to that is that I wish that ``object`` would be
> renamed to Object. That would distinguish between Object, the base class
> of all types, and object, an instance of some class. In my personal
> opinion, being more clear about that distinction would be worth the pain
>
On Fri, Feb 01, 2019 at 02:43:49PM -0500, Eric V. Smith wrote:
> On 2/1/2019 1:59 PM, Mike Miller wrote:
> >Another message here reminded me that the datetime classes are not named
> >DateTime like they should be. Why not rename them, PI and E too, with
> >suitable long-term deprecation
20 matches
Mail list logo
