Re: [Python-ideas] Augmented assignment syntax for objects.

On 25 April 2017 at 11:08, Erik wrote: > Hi. I suspect that this may have been discussed to death at some point in > the past, but I've done some searching and I didn't come up with much. Hi Erik, Offering more concise ways of writing more powerful class definitions is

Re: [Python-ideas] Binary arithmetic does not always call subclasses first

On 26 April 2017 at 02:56, Guido van Rossum wrote: > In the end I agree with the OP that we should fix this. I don't see a reason > to require a PEP or require updating whatever PEP described this behavior > originally -- PEPs generally describe what should be done to a

Re: [Python-ideas] Augmented assignment syntax for objects.

*cough* I'll just drop this here a sec *cough*: https://code.activestate.com/recipes/580790-auto-assign-self-attributes-in-__init__-using-pep-/ On Thu, Apr 27, 2017 at 10:24 AM, Nick Coghlan wrote: > On 25 April 2017 at 11:08, Erik wrote: >> Hi. I

Re: [Python-ideas] Augmented assignment syntax for objects.

On 26.04.2017 23:50, Mark Lawrence via Python-ideas wrote: On 26/04/2017 21:50, Chris Angelico wrote: On Thu, Apr 27, 2017 at 6:24 AM, Erik wrote: The background is that what I find myself doing a lot of for private projects is importing data from databases into a

Re: [Python-ideas] Discourage operator.__dunder__ functions

On 13.04.2017 20:20, Steven D'Aprano wrote: - And finally, I fail to see how having to type an extra four characters is a "convenience". Just for the sake of completeness: Re-usage of names is always a convenience. Developers can use a string variable to access dynamically both the real

Re: [Python-ideas] Augmented assignment syntax for objects.

On Wed, Apr 26, 2017 at 11:29:19PM +0100, Erik wrote: > But, if we're going to bikeshed and there is some weight behind the idea > that this "papercut" should be addressed, then given my previous > comparisons with importing, what about having 'import' as an operator: > > def __init__(self, a,

Re: [Python-ideas] Augmented assignment syntax for objects.

On Wed, Apr 26, 2017 at 03:54:22PM -0400, Jerry Hill wrote: > On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 8:05 PM, Ryan Gonzalez wrote: > > def ___init__(self, self.attr): > > I'm not a python developer, I'm just a developer that uses python. > That said, I really like this form. It eliminates

Re: [Python-ideas] Augmented assignment syntax for objects.

On Wed, Apr 26, 2017 at 08:52:46PM -0400, Juancarlo Añez wrote: > In my experience, what Python is lacking is a way to declare attributes > outside of the constructor. Take a look at how it's done in C#, Swisft, or > Go. Since you apparently already know how they do it, how about telling us (1)

Re: [Python-ideas] Augmented assignment syntax for objects.

On Wed, Apr 26, 2017 at 08:02:39AM -0400, tritium-l...@sdamon.com wrote: > > self.__dict__.update(kwargs) > > Touching __dict__ feels dirty to me. Indeed. The right way is: vars(self).update(kwargs) although that doesn't work if self is written to use __slots__ instead of having a

Re: [Python-ideas] Augmented assignment syntax for objects.

On 27/04/17 23:43, Steven D'Aprano wrote: On Wed, Apr 26, 2017 at 11:29:19PM +0100, Erik wrote: def __init__(self, a, b, c): self import a, b self.foo = c * 100 [snarky] If we're going to randomly choose arbitrary keywords with no connection to the operation being performed, The

Re: [Python-ideas] Augmented assignment syntax for objects.

On Fri, Apr 28, 2017 at 2:06 PM, Steven D'Aprano wrote: > On Fri, Apr 28, 2017 at 09:54:55AM +1000, Chris Angelico wrote: >> On Fri, Apr 28, 2017 at 9:21 AM, Steven D'Aprano wrote: >> > What happens if you use this syntax in a top-level function rather

Re: [Python-ideas] Augmented assignment syntax for objects.

On Fri, Apr 28, 2017 at 09:54:55AM +1000, Chris Angelico wrote: > On Fri, Apr 28, 2017 at 9:21 AM, Steven D'Aprano wrote: > > What happens if you use this syntax in a top-level function rather > > than a method? (Or a static method?) > > > > def function(x, y, x.attr): > >