On Sat, Dec 30, 2017 at 2:38 AM, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
> The lack of support for the `in` operator is a major difference, but
> there's also `len` (equivalent to "count the one bits"), superset
> and subset testing, various in-place mutator methods, etc. Java has a
On Fri, Dec 29, 2017 at 7:18 PM, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
> Since ints don't provide a set-like interface, they aren't strictly
> speaking bitsets. But in any case, nobody is stopping people from using
> sets of enum values.
I'm not sure what "set-like interface" you'd be
On Sat, Dec 30, 2017 at 3:56 AM, Stephan Hoyer wrote:
> We already have a built-in immutable set for Python. It's called frozenset.
This is true, but AIUI its API is based primarily on that of the
(mutable) set. If you were creating a greenfield ImmutableSet class,
On Fri, Dec 22, 2017 at 9:43 AM, Chris Barker wrote:
> Every python object has an object identity, and the way to get it is with
> the id() function. The id is also part of the default object repr, but given
> that some, but only some objects have the id in their repr, it's
Redirecting this part of the conversation to python-ideas.
On Mon, Jan 8, 2018 at 3:17 AM, Christian Tismer wrote:
> As a side note: In most cases where shell=True is found, people
> seem to need evaluation of the PATH variable. To my understanding,
On Thu, Jan 11, 2018 at 7:58 PM, M.-A. Lemburg wrote:
> On 11.01.2018 01:22, Nick Coghlan wrote:
>> On 11 January 2018 at 05:04, M.-A. Lemburg wrote:
>>> For the stdlib, I think we should stick to standards and
>>> not go for spreading non-standard ones.
On Tue, Jan 9, 2018 at 11:12 PM, Random832 wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 9, 2018, at 05:46, Nick Coghlan wrote:
>> If you view them as comparable to subprocess pipes, then it can be
>> surprising that they're not iterable when using a line-oriented
>> If you instead
On Fri, Jan 26, 2018 at 7:42 PM, INADA Naoki wrote:
> Currently, int(), str.isdigit(), str.isalnum(), etc... accepts
> non-ASCII strings.
s = １２３"
On Fri, Jan 26, 2018 at 10:17 PM, INADA Naoki wrote:
>> No, because you can pass in maxchar to PyUnicode_New() and
>> the implementation will take this as hint to the max code point
>> used in the string. There is no check done whether maxchar
>> is indeed the minimum
On Thu, Jan 18, 2018 at 4:21 PM, Steve Barnes wrote:
> 1. For asserts that should not be disabled we could have an always
> qualifier optionally added to assert, either as "assert condition
> exception always" or "assert always condition exception", that disables
On Thu, Jan 25, 2018 at 3:46 AM, Thomas Güttler
> I found a question and answer at Stackoverflow which says
> that asyncio/await is like cooperative multitasking.
"Like"? It *is* a form of co-operative multitasking.
> My whish is to have preemptive
On Sat, Jan 27, 2018 at 8:35 AM, Pau Freixes wrote:
> def filter(rule, whatever):
> if rule.x in whatever.x:
> return True
> rules = get_rules()
> whatevers = get_whatevers()
> for rule in rules:
> for whatever in whatevers:
> if filter(rule,
On Sat, Jan 27, 2018 at 10:07 AM, Steven D'Aprano <st...@pearwood.info> wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 27, 2018 at 09:12:29AM +1100, Chris Angelico wrote:
>> Are you sure it's the language's fault? Failing to use a better data
>> type simply because some other language doesn'
On Wed, Jan 31, 2018 at 6:43 AM, liam marsh wrote:
> Hello, and sorry for the late answer,
> Le 29/01/2018 à 01:41, Steven D'Aprano a écrit :
> I'll comment on the email: for some reason, the implementation you
> give has extraneous pipes | at the start
On Thu, Feb 1, 2018 at 12:44 AM, Victor Stinner
> I like the idea of str.isdigit(ascii=True): would behave as
> str.isdigit() and str.isascii(). It's easy to implement and likely to
> be very efficient. I'm just not sure that it's so commonly required?
On Thu, Feb 1, 2018 at 10:15 AM, Chris Barker wrote:
> I still have no ide4a why there is such resistance to this -- yes, it's a
> fairly small benefit over a package no PyPi, but there is also virtually no
I don't understand it either. Aside from maybe
On Thu, Feb 8, 2018 at 10:49 AM, Neil Girdhar wrote:
>> > Right, I was playing with this problem
>> > (https://brilliant.org/weekly-problems/2017-10-02/advanced/?problem=no-computer-needed)
>> > and wanted to work in base 2. I realize it's niche, but it's not
On Thu, Feb 8, 2018 at 10:08 AM, Neil Girdhar wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 7, 2018 at 5:52 PM Steven D'Aprano wrote:
>> - slower;
>> - larger errors when converting from decimal numbers (in general);
>> - larger rounding errors;
>> - larger wobble;
On Thu, Feb 8, 2018 at 8:49 AM, Neil Girdhar wrote:
> Arbitrary radix comes up every now and then and Decimal already has a
> radix() method. It would be nice when initializing a Decimal object to be
> able to specify an arbitrary radix>=2.
The radix method always
On Sun, Feb 4, 2018 at 10:43 AM, Terry Reedy wrote:
> On 2/3/2018 5:04 PM, Franklin? Lee wrote:
>> s.startswith, s.endswith:
>> Allow argument to be a collection of strings.
> bool(re.match('|'.join(strings)) does exactly the proposed s.startswith,
> with the advantage
On Sun, Feb 11, 2018 at 6:29 AM, Mario Corchero wrote:
> Hello All!
> I got asked how to configure the logging stack to be able to output directly
> to console using both stdout and stderr and I could not really find a great
> answer as adding both as StreamHandlers will
On Sun, Feb 11, 2018 at 7:49 AM, Mario Corchero wrote:
> The recipe as you pointed out works by logging to both (just using multiple
Yep. It's a "forking" setup. What you're proposing is a "splitting"
setup, which would be a great recipe to put immediately
On Thu, Feb 15, 2018 at 11:18 AM, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
> This idea is inspired by Eric Osborne's post "Extending __format__
> method in ipaddress", but I wanted to avoid derailing that thread.
> I notice what seems to be an inconsistency in the ipaddress objects:
On Thu, Feb 15, 2018 at 3:14 PM, Steven D'Aprano <st...@pearwood.info> wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 15, 2018 at 11:45:46AM +1100, Chris Angelico wrote:
>> Except that this computer's IPv4 is not 3232235539, and I never want
>> to enter it that way. I enter it as 192.168
On Sat, Feb 24, 2018 at 5:24 AM, Chris Barker wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 22, 2018 at 6:21 PM, Nick Coghlan wrote:
>> > (I wonder if the discrepancy is due to some internal interface that
>> > loses
>> > the distinction between None and 1 before the
On Sat, Feb 24, 2018 at 6:38 AM, Serhiy Storchaka <storch...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 23.02.18 20:50, Chris Angelico пише:
>> Ignoring backward compatibility, it ought to be possible to (ab)use a
>> stride of zero for this. Calling slice.indices() on something with
On Fri, Dec 29, 2017 at 5:03 PM, Franklin? Lee
> On Fri, Dec 29, 2017 at 1:01 AM, Chris Angelico <ros...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Fri, Dec 29, 2017 at 1:31 PM, Franklin? Lee
>> <leewangzhong+pyt...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, Dec 29, 2017 at 1:31 PM, Franklin? Lee
> On Thu, Dec 28, 2017 at 5:21 AM, William Rose
>> I agree with the point that it should allow builtin but the main purpose of
>> it is to not allow global variables
On Thu, Aug 2, 2018 at 12:04 AM, Jonathan Fine wrote:
> Hi Steve
> Thank you for your reply.
> We're discussing the abstract to PEP 505, which writes
> The "None-aware attribute access" operator ?. ("maybe dot") evaluates
> the complete expression if the left hand side evaluates to a
On Sun, Jul 29, 2018 at 3:54 PM, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
> Being an implementation detail, CPython is free to change it at any
> time, without warning or notice, even in a bug-fix release. If CPython
> ever gets a memory manager that can move objects around, as they can
> move in Jython and
On Sun, Jul 29, 2018 at 1:56 PM, Abe Dillon wrote:
>> Python does not have memory locations.
> CPython does, form the documentation on the `id` function:
>> CPython implementation detail: This is the address of the object in
Right, which is an important distinction; CPython,
On Sun, Jul 29, 2018 at 6:07 AM, Abe Dillon wrote:
> Yes, I thought of that and came to the same conclusion. It's my
> understanding that None may not be an actual object, but a special memory
> location. I'm not sure though and didn't look it up.
Python does not have memory locations. None *is*
On Sun, Jul 29, 2018 at 5:12 PM, Abe Dillon wrote:
> The syntax of this proposal is almost objectively disgusting. It's truly
> horrid. I don't know how many ways to say it.
Almost. Except for the problem that "disgusting" is a subjective term.
If you want to say that this is *objectively
On Sun, Jul 29, 2018 at 8:32 PM, David Mertz wrote:
> I can hardly imagine a stronger bug magnet than PEP 505.
The hyperbole in this thread is impressive. Not just "I can hardly
imagine anyone PROPOSING a stronger bug magnet". You cannot imagine
one even existing.
And this is after people have
On Fri, Jul 27, 2018 at 7:45 PM, Thomas Jollans wrote:
> On 27/07/18 08:06, Robert Vanden Eynde wrote:
> Thanks for your response, I want to print/repr an OrderedDict() without
> relying on the fact that "dict are ordered" ie. I want a solution < python
> Currently, if I do repr(
On Thu, Jul 26, 2018 at 12:30 PM, David Mertz wrote:
> Btw. Here's a way of spelling the proposed syntax that gets the semantics
# pip install coalescing
Let's try it.
rosuav@sikorsky:~$ sudo python3 -m pip install coalescing
On Thu, Jul 26, 2018 at 1:19 PM, David Mertz wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 25, 2018 at 11:08 PM Chris Angelico wrote:
>> > Yeah, yeah. I know it's alpha software I wrote two nights ago, and
>> > slightly
>> > patched 5 minutes before that post. You fixed those c
On Fri, Jul 27, 2018 at 9:20 AM, Michael Selik wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 23, 2018 at 2:03 AM Jonathan Fine wrote:
>> Thank you for your attention. What have I missed?
> None and a few other things are special-cased by CPython. The compiler won't
> bother to write bytecode instructions when an
On Thu, Jul 26, 2018 at 12:14 PM, David Mertz wrote:
> So now at least TWO proponents of 505 cannot successfully translate a very
> simple example taken almost directly from the PEP!
> Is that REALLY a good argument for it being helpful, and not being a bug
Okay. I'll give you the
On Thu, Jul 26, 2018 at 11:45 AM, Nicholas Chammas
> On Wed, Jul 25, 2018 at 9:20 PM Chris Angelico wrote:
>> On Thu, Jul 26, 2018 at 11:02 AM, David Mertz wrote:
>> > That is disingenuous, I think. Can this raise an AttributeError?
On Thu, Jul 26, 2018 at 12:56 PM, David Mertz wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 25, 2018 at 10:41 PM Chris Angelico wrote:
>> A bit problematic. But after (a) figuring out that your module is
>> named "coalesce" even though I installed "coalescing" AND (b)
On Thu, Jul 26, 2018 at 12:45 PM, David Mertz wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 25, 2018 at 10:29 PM Chris Angelico wrote:
>> It is *actually impossible* to
>> perfectly represent short-circuiting semantics in Python!
> It's INCREDIBLY EASY to represent short-circuiting s
On Fri, Jul 27, 2018 at 9:24 PM, Serhiy Storchaka wrote:
> 27.07.18 12:53, Chris Angelico пише:
>>>>> from collections import OrderedDict
>>>>> od = OrderedDict([('a', 1), ('b', 2)])
On Wed, Aug 1, 2018 at 5:40 PM, Jonathan Fine wrote:
> Hi Chris
> Thank you for your prompt reply. You wrote
>> Incorrect. The short-circuiting behaviour ends at any sort of
>> grouping. It's like how "a < b < c" is not equivalent to "(a < b) <
>> c", nor to "a < (b < c)".
> You've told me
On Wed, Aug 1, 2018 at 6:00 PM, Jonathan Fine wrote:
> Hi Chris
> You wrote:
>> Oh. The equivalent ones are #1 and #2, and #7 and #8, where this
>> proposal doesn't change anything. Otherwise, they're not equivalent.
> Are you sure. I'd also expect #10 and #11 to be equivalent.
> By the
On Wed, Aug 1, 2018 at 6:45 PM, Jonathan Fine wrote:
> Hi Chris
> Thank you for your reply. I think we're making good progress.
> You wrote
>>> 10) a ?. b ?. c
>>> 11) (a ?. b) ?. c
>> I would parse those differently, but you may be right that they'll
>> always have the same final
On Wed, Aug 1, 2018 at 5:29 PM, Jonathan Fine wrote:
> Hi All
> I have two further questions. I'm keen to clarify what is the
> behaviour specified by PEP 505. I'm not, at this time, interested in
> why and how PEP 505 specifies behaviour. I just wish, through explicit
> examples, to clarify
On Wed, Aug 1, 2018 at 7:09 PM, Jonathan Fine wrote:
> Hi Chris
> We're discussing.
>> 10) a ?. b ?. c
>> 11) (a ?. b) ?. c
> I asked
>> So, are there any values of 'a' for which #10 and #11 don't give the
>> same result?
> You replied
>> I'm not prepared to put my neck out and say "They
On Sun, Aug 5, 2018 at 4:40 AM, Todd wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 4, 2018 at 9:13 AM, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
>> On Fri, Aug 03, 2018 at 03:17:42PM -0400, Todd wrote:
>> > Boolean operators like the sort I am discussing have been a standard
>> > part
>> > of programming languages since forever.
On Sun, Aug 5, 2018 at 2:37 AM, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
> All this supposes that there is sufficient benefit to allowing custom
> infix operators, including overridable or/and/xor, which is not yet
Part of the justification for that is that the bitwise operators have
On Wed, Aug 8, 2018 at 5:05 PM, Barry Scott wrote:
> But so long as you do not leak the generator the file will be closed
> immediately after the loop as the ref count of the generater hits 0.
Technically that's not guaranteed (since refcounts aren't a language
feature), but if you're using this
On Wed, Aug 8, 2018 at 4:14 PM, Ken Hilton wrote:
> This mostly springs off of a comment I saw in some thread.
> The point of a with statement is that it ensures that some resource will be
> disposed of, yes? For example, this:
> with open(filename) as f:
> contents = f.read()
On Wed, Aug 8, 2018 at 10:32 PM, Oscar Benjamin
> Without the context manager you could write:
> def read_multiple(*filenames):
> for filename in filenames:
> f = open(filename)
> yield f.read()
> Which also only leaks one
On Tue, Aug 14, 2018 at 4:00 AM, Bruce Leban wrote:
> And as to saying a lambda function is an "anonymous function": the anonymity
> is not a property of the function. If I assign it to a name, it's no longer
> anonymous. Really a "lambda" or "lambda function" is just a function, but
On Tue, Aug 14, 2018 at 5:08 AM, Abe Dillon wrote:
> The whole point of a programming language is to bridge the gap between
> machine code and natural language (in Python's case English, as with most
> other languages). It's to make reading and writing code easier through
> abstraction, not to
On Tue, Aug 14, 2018 at 3:06 AM, Michael Selik wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 13, 2018, 5:59 AM Nicholas Chammas
>> Maybe we need to revive that discussion? Overall, I don’t think we have a
>> people problem on this list as much as we have an administration tooling
On Tue, Aug 14, 2018 at 6:26 AM, Abe Dillon wrote:
> [Chris Angelico]
>> > The whole point of a programming language is to bridge the gap between
>> > machine code and natural language (in Python's case English, as with
>> > most
>> > other lang
On Thu, Aug 16, 2018 at 7:40 AM, Abe Dillon wrote:
> Jumping into functions that mutate variables in the calling scope sounds a
> lot like "GoTo" which is notorious for leading to code that's very hard to
> reason about. Your functions would implicitly require that you assign
> variables in the
On Thu, Aug 16, 2018 at 4:52 AM, Jacob Solinsky wrote:
> -Jumping to a function as opposed to calling a function
> When a function is jumped to, it inherits the variables in the caller’s local
> namespace and is free to modify them or add new local variables, unlike a
> normal function call,
On Thu, Aug 16, 2018 at 8:53 AM, Jacob Solinsky wrote:
> What I had hoped to do was use a preamble code block to collect all of the
> most common queries called by the mutate function in the local namespace,
> for example
> C = 'bpgkdtszSZjCmnywh'
> M = 'mn'
> class Morpheme:
On Tue, Aug 14, 2018 at 7:58 AM, Greg Ewing wrote:
> Chris Angelico wrote:
>> No, lambda calculus isn't on par with brakes - but anonymous functions
>> are, and if they're called "lambda", you just learn that.
> It's like saying that people
On Wed, Aug 15, 2018 at 9:09 AM, Chris Barker via Python-ideas
> no, it's not -- None is keyword, and just like any other keyword, it can't
> be re-bound. However, every other keyword I tried to rebind results in a
> SyntaxError: invalid syntax
> (except None, True, and
On Fri, Aug 17, 2018 at 5:32 AM, Chris Barker via Python-ideas
> hmm -- made me think that generators are doing something different here --
> and indeed they are. If you use regular functions:
> In : def local_modifying(loc):
> ...: """
> ...: adds a "fred" key to the
On Mon, Aug 13, 2018 at 1:31 PM, Abe Dillon wrote:
> [Steven D'Aprano]
>> Just because I challenge your statements doesn't mean I'm attacking you.
> No. Telling me I'm having an extreme overreaction means you're attacking me.
If your reaction was extreme, saying so isn't attacking you.
On Mon, Aug 13, 2018 at 2:56 PM, Abe Dillon wrote:
> [Chris Angelico]
>> Also, the signature is most decidedly NOT obvious from context
> Who decided this? It's been decided by some committee? When you write a key
> function, you don't know how many argument
On Tue, Aug 21, 2018 at 2:16 AM, Chris Barker via Python-ideas
> On Mon, Aug 20, 2018 at 7:21 AM, Steven D'Aprano
>> * Introducing a warning makes it clear that this is not a de facto
>> language standard, but a mere implementation detail subject to
>> change if somebody
On Tue, Aug 21, 2018 at 12:21 AM, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 19, 2018 at 06:18:56PM +0300, Kirill Balunov wrote:
>> > > e) It leaves a room for a future changes (In fact, in some situations I
>> > > would like to have this possibility).
>> > Related to (e) is that
On Wed, Aug 22, 2018 at 12:57 PM, Abe Dillon wrote:
> [Chris Angelico]
>> If you have a use-case for a lambda function that takes a callback and
>> has a default value for that callback, please submit it to The Daily
>> WTF. In Steve's example, the main function was
On Wed, Aug 22, 2018 at 8:45 AM, Abe Dillon wrote:
> [Chris Angelico]
>> Python's parser is *deliberately* incapable of backtracking this far
>> in its definition of syntax.
> Can you explain how far the parser is capable of backtracking?
> It seems li
On Wed, Aug 22, 2018 at 12:48 PM, Abe Dillon wrote:
> [Steven D'Aprano]
>> Replacing the keyword:
>> results = map(def a, b=2, c=3: a ** b / c, sequence)
>> widget.register(callback=def: spam.eggs())
>> Doesn't look so attractive now, I wager. Using "def" inside an
>> expression looks
On Thu, Aug 23, 2018 at 10:44 AM, Abe Dillon wrote:
> The problem goes beyond just learning the term lambda, it can increase
> mental load on an already mentally demanding activity to have to translate
> an unfamiliar word every time you see it. It's lack of relation to anything
> else makes it
On Thu, Aug 23, 2018 at 11:59 AM, Abe Dillon wrote:
> [Chris Angelico]
>> > I've also argued that the very form of lambda expressions is noisier
>> > than it
>> > otherwise needs to be. It's not like noise is only distracting to novice
On Thu, Aug 23, 2018 at 9:02 AM, Greg Ewing wrote:
> Rhodri James wrote:
>> This, by the way, is why think using the same syntax for function
>> definition and generator definition was a mistake.
> I think I remember arguing the same thing back when generators
> were being devised.
On Sat, Aug 25, 2018 at 5:13 AM, Mike Barnett wrote:
> Here we go:
> Take 3 numbers as input (A, B, C). Add them together. Display the result in
> a simple pop-up window.
> That’s a pretty typical kind of problem for the first few weeks of beginning
> programming. Maybe first few days.
On Wed, Aug 22, 2018 at 3:56 AM, Abe Dillon wrote:
> I've never hears someone say, "My child's name will be if it's a girl Sally
> otherwise Billy."
"My child's name depends on gender - if it's a girl, Sally, otherwise
Billy." Seems fine to me. You can always come up with something
awkward in a
On Wed, Aug 22, 2018 at 2:55 AM, Jonathan Fine wrote:
> Nick Loadholtes wrote (elsewhere, quoted in this thread - by me).
>> Make your docs work as hard as your code does. Clear examples will
>> make your code stand out in a good way.
> With a bit more searching I found:
On Wed, Aug 22, 2018 at 4:56 AM, Abe Dillon wrote:
> [Chris Angelico]
>> In English, "card is not wild" can
>> be interpreted as a membership check, but in Python, it is only an
>> identity check; you're capitalizing on false readability by using this
On Wed, Aug 22, 2018 at 6:33 AM, Abe Dillon wrote:
> [Chris Angelico]
>> I use decks of cards primarily for non-game
>> usage (for instance, teaching data structures and algorithms - cards
>> laid out on a table can represent a tree, heap, array, etc)
On Wed, Aug 22, 2018 at 6:24 AM, Abe Dillon wrote:
> [Chris Angelico]
>> That right there is unacceptable. You should not have to know the
>> destination to understand what something fundamentally is.
> You don't *have* to know what the parameter "key&
On Mon, Aug 20, 2018 at 12:43 AM, Kirill Balunov
> чт, 16 авг. 2018 г. в 22:37, Chris Barker via Python-ideas
>> I wonder why locals doesn't return a Mapping Proxy, or other read-only
>> mapping object?
>> If it's not guaranteed to be THE locals dict, and changes *may* not
On Mon, Aug 20, 2018 at 5:34 PM, Simon De Greve wrote:
> Do you mean that for loops inside an "async def" statements are always
> executed as 'async for' loops? That's what I wanted to acheive by writing
> the AsyncDict class (c.f. the CodeReview link).
The point of an 'async for' loop is that
On Mon, Aug 27, 2018 at 10:50 PM, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 27, 2018 at 12:12:22PM +0100, Ivan Levkivskyi wrote:
>> Contract in 99% of cases is just another word for type (maybe a very
>> complex type like `DAG[T] <: Graph[T]`).
>> Everything else, like `x >= y` is better expressed as
On Tue, Aug 28, 2018 at 6:05 PM, Stephen J. Turnbull
> In the case in point, the destructuring assignments
> a, b = b, a
> w, x, y, z = z, w, y, x
> can be interpreted as "swapping" or "permuting", and AIUI that's why
> they were included. They express the intent better than
On Thu, Aug 23, 2018 at 6:24 AM, David Mertz wrote:
> Oops. I blame the partial editing of copy/padte on doing it on my phone. I
> meant this, of course:
This isn't quite the same, incidentally. It's (mostly) equivalent to:
On Thu, Aug 23, 2018 at 3:56 AM, Rhodri James wrote:
> On 22/08/18 14:38, Jonathan Fine wrote:
> def fn():
>> ... if None:
>> ... yield
> list(fn()) # Fails, unless fn is a generator function.
Actually, it fails unless fn returns some sort of
On Thu, Jul 19, 2018 at 9:55 AM, Giampaolo Rodola' wrote:
[ please trim quotes, you just quoted the entire PEP in your post ]
> With all due respect (and I am sorry for being “vocal” about a PEP once
> again) I find this simply ugly. To me this basically doesn’t look like
> python anymore, so a
On Fri, Jul 20, 2018 at 5:10 PM, Grégory Lielens
>> On 2018-07-19 02:11, Chris Angelico wrote:
>> As far as I can see, these null-coalescing operators would break
>> model. The PEP doesn't seem to pro
On Fri, Jul 20, 2018 at 7:03 PM, Peter O'Connor
> Often when programming I run into a situation where it would be nice to have
> "deferred defaults". Here is an example of what I mean:
> def subfunction_1(a=2, b=3, c=4):
> return a+b*c
> def subfunction_2(d=5, e=6,
On Fri, Jul 20, 2018 at 5:56 PM, Thomas Jollans wrote:
> On 20/07/18 05:10, Al Sweigart wrote:
>> Sorry, I meant "pip list", rather than "pip info".
>> I thought about the fact that "pip --version" provides this info, but 1)
>> it provides the location of pip, not the python interpreter it
On Fri, Jul 20, 2018 at 10:45 AM, Al Sweigart wrote:
> The goal of this idea is to make it easier to find out when someone has
> installed packages for the wrong python installation. I'm coming across
> quite a few StackOverflow posts and emails where beginners are using pip to
> install a
On Fri, Jul 20, 2018 at 10:03 AM, Greg Ewing
> Rhodri James wrote:
>> If anyone can think of a good word for "if it isn't None, otherwise", I'd
>> be all for it :-)
> I don't think there's any single Engish word that captures
> all of that, so we'd have to invent one.
On Fri, Jul 20, 2018 at 10:14 PM, Rhodri James wrote:
> I go with SF fandom's traditional :-) definition: "somebody did it once."
> If it's been done more than once, it's an honoured tradition.
But if Shakespeare did it, it's just the way the language is.
I think Fortran is the programming
On Fri, Jul 20, 2018 at 10:24 PM, Paul Moore wrote:
> On 20 July 2018 at 13:16, Chris Angelico wrote:
>> On Fri, Jul 20, 2018 at 10:14 PM, Rhodri James wrote:
>>> I go with SF fandom's traditional :-) definition: "somebody did it once."
>>> If it's been
On Sat, Jul 21, 2018 at 6:44 AM, Jonathan Fine wrote:
> Hi Steve
> You wrote:
>> My understanding is that reference counting is both deterministic and
>> immediate. Shifting the reference counting into another thread so that
>> it becomes non-deterministic and potentially delayed doesn't sound
On Mon, Jul 16, 2018 at 1:21 PM, Nathaniel Smith wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 15, 2018 at 6:00 PM, Chris Angelico wrote:
>> On Mon, Jul 16, 2018 at 10:31 AM, Nathaniel Smith wrote:
>>> On Sun, Jul 8, 2018 at 11:27 AM, David Foster wrote:
>>>> * The Actor model ca
On Mon, Jul 16, 2018 at 10:31 AM, Nathaniel Smith wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 8, 2018 at 11:27 AM, David Foster wrote:
>> * The Actor model can be used with some effort via the “multiprocessing”
>> module, but it doesn’t seem that streamlined and forces there to be a
>> separate OS process per line of
On Mon, Jul 16, 2018 at 3:00 PM, Stephan Houben wrote:
> What about the following model: you have N Python interpreters, each with
> their own GIL. Each *Python* object belongs to precisely one interpreter.
> However, the interpreters share some common data storage: perhaps a shared
On Tue, Jul 24, 2018 at 8:22 AM, Thomas Jollans wrote:
> On 18/07/18 19:43, Steve Dower wrote:
>> When a ``None``-aware operator is present, the left-to-right evaluation
>> may be
>> short-circuited. For example, ``await a?.b(c).d?[e]`` is evaluated::
>> _v = a
>> if _v is not None:
On Tue, Jul 24, 2018 at 8:05 AM, Giampaolo Rodola' wrote:
> The argument about this is that '?.' short-circuits execution
> *silently*. Instead of AttributeError you get None. You may chain ?.
> in order to lazily traverse a long tree, inadvertently assign None to
> a variable, continue code
On Tue, Jul 24, 2018 at 5:26 PM, Brice Parent wrote:
> Le 24/07/2018 à 00:39, Chris Angelico a écrit :
>> On Tue, Jul 24, 2018 at 8:22 AM, Thomas Jollans wrote:
>> What about:
>> 5 < x < 10
>> Can you add parent
1 - 100 of 833 matches
Mail list logo