On Thu, Oct 27, 2016 at 03:27:07AM +1100, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
> I think that there is zero hope of consistency for * the star operator.
> That horse has bolted. It is already used for:
>
> - ...
> - "zero or more of the previous element" in regular expressions
> - "zero or more of any
On 14/10/2016 07:00, Greg Ewing wrote:
Neil Girdhar wrote:
At the end of this discussion it might be good to get a tally of how
many people think the proposal is reasonable and logical.
I think it's reasonable and logical.
I concur. Two points I personally find in favour, YMMV:
(1)
On Sat, Oct 15, 2016 at 05:38:15PM +, Neil Girdhar wrote:
> In ast.c, you can find:
>
> if (is_dict) {
> ast_error(c, n, "dict unpacking cannot be used in "
> "dict comprehension");
> return NULL;
>
On Thu, Oct 13, 2016 at 01:30:45PM -0700, Neil Girdhar wrote:
> From a CPython implementation standpoint, we specifically blocked this code
> path, and it is only a matter of unblocking it if we want to support this.
I find that difficult to believe. The suggested change seems like it
should
Neil Girdhar wrote:
At the end of this discussion it might be good to get a tally of how
many people think the proposal is reasonable and logical.
I think it's reasonable and logical.
--
Greg
___
Python-ideas mailing list
Python-ideas@python.org
I've never used nor taught a * in a list display. I don't think they seem
so bad, but it's a step down a slippery slope towards forms that might as
well be Perl.
On Oct 13, 2016 10:33 PM, "Greg Ewing" wrote:
> David Mertz wrote:
>
>> it would always be "Here's a
David Mertz wrote:
it would always be "Here's a Python wart to look out
for if you see it in other code... you should not ever use it yourself."
Do you currently tell them the same thing about the use
of * in a list display?
--
Greg
___
Python-ideas
Exactly with Paul!
As I mentioned, I teach software developers and scientists Python for a
living. I get paid a lot of money to do that, and have a good sense of
what learners can easily understand and not (I've also written hundred of
articles and a few books about Python). The people I write
On Thu, Oct 13, 2016 at 03:28:27PM +, אלעזר wrote:
> It may also suggest that there are currently two ways to understand the
> *[...] construct,
This thread is about allowing sequence unpacking as the internal
expression of list comprehensions:
[ *(expr) for x in iterable ]
It isn't
On 13 October 2016 at 15:32, Sven R. Kunze wrote:
> Steven, please. You seemed to struggle to understand the notion of the
> [*] construct and many people (not just me) here tried their best to
> explain their intuition to you.
And yet, the fact that it's hard to explain
On 13.10.2016 16:10, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
On Thu, Oct 13, 2016 at 10:37:35AM +0200, Sven R. Kunze wrote:
Multiplication with only a single argument? Come on.
You didn't say anything about a single argument. Your exact words are
shown above: "where have I seen * so far?". I'm pretty sure
On Thu, Oct 13, 2016 at 5:10 PM Steven D'Aprano wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 13, 2016 at 10:37:35AM +0200, Sven R. Kunze wrote:
> > About the list constructor: we construct a list by writing [a,b,c] or by
> > writing [b for b in bs]. The end result is a list
>
> I construct lists
On Thu, Oct 13, 2016 at 10:37:35AM +0200, Sven R. Kunze wrote:
> On 13.10.2016 01:29, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
> >On Wed, Oct 12, 2016 at 06:32:12PM +0200, Sven R. Kunze wrote:
> >>
> >>So, my reasoning would tell me: where have I seen * so far? *args and
> >>**kwargs!
> >And multiplication.
>
>
On 13.10.2016 01:29, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
On Wed, Oct 12, 2016 at 06:32:12PM +0200, Sven R. Kunze wrote:
So, my reasoning would tell me: where have I seen * so far? *args and
**kwargs!
And multiplication.
Multiplication with only a single argument? Come on.
And sequence unpacking.
We
On Thu, Oct 13, 2016 at 2:35 AM Steven D'Aprano wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 12, 2016 at 04:11:55PM +, אלעזר wrote:
>
> > Steve, you only need to allow multiple arguments to append(), then it
> makes
> > perfect sense.
>
> I think you're missing a step. What will multiple
On Wed, Oct 12, 2016 at 04:11:55PM +, אלעזר wrote:
> Steve, you only need to allow multiple arguments to append(), then it makes
> perfect sense.
I think you're missing a step. What will multiple arguments given to
append do? There are two obvious possibilities:
- collect all the arguments
On Wed, Oct 12, 2016 at 06:32:12PM +0200, Sven R. Kunze wrote:
> On 12.10.2016 17:41, Nick Coghlan wrote:
> >This particular proposal fails on the first question (as too many
> >people would expect it to mean the same thing as either "[*expr, for
> >expr in iterable]" or "[*(expr for expr in
To be honest, I don't have a clear picture of what {**x for x in d.items()}
should be. But I do have such picture for
dict(**x for x in many_dictionaries)
Elazar
On Wed, Oct 12, 2016 at 11:37 PM אלעזר wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 12, 2016 at 11:26 PM David Mertz
On 12.10.2016 21:38, אלעזר wrote:
What is the intuition behind [1, *x, 5]? The starred expression is
replaced with a comma-separated sequence of its elements.
The trailing comma Nick referred to is there, with the rule that [1,,
5] is the same as [1, 5].
I have to admit that I have my
On 12 October 2016 at 20:22, David Mertz wrote:
> I've followed this discussion some, and every example given so far
> completely mystifies me and I have no intuition about what they should mean.
Same here.
On 12 October 2016 at 20:38, אלעזר wrote:
> What is
On Wed, Oct 12, 2016 at 12:38 PM, אלעזר wrote:
> What is the intuition behind [1, *x, 5]? The starred expression is
> replaced with a comma-separated sequence of its elements.
>
I've never actually used the `[1, *x, 5]` form. And therefore, of course,
I've never taught it
What is the intuition behind [1, *x, 5]? The starred expression is replaced
with a comma-separated sequence of its elements.
The trailing comma Nick referred to is there, with the rule that [1,, 5] is
the same as [1, 5].
All the examples follow this intuition, IIUC.
Elazar
בתאריך יום ד׳, 12
Steve, you only need to allow multiple arguments to append(), then it makes
perfect sense.
בתאריך יום ד׳, 12 באוק' 2016, 18:43, מאת Steven D'Aprano <
st...@pearwood.info>:
> On Tue, Oct 11, 2016 at 02:42:54PM +0200, Martti Kühne wrote:
> > Hello list
> >
> > I love the "new" unpacking
On 12 October 2016 at 23:58, Sven R. Kunze wrote:
> Reading PEP448 it seems to me that it's already been considered:
> https://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0448/#variations
>
> The reason for not-inclusion were about concerns about acceptance because of
> "strong concerns about
24 matches
Mail list logo