hey,
greetings, how did you come across this thread?
Abdur-Rahmaan Janhangeer
https://github.com/Abdur-rahmaanJ
Mauritius
--
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
On Sunday, July 1, 2018 at 10:06:49 AM UTC-7, Abdur-Rahmaan Janhangeer wrote:
> was viewing pep526, so, finally, python cannot do without hinting the type
> as other languages?
> will python finally move to
> int x = 3 where int is a pre annotation?
>
> i am not arguing it's usefulness but
On 2018-07-15 08:37:05 +0200, Christian Gollwitzer wrote:
> Am 05.07.18 um 12:04 schrieb Steven D'Aprano:
> > On Thu, 05 Jul 2018 09:17:20 +0200, Christian Gollwitzer wrote:
> > But... it compiles? Seriously?
[...]
> > Sometimes I wonder how C programmers manage to write a bug-free "Hello
> >
Am 05.07.18 um 12:04 schrieb Steven D'Aprano:
On Thu, 05 Jul 2018 09:17:20 +0200, Christian Gollwitzer wrote:
Am 04.07.18 um 17:31 schrieb Steven D'Aprano:
On Wed, 04 Jul 2018 13:48:26 +0100, Bart wrote:
Presumably one type hint applies for the whole scope of the variable,
not just the one
On Fri, 06 Jul 2018 09:42:09 +0200, Antoon Pardon wrote:
> On 06-07-18 08:17, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
>> On Thu, 05 Jul 2018 16:09:52 +0200, Antoon Pardon wrote:
>>
This is not an innovation of Mypy. It's how type inference is
supposed to work. If a particular type checker doesn't do
On 06-07-18 08:17, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
> On Thu, 05 Jul 2018 16:09:52 +0200, Antoon Pardon wrote:
>
>>> This is not an innovation of Mypy. It's how type inference is supposed
>>> to work. If a particular type checker doesn't do that, it is doing it
>>> wrong.
>> That is how type interference
On Thu, 05 Jul 2018 16:09:52 +0200, Antoon Pardon wrote:
>> This is not an innovation of Mypy. It's how type inference is supposed
>> to work. If a particular type checker doesn't do that, it is doing it
>> wrong.
>
> That is how type interference works in languages that have some kind of
>
on-list@python.org
Subject: Re: PEP 526 - var annotations and the spirit of python
On Wed, 04 Jul 2018 13:48:26 +0100, Bart wrote:
> Presumably one type hint applies for the whole scope of the variable,
> not just the one assignment.
You know how in C you can write
int x = 1;
On 05-07-18 15:07, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
> On Thu, 05 Jul 2018 13:54:28 +0200, Antoon Pardon wrote:
>
>> On 05-07-18 11:59, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
>>> On Thu, 05 Jul 2018 17:34:55 +1200, Gregory Ewing wrote:
>>>
>>>
> Indeed, that's often the best way, except for the redundant type
>
On Thu, 05 Jul 2018 13:54:28 +0200, Antoon Pardon wrote:
> On 05-07-18 11:59, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
>> On Thu, 05 Jul 2018 17:34:55 +1200, Gregory Ewing wrote:
>>
>>
Indeed, that's often the best way, except for the redundant type
hint, which makes you That Guy:
x: int =
On 05/07/2018 11:04, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
On Thu, 05 Jul 2018 09:17:20 +0200, Christian Gollwitzer wrote:
Not sure what point you are trying to make, but your example compiles in
C, if you replace the '#' comment sign with '//'.
Sometimes I wonder how C programmers manage to write a
On 05/07/18 11:26, Bart wrote:
And at numerous other languages that are properly statically typed (Ada
being one of the most rigorous, while C++ is a nightmare).
I had to chuckle at that as friends of mine have had great fun rewriting
Ada in C++ as it was just too damn slow. This was
On 05-07-18 11:59, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
> On Thu, 05 Jul 2018 17:34:55 +1200, Gregory Ewing wrote:
>
>
>>> Indeed, that's often the best way, except for the redundant type hint,
>>> which makes you That Guy:
>>>
>>> x: int = 0 # set x to the int 0
>> But you've shown in an earlier example
On 05/07/2018 10:59, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
But it is redundant in *that* example. Your hint is not giving any more
information that what the reader, or type checker, can already infer.
These are useful:
x: Any = 3 # x can be anything, but is currently an int
x: int = None # x can
On Thu, 05 Jul 2018 09:17:20 +0200, Christian Gollwitzer wrote:
> Am 04.07.18 um 17:31 schrieb Steven D'Aprano:
>> On Wed, 04 Jul 2018 13:48:26 +0100, Bart wrote:
>>
>>> Presumably one type hint applies for the whole scope of the variable,
>>> not just the one assignment.
>>
>> You know how in
On Thu, 05 Jul 2018 17:34:55 +1200, Gregory Ewing wrote:
> Steven D'Aprano wrote:
>
>> but the type checker should infer that if you assign None to a variable
>> which is declared int, you must have meant Optional[int] rather than
>> just int.
>
> This seems to be equivalent to saying that
he means too much of it
Abdur-Rahmaan Janhangeer
https://github.com/Abdur-rahmaanJ
Well you always mention how like english the if-expression in python is and
> thus by implication readable.
>
> --
> Antoon.
>
> --
> https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
>
--
On 05-07-18 08:58, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
>
>> Optimize for readability, not writability.
> And that is why we all hold COBOL up as the paragon of excellence for a
> programming language! *wink*
>
> Or if you don't like COBOL, how about Hypertalk?
Well you always mention how like english the
Am 04.07.18 um 17:31 schrieb Steven D'Aprano:
On Wed, 04 Jul 2018 13:48:26 +0100, Bart wrote:
Presumably one type hint applies for the whole scope of the variable,
not just the one assignment.
You know how in C you can write
int x = 1; # the type applies for just this one assignment
On Thu, Jul 5, 2018 at 4:58 PM, Steven D'Aprano
wrote:
>> Optimize for readability, not writability.
>
> And that is why we all hold COBOL up as the paragon of excellence for a
> programming language! *wink*
>
> Or if you don't like COBOL, how about Hypertalk?
>
> put 42 into x
> ask file "Which
On Wed, 04 Jul 2018 13:26:03 -0600, Ian Kelly wrote:
[...]
>> Note that None is a special case (because sometimes special cases *are*
>> special enough to break the rules).
>
>
> I don't think this case is special enough. As a person coming along
> later and trying to read the code, I should be
*you know x should still an int after these two statements, because
the type hint says so. Without it:x = 3x = f(x)x could be anything.*
*...*
*If something is an int, then make it an int:x: int = 0*
i'm not arguing about it being useful or not but rather people turn to
python to
Steven D'Aprano wrote:
but the type checker should infer that if you assign None to a variable
which is declared int, you must have meant Optional[int] rather than just
int.
This seems to be equivalent to saying that *all* types are
Optional, in which case what point is there in having
On Wed, 04 Jul 2018 19:57:12 +0100, Bart wrote:
> On 04/07/2018 16:31, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
>> On Wed, 04 Jul 2018 13:48:26 +0100, Bart wrote:
>
>> Of course the type (whether inferred or annotated) applies for the
>> entire scope of that variable.
>>
>>
> In that case I don't understand
On Wed, Jul 4, 2018, 9:36 AM Steven D'Aprano <
steve+comp.lang.pyt...@pearwood.info> wrote:
> On Wed, 04 Jul 2018 13:48:26 +0100, Bart wrote:
> >> A better example would be:
> >>
> >> x: int = None
> >>
> >> which ought to be read as "x is an int, or None, and it's currently
> >> None".
> >
On 04/07/2018 16:31, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
On Wed, 04 Jul 2018 13:48:26 +0100, Bart wrote:
Of course the type (whether inferred or annotated) applies for the entire
scope of that variable.
In that case I don't understand what you're complaining about. You say
that hinting is not needed
On Wed, 04 Jul 2018 13:48:26 +0100, Bart wrote:
> Presumably one type hint applies for the whole scope of the variable,
> not just the one assignment.
You know how in C you can write
int x = 1; # the type applies for just this one assignment
x = 2.5;# perfectly legal, right?
On 04/07/18 05:55, Jim Lee wrote:
On 07/03/18 21:25, Ben Finney wrote:
Jim Lee writes:
On 07/03/18 19:58, Ben Finney via Python-list wrote:
Jim Lee writes:
If you were to say John had 2 apples, Jane had 4 apples, and Joe had
an indefinite number of apples, how many numbers are we
On 04/07/2018 06:52, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
On Sun, 01 Jul 2018 17:22:43 -0500, Tim Daneliuk wrote:
x: int = 3
[...]
This strikes me as syntactic noise. Python is dynamically typed and
will remain so. Why clutter the language - even optionally - with stuff
like this?
There's no need to
Ben Finney wrote:
Abdur-Rahmaan Janhangeer writes:
[…]
*cut at this point*
Ooh, I like that last step! How do we make that happen on demand?
You mention that Nazis ate fish.
--
Greg
--
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Grant Edwards wrote:
On 2018-07-03, Dan Stromberg wrote:
I used to write useful programs that ran in 256 bytes of RAM.
Me too.
The hex monitor I wrote for the keypad/display on my first
computer fitted in 256 bytes. Which was important, seeing
as the whole machine only had 1.5k.
--
Greg
On Wed, Jul 4, 2018 at 3:37 PM, Steven D'Aprano
wrote:
> On Wed, 04 Jul 2018 12:31:16 +1000, Chris Angelico wrote:
>
> [...]
>>> Ah, I see we're not going to leave it alone. In that case,
>>> "indefinite"
>>> is a "number", in that it was a quantity you cited along with the other
>>> two. If
On Tue, 03 Jul 2018 19:28:43 -0700, Jim Lee wrote:
> On 07/03/18 16:51, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
>>
>> I love watching pedantically precise people panic and dig themselves
>> into a hole. Since I'm an extremely pedantic person myself, I can
>> recognise it in others -- especially when they're not
On Sun, 01 Jul 2018 17:22:43 -0500, Tim Daneliuk wrote:
>> x: int = 3
[...]
> This strikes me as syntactic noise. Python is dynamically typed and
> will remain so. Why clutter the language - even optionally - with stuff
> like this?
There's no need to declare x:int = 3 since any linter worth
On Wed, 04 Jul 2018 12:31:16 +1000, Chris Angelico wrote:
[...]
>> Ah, I see we're not going to leave it alone. In that case,
>> "indefinite"
>> is a "number", in that it was a quantity you cited along with the other
>> two. If you'd prefer to call it a "quantity", that's fine with me.
>> Talk
On 07/03/18 22:03, Ben Finney wrote:
Jim Lee writes:
I claimed that Steven was using three different numbers to refer to
the time it takes to master a subject:
10,000 hours
an indefinite number
2 years
Yes. He did so in the context of showing that *there is no precise
number* that
Jim Lee writes:
> I claimed that Steven was using three different numbers to refer to
> the time it takes to master a subject:
>
> 10,000 hours
> an indefinite number
> 2 years
Yes. He did so in the context of showing that *there is no precise
number* that universally applies for the amount of
On 07/03/18 21:35, Ben Finney wrote:
Abdur-Rahmaan Janhangeer writes:
apart from programming, other questions go like this :
[…]
*cut at this point*
Ooh, I like that last step! How do we make that happen on demand?
You could start by not adding to the noise... :)
--
On 07/03/18 21:25, Ben Finney wrote:
Jim Lee writes:
On 07/03/18 19:58, Ben Finney via Python-list wrote:
Jim Lee writes:
If you were to say John had 2 apples, Jane had 4 apples, and Joe had
an indefinite number of apples, how many numbers are we talking about?
Three numbers. And
conversation dies
it denotes the end of the picture i was painting
Abdur-Rahmaan Janhangeer
https://github.com/Abdur-rahmaanJ
--
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Abdur-Rahmaan Janhangeer writes:
> apart from programming, other questions go like this :
>
> […]
> *cut at this point*
Ooh, I like that last step! How do we make that happen on demand?
--
\ “Everything you read in newspapers is absolutely true, except |
`\for that rare story
list members have a nice way to wriggle out of the subject ^^_
apart from programming, other questions go like this :
asker : what do you think about this python thing?
next post : *on track*
next post : *on track*
next post : *on track* btw thon is the name of a fish in french
next post :
Jim Lee writes:
> On 07/03/18 19:58, Ben Finney via Python-list wrote:
> > Jim Lee writes:
> >
> >> If you were to say John had 2 apples, Jane had 4 apples, and Joe had
> >> an indefinite number of apples, how many numbers are we talking about?
> > Three numbers. And “indefinite” is not one of
On 07/03/18 19:58, Ben Finney via Python-list wrote:
Jim Lee writes:
If you were to say John had 2 apples, Jane had 4 apples, and Joe had
an indefinite number of apples, how many numbers are we talking about?
Three numbers. And “indefinite” is not one of those numbers. So, no,
that doesn't
Jim Lee writes:
> If you were to say John had 2 apples, Jane had 4 apples, and Joe had
> an indefinite number of apples, how many numbers are we talking about?
Three numbers. And “indefinite” is not one of those numbers. So, no,
that doesn't support “"indefinite" is a number”.
--
\
On 07/03/18 19:31, Chris Angelico wrote:
I've had debates with people about whether "infinity" is a number or
not, but I've never yet heard anyone say that "indefinite" is a
number. Hmm. This could be interesting.
ChrisA
If you were to say John had 2 apples, Jane had 4 apples, and Joe had
On Wed, Jul 4, 2018 at 12:28 PM, Jim Lee wrote:
>
>
> On 07/03/18 16:51, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
>>
>>
>> I love watching pedantically precise people panic and dig themselves into
>> a hole. Since I'm an extremely pedantic person myself, I can recognise it
>> in others -- especially when they're
On 07/03/18 16:51, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
I love watching pedantically precise people panic and dig themselves into
a hole. Since I'm an extremely pedantic person myself, I can recognise it
in others -- especially when they're not as precisely correct as they
think they're being.
It was two
On Tue, 03 Jul 2018 09:14:37 -0700, Jim Lee wrote:
> On 07/03/18 01:34, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
>> I said *indefinite* not infinite.
>
> Yes, you did. My bad.
Thanks Jim, your acknowledgement is appreciated.
>> You did read the article I linked to, right? You know that people don't
>>
On 07/03/18 06:32, Dennis Lee Bieber wrote:
On Mon, 2 Jul 2018 19:51:29 -0500, Tim Daneliuk
declaimed the following:
Except that the current attempt is to use techniques like agile,
scrum, pair programming, and so forth to turn programming into
a factory activity. High degrees of
On 2018-07-03, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
> On Tue, 03 Jul 2018 14:24:26 +, Grant Edwards wrote:
>> On 2018-07-03, Dan Stromberg wrote:
>>
>>> I used to write useful programs that ran in 256 bytes of RAM.
>>
>> Me too.
>>
>> Less than 10 years ago.
>>
>> In a real product.
>>
>> That's
On 07/03/18 01:34, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
I said *indefinite* not infinite.
Yes, you did. My bad.
You did read the article I linked to, right? You know that people don't
suddenly and instantly turn from "beginner" to "expert" when they exceed
9,999 hours 59 minutes and 59 seconds?
On Tue, 03 Jul 2018 14:24:26 +, Grant Edwards wrote:
> On 2018-07-03, Dan Stromberg wrote:
>
>> I used to write useful programs that ran in 256 bytes of RAM.
>
> Me too.
>
> Less than 10 years ago.
>
> In a real product.
>
> That's still shipping.
Well don't be shy. Got a link?
--
On Tuesday 03 July 2018 09:32:52 Dennis Lee Bieber wrote:
> On Mon, 2 Jul 2018 19:51:29 -0500, Tim Daneliuk
>
> declaimed the following:
> >Except that the current attempt is to use techniques like agile,
> >scrum, pair programming, and so forth to turn programming into
> >a factory activity.
On 2018-07-03, Dan Stromberg wrote:
> I used to write useful programs that ran in 256 bytes of RAM.
Me too.
Less than 10 years ago.
In a real product.
That's still shipping.
--
Grant Edwards grant.b.edwardsYow! Are you mentally here
On 01/07/2018 18:06, Abdur-Rahmaan Janhangeer wrote:
was viewing pep526, so, finally, python cannot do without hinting the type
as other languages?
will python finally move to
int x = 3 where int is a pre annotation?
i am not arguing it's usefulness but rather, does it fit with python?
Not in
On Tue, Jul 3, 2018 at 6:34 PM, Steven D'Aprano
wrote:
> Or as my wife would say, "did you mean an Aussie couple or an actual
> couple?" I meant an Aussie couple, which could be anything from two to
> four or five. Six at a stretch. As in, "no worries mate, it'll be ready
> in a coupla days."
cf
On Mon, 02 Jul 2018 18:20:53 -0700, Jim Lee wrote:
> On 07/02/18 17:51, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
>>
>> For most of us mere mortals, the "ten thousand hours" rule of thumb
>> applies.
>>
>> Ten thousand hours should be read as an indefinitely large number
>>
>>> A truly good programmer will be able
Steven D'Aprano wrote:
"Jack of all trades, master of none" sort of thing?
Or are you thinking more along the lines of one of those guys who masters
a new language in an hour and reaches expert level in a week?
I'm not talking about someone who hasn't mastered anything.
I'm talking about
On Mon, Jul 2, 2018 at 5:51 PM, Tim Daneliuk wrote:
> In particular, there is little interest in having programmers
> learn on the job, only that they be as productive as possible
> as fast they can. Hiring specific languages skills - the theory
> goes - means that the individual will be
On Mon, Jul 2, 2018 at 6:10 PM, Jim Lee wrote:
> On 07/02/18 17:34, Dan Stromberg wrote:
>
> The fact of the matter is the economics have changed a lot since then.
> Machine time used to be really expensive compared to developer time.
> Today, it's the opposite: developer time is really
On 07/02/2018 06:22 PM, Gregory Ewing wrote:
> A
> truly good programmer will be able to learn about the language
> being used on the job.
Except that the current attempt is to use techniques like agile,
scrum, pair programming, and so forth to turn programming into
a factory activity. High
On 07/02/18 17:51, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
For most of us mere mortals, the "ten thousand hours" rule of thumb
applies.
Ten thousand hours should be read as an indefinitely large number
A truly good programmer will be able to learn about the
language being used on the job.
Indeed, if you
On 07/02/18 17:34, Dan Stromberg wrote:
The fact of the matter is the economics have changed a lot since then.
Machine time used to be really expensive compared to developer time.
Today, it's the opposite: developer time is really expensive compared
to machine time.
If you go back
On Tue, 03 Jul 2018 11:22:56 +1200, Gregory Ewing wrote:
> Someone who is familiar with a
> variety of languages is also very likely to be self-motivated and have
> enough passion and curiosity to have acquired a broad and deep knowledge
> of other aspects of the craft.
"Jack of all trades,
On Sun, Jul 1, 2018 at 8:51 PM, Jim Lee wrote:
> Languages that used to be small, lean, and exceptional at doing things
> really well in a given domain have morphed into large, monolithic, bloated
> language *systems* that do many things in many domains, and have many ways
> to do the *same*
On 07/02/18 16:22, Gregory Ewing wrote:
Ian Kelly wrote:
Just because somebody knows a dozen languages
doesn't mean that they can come up with the correct algorithm,
That doesn't mean there's no correlation. Someone who is familiar
with a variety of languages is also very likely to be
Ian Kelly wrote:
Just because somebody knows a dozen languages
doesn't mean that they can come up with the correct algorithm,
That doesn't mean there's no correlation. Someone who is familiar
with a variety of languages is also very likely to be self-motivated
and have enough passion and
On Sun, Jul 1, 2018 at 10:53 PM Jim Lee wrote:
> I did get one epiphany out of that. He's right - there are orders of
> magnitude more programmers today than there were a couple of decades ago
> - and they ARE almost all entry level, in that they are fluent in only
> one (maybe two) languages.
On 07/02/18 04:01, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
On Sun, 01 Jul 2018 20:51:42 -0700, Jim Lee wrote:
Back before the dot com boom, programmers (generally) knew at least 6,
7, 8 languages.
You obviously didn't know (m)any of the hundreds of thousands of COBOL
programmers.
I did know a handful,
On 07/01/2018 12:17 PM, MRAB wrote:
> On 2018-07-01 18:06, Abdur-Rahmaan Janhangeer wrote:
>> was viewing pep526, so, finally, python cannot do without hinting the type
>> as other languages?
>> will python finally move to
>> int x = 3 where int is a pre annotation?
>>
>> i am not arguing it's
On 2018-07-02, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
> In the long run, why do we always fear people coming from other
> languages?
Tribalism and fear of outsiders was bred into H. sapiens (and
ancestors) millions of years ago?
--
Grant Edwards grant.b.edwardsYow! My Aunt MAUREEN was
On Sun, 01 Jul 2018 20:51:42 -0700, Jim Lee wrote:
> Back before the dot com boom, programmers (generally) knew at least 6,
> 7, 8 languages.
You obviously didn't know (m)any of the hundreds of thousands of COBOL
programmers.
(A language conspicuous by its absence from your impressively large
me too i come from "other languages" but what i liked in python was python
now the world got mixed up again
Abdur-Rahmaan Janhangeer
https://github.com/Abdur-rahmaanJ
In the long run, why do we always fear people coming from other
> languages? Why don't they fear Python programmers coming to
On 07/01/18 18:21, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
Guido has been talking about this for a LONG time:
You keep bringing that up. It's not an argument.
People have been talking about taxes for a long, long time. Does it
surprise you that they still do? None of us has a time machine that
will
On Sun, 01 Jul 2018 22:48:00 +0400, Abdur-Rahmaan Janhangeer wrote:
> not python, the spirit of python,
>
> i guess i must have been around when it was first discussed, now it's
> too late to discuss why it was introduced in the first place ...
Guido has been talking about this for a LONG time:
On Sun, 01 Jul 2018 21:55:21 +0400, Abdur-Rahmaan Janhangeer wrote:
> i meant that x: int = 3 is dangerously close to int x = 3,
>
> in the long run, you'll come across people who come from other languages
> wanting to java/c style their code and end up sprinkling a lot of these,
> it'll be a
not python, the spirit of python,
i guess i must have been around when it was first discussed, now it's too
late to discuss why it was introduced in the first place ...
Abdur-Rahmaan Janhangeer
https://github.com/Abdur-rahmaanJ
I'm sure people will misuse type hints too. What of it? Does it
>
On Mon, Jul 2, 2018 at 3:55 AM, Abdur-Rahmaan Janhangeer
wrote:
> i meant that x: int = 3 is dangerously close to int x = 3,
>
> in the long run, you'll come across people who come from other languages
> wanting to java/c style their code and end up sprinkling a lot of these,
> it'll be a sad day
i meant that x: int = 3 is dangerously close to int x = 3,
in the long run, you'll come across people who come from other languages
wanting to java/c style their code and end up sprinkling a lot of these,
it'll be a sad day for me
return type in function definition also managed to return via ->
On Sun, Jul 1, 2018 at 11:09 AM Abdur-Rahmaan Janhangeer
wrote:
>
> was viewing pep526, so, finally, python cannot do without hinting the type
> as other languages?
Python certainly can do without it. That's why it's an optional
feature with no runtime effect beyond making the annotations
On 2018-07-01 18:06, Abdur-Rahmaan Janhangeer wrote:
was viewing pep526, so, finally, python cannot do without hinting the type
as other languages?
will python finally move to
int x = 3 where int is a pre annotation?
i am not arguing it's usefulness but rather, does it fit with python?
PEP
was viewing pep526, so, finally, python cannot do without hinting the type
as other languages?
will python finally move to
int x = 3 where int is a pre annotation?
i am not arguing it's usefulness but rather, does it fit with python?
Abdur-Rahmaan Janhangeer
https://github.com/Abdur-rahmaanJ
--
83 matches
Mail list logo
