[Python-ideas] Re: Add a __valid_getitem_requests__ protocol

[Rhodri James]

On 18/02/2020 19:43, Soni L. wrote:
It'd be nice to have a __valid_getitem_requests__ protocol that, if 
present, yields pairs such that:


for key, value in items(obj):
   assert obj[key] == value

for any obj.


OK, I'll bite.  What is this "items()" function you apply to the 
arbitrary object?


--
Rhodri James *-* Kynesim Ltd
___
Python-ideas mailing list -- python-ideas@python.org
To unsubscribe send an email to python-ideas-le...@python.org
https://mail.python.org/mailman3/lists/python-ideas.python.org/
Message archived at 
https://mail.python.org/archives/list/python-ideas@python.org/message/XFDXBFSDQC6BELVFHKPLQEZ5ERBRO545/
Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/

[Python-ideas] Re: Add a __valid_getitem_requests__ protocol

[Soni L.]

On 2020-02-18 5:08 p.m., Rhodri James wrote:

On 18/02/2020 19:43, Soni L. wrote:
It'd be nice to have a __valid_getitem_requests__ protocol that, if 
present, yields pairs such that:


for key, value in items(obj):
   assert obj[key] == value

for any obj.


OK, I'll bite.  What is this "items()" function you apply to the 
arbitrary object?



Similar to len(). Just a shitty wrapper for __valid_getitem_requests__.

We kinda have a requirement that __iter__ and __contains__ have to be 
related, see e.g. dict.__iter__ and dict.__contains__. In an ideal world 
dict would yield pairs by default. and dict() would just iterate 
whatever. But anyway I digress. As far as my proposal goes, 
__valid_getitem_requests__ would provide slightly different semantics 
for converting-to-dict:


dict(items(['a', 'b', 'c'])) == {0: 'a', 1: 'b', 2: 'c'}
dict(items({1: 'a', 2: 'b'})) == {1: 'a', 2: 'b'}
# TODO find other things with __getitem__ and put them here

In other words: it'd allow creating a dict whose __getitem__ behaviour 
is similar to that of the original collection, in the most 
straightforward case. (note how the first dict doesn't contain negative 
indices or the infinitely many slice objects that can be used to index a 
three-element list.)


(perhaps a better name for this property is needed? how about "canonical 
keys"? as in, __valid_getitem_requests__ should contain only the 
canonical "keys" (the python datamodel specifically says __getitem__ 
takes a self and a key[1]) of a collection, and their respective values.)


[1] https://docs.python.org/3/reference/datamodel.html#object.__getitem__
___
Python-ideas mailing list -- python-ideas@python.org
To unsubscribe send an email to python-ideas-le...@python.org
https://mail.python.org/mailman3/lists/python-ideas.python.org/
Message archived at 
https://mail.python.org/archives/list/python-ideas@python.org/message/CEHZRUGM63P7WF3RTOUPLM2GIR3FDLZS/
Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/

[Python-ideas] Re: Add a __valid_getitem_requests__ protocol

[Rhodri James]

On 18/02/2020 20:33, Soni L. wrote:



On 2020-02-18 5:08 p.m., Rhodri James wrote:

On 18/02/2020 19:43, Soni L. wrote:
It'd be nice to have a __valid_getitem_requests__ protocol that, if 
present, yields pairs such that:


for key, value in items(obj):
   assert obj[key] == value

for any obj.


OK, I'll bite.  What is this "items()" function you apply to the 
arbitrary object?



Similar to len(). Just a shitty wrapper for __valid_getitem_requests__.


Language, sunshine.

Do you have a use case for this, or is it just theoretically nice to 
have?  I have to say it isn't nice enough for me to actually want it, 
and I say that as someone who regularly forgets that iterating over a 
dict gets you its keys.


--
Rhodri James *-* Kynesim Ltd
___
Python-ideas mailing list -- python-ideas@python.org
To unsubscribe send an email to python-ideas-le...@python.org
https://mail.python.org/mailman3/lists/python-ideas.python.org/
Message archived at 
https://mail.python.org/archives/list/python-ideas@python.org/message/3W4UBUL6QTONUZN2XFSVAPVKZTHO62PU/
Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/

[Python-ideas] Re: Add a __valid_getitem_requests__ protocol

[Chris Angelico]

On Wed, Feb 19, 2020 at 7:34 AM Soni L.  wrote:
>
> On 2020-02-18 5:08 p.m., Rhodri James wrote:
> > On 18/02/2020 19:43, Soni L. wrote:
> >> It'd be nice to have a __valid_getitem_requests__ protocol that, if
> >> present, yields pairs such that:
> >>
> >> for key, value in items(obj):
> >>assert obj[key] == value
> >>
> >> for any obj.
> >
> > OK, I'll bite.  What is this "items()" function you apply to the
> > arbitrary object?
> >
> Similar to len(). Just a shitty wrapper for __valid_getitem_requests__.
>
> We kinda have a requirement that __iter__ and __contains__ have to be
> related, see e.g. dict.__iter__ and dict.__contains__. In an ideal world
> dict would yield pairs by default. and dict() would just iterate
> whatever. But anyway I digress. As far as my proposal goes,
> __valid_getitem_requests__ would provide slightly different semantics
> for converting-to-dict:
>
> dict(items(['a', 'b', 'c'])) == {0: 'a', 1: 'b', 2: 'c'}
> dict(items({1: 'a', 2: 'b'})) == {1: 'a', 2: 'b'}
> # TODO find other things with __getitem__ and put them here
>
> In other words: it'd allow creating a dict whose __getitem__ behaviour
> is similar to that of the original collection, in the most
> straightforward case. (note how the first dict doesn't contain negative
> indices or the infinitely many slice objects that can be used to index a
> three-element list.)
>

Is this something you do a lot of? Can you show some real-world (or
real-world-cut-down) code that would benefit from this?

ChrisA
___
Python-ideas mailing list -- python-ideas@python.org
To unsubscribe send an email to python-ideas-le...@python.org
https://mail.python.org/mailman3/lists/python-ideas.python.org/
Message archived at 
https://mail.python.org/archives/list/python-ideas@python.org/message/FTDZGPQ6WLMBLWEK2MMFTZBEGMIK76NF/
Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/

[Python-ideas] Re: Add a __valid_getitem_requests__ protocol

[Soni L.]

On 2020-02-18 5:43 p.m., Chris Angelico wrote:

On Wed, Feb 19, 2020 at 7:34 AM Soni L.  wrote:
>
> On 2020-02-18 5:08 p.m., Rhodri James wrote:
> > On 18/02/2020 19:43, Soni L. wrote:
> >> It'd be nice to have a __valid_getitem_requests__ protocol that, if
> >> present, yields pairs such that:
> >>
> >> for key, value in items(obj):
> >>assert obj[key] == value
> >>
> >> for any obj.
> >
> > OK, I'll bite.  What is this "items()" function you apply to the
> > arbitrary object?
> >
> Similar to len(). Just a shitty wrapper for __valid_getitem_requests__.
>
> We kinda have a requirement that __iter__ and __contains__ have to be
> related, see e.g. dict.__iter__ and dict.__contains__. In an ideal world
> dict would yield pairs by default. and dict() would just iterate
> whatever. But anyway I digress. As far as my proposal goes,
> __valid_getitem_requests__ would provide slightly different semantics
> for converting-to-dict:
>
> dict(items(['a', 'b', 'c'])) == {0: 'a', 1: 'b', 2: 'c'}
> dict(items({1: 'a', 2: 'b'})) == {1: 'a', 2: 'b'}
> # TODO find other things with __getitem__ and put them here
>
> In other words: it'd allow creating a dict whose __getitem__ behaviour
> is similar to that of the original collection, in the most
> straightforward case. (note how the first dict doesn't contain negative
> indices or the infinitely many slice objects that can be used to index a
> three-element list.)
>

Is this something you do a lot of? Can you show some real-world (or
real-world-cut-down) code that would benefit from this?


Oh yes absolutely. I have a whole library focused on this sort of 
"canonical keys"-based iteration: 
https://ganarchy.autistic.space/project/0f74bd87a23b515b45da7e6f5d9cc82380443dab/


(Friendly warning, it does handle sets in a rather unusual way. I've 
never used that feature outside unit tests, either. Pay no attention to 
that however, as it's not relevant to this proposal.)

___
Python-ideas mailing list -- python-ideas@python.org
To unsubscribe send an email to python-ideas-le...@python.org
https://mail.python.org/mailman3/lists/python-ideas.python.org/
Message archived at 
https://mail.python.org/archives/list/python-ideas@python.org/message/2FRJDMBOYU3P3VJWPTKWCFEQ22VUSX4R/
Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/

[Python-ideas] Re: Add a __valid_getitem_requests__ protocol

[Guido van Rossum]

Presumably this was inspired by the other thread, "Add __keys__ or
__items__ protocol", where an __items__() method was proposed instead of
recognizing mappings by the presence of a keys() method.

On Tue, Feb 18, 2020 at 12:46 PM Rhodri James  wrote:

> On 18/02/2020 20:33, Soni L. wrote:
> >
> >
> > On 2020-02-18 5:08 p.m., Rhodri James wrote:
> >> On 18/02/2020 19:43, Soni L. wrote:
> >>> It'd be nice to have a __valid_getitem_requests__ protocol that, if
> >>> present, yields pairs such that:
> >>>
> >>> for key, value in items(obj):
> >>>assert obj[key] == value
> >>>
> >>> for any obj.
> >>
> >> OK, I'll bite.  What is this "items()" function you apply to the
> >> arbitrary object?
> >>
> > Similar to len(). Just a shitty wrapper for __valid_getitem_requests__.
>
> Language, sunshine.
>
> Do you have a use case for this, or is it just theoretically nice to
> have?  I have to say it isn't nice enough for me to actually want it,
> and I say that as someone who regularly forgets that iterating over a
> dict gets you its keys.
>
> --
> Rhodri James *-* Kynesim Ltd
> ___
> Python-ideas mailing list -- python-ideas@python.org
> To unsubscribe send an email to python-ideas-le...@python.org
> https://mail.python.org/mailman3/lists/python-ideas.python.org/
> Message archived at
> https://mail.python.org/archives/list/python-ideas@python.org/message/3W4UBUL6QTONUZN2XFSVAPVKZTHO62PU/
> Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
>


-- 
--Guido van Rossum (python.org/~guido)
*Pronouns: he/him **(why is my pronoun here?)*

___
Python-ideas mailing list -- python-ideas@python.org
To unsubscribe send an email to python-ideas-le...@python.org
https://mail.python.org/mailman3/lists/python-ideas.python.org/
Message archived at 
https://mail.python.org/archives/list/python-ideas@python.org/message/Q26OAZRX44VGBEPWIJAVTEXSJIKQBUDO/
Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/

[Python-ideas] Re: Add a __valid_getitem_requests__ protocol

[Chris Angelico]

On Wed, Feb 19, 2020 at 7:58 AM Soni L.  wrote:
>
>
>
> On 2020-02-18 5:43 p.m., Chris Angelico wrote:
> > On Wed, Feb 19, 2020 at 7:34 AM Soni L.  wrote:
> > >
> > > On 2020-02-18 5:08 p.m., Rhodri James wrote:
> > > > On 18/02/2020 19:43, Soni L. wrote:
> > > >> It'd be nice to have a __valid_getitem_requests__ protocol that, if
> > > >> present, yields pairs such that:
> > > >>
> > > >> for key, value in items(obj):
> > > >>assert obj[key] == value
> > > >>
> > > >> for any obj.
> > > >
> > > > OK, I'll bite.  What is this "items()" function you apply to the
> > > > arbitrary object?
> > > >
> > > Similar to len(). Just a shitty wrapper for __valid_getitem_requests__.
> > >
> > > We kinda have a requirement that __iter__ and __contains__ have to be
> > > related, see e.g. dict.__iter__ and dict.__contains__. In an ideal world
> > > dict would yield pairs by default. and dict() would just iterate
> > > whatever. But anyway I digress. As far as my proposal goes,
> > > __valid_getitem_requests__ would provide slightly different semantics
> > > for converting-to-dict:
> > >
> > > dict(items(['a', 'b', 'c'])) == {0: 'a', 1: 'b', 2: 'c'}
> > > dict(items({1: 'a', 2: 'b'})) == {1: 'a', 2: 'b'}
> > > # TODO find other things with __getitem__ and put them here
> > >
> > > In other words: it'd allow creating a dict whose __getitem__ behaviour
> > > is similar to that of the original collection, in the most
> > > straightforward case. (note how the first dict doesn't contain negative
> > > indices or the infinitely many slice objects that can be used to index a
> > > three-element list.)
> > >
> >
> > Is this something you do a lot of? Can you show some real-world (or
> > real-world-cut-down) code that would benefit from this?
>
> Oh yes absolutely. I have a whole library focused on this sort of
> "canonical keys"-based iteration:
> https://ganarchy.autistic.space/project/0f74bd87a23b515b45da7e6f5d9cc82380443dab/
>
> (Friendly warning, it does handle sets in a rather unusual way. I've
> never used that feature outside unit tests, either. Pay no attention to
> that however, as it's not relevant to this proposal.)

Too short, didn't read. Specifically, I'm not going to go digging
through your links to find code to justify why you want this feature.
Post some code here, or at very least, link directly to the code that
would be improved by this feature.

Soni, you're very close to my mental blocklist. Please put a bit more
effort into your posts to make it clear what you're actually
proposing, rather than making each of us do the work.

ChrisA
___
Python-ideas mailing list -- python-ideas@python.org
To unsubscribe send an email to python-ideas-le...@python.org
https://mail.python.org/mailman3/lists/python-ideas.python.org/
Message archived at 
https://mail.python.org/archives/list/python-ideas@python.org/message/HVXVW7TPZNWBLMWU5D7BEGPPOVM773ZA/
Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/

[Python-ideas] Re: Add a __valid_getitem_requests__ protocol

[Paul Moore]

On Tue, 18 Feb 2020 at 20:47, Rhodri James  wrote:
>
> On 18/02/2020 20:33, Soni L. wrote:
> >
> >
> > On 2020-02-18 5:08 p.m., Rhodri James wrote:
> >> On 18/02/2020 19:43, Soni L. wrote:
> >>> It'd be nice to have a __valid_getitem_requests__ protocol that, if
> >>> present, yields pairs such that:
> >>>
> >>> for key, value in items(obj):
> >>>assert obj[key] == value
> >>>
> >>> for any obj.
> >>
> >> OK, I'll bite.  What is this "items()" function you apply to the
> >> arbitrary object?
> >>
> > Similar to len(). Just a shitty wrapper for __valid_getitem_requests__.
>
> Language, sunshine.
>
> Do you have a use case for this, or is it just theoretically nice to
> have?  I have to say it isn't nice enough for me to actually want it,
> and I say that as someone who regularly forgets that iterating over a
> dict gets you its keys.

This looks to me like Lua's `items()` function. It's useful in Lua,
but I'm not sure there's any obvious reason to assume it'll be a
natural fit for idiomatic Python code. As people have said, do you
have a good Python example of real code where this would be useful?
(And where dct.items() or enumerate(lst) wouldn't be sufficient - code
that expects to work equally with lists or dictionaries seems more
Lua-like than Pythonic, IMO).

Paul
___
Python-ideas mailing list -- python-ideas@python.org
To unsubscribe send an email to python-ideas-le...@python.org
https://mail.python.org/mailman3/lists/python-ideas.python.org/
Message archived at 
https://mail.python.org/archives/list/python-ideas@python.org/message/RWWNHLGO2ONXHPS56DKGTXNVFJOHPZO2/
Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/

[Python-ideas] Re: Add a __valid_getitem_requests__ protocol

[Guido van Rossum]

On Tue, Feb 18, 2020 at 1:06 PM Chris Angelico  wrote:

> On Wed, Feb 19, 2020 at 7:58 AM Soni L.  wrote:
> > [...] I have a whole library focused on this sort of
> > "canonical keys"-based iteration:
> >
> https://ganarchy.autistic.space/project/0f74bd87a23b515b45da7e6f5d9cc82380443dab/
> >
> > (Friendly warning, it does handle sets in a rather unusual way. I've
> > never used that feature outside unit tests, either. Pay no attention to
> > that however, as it's not relevant to this proposal.)
>

That link leads to a page where there's a link to
https://soniex2.autistic.space/git-repos/abdl.git/ which is not accessible
without further authentication.


> Too short, didn't read. Specifically, I'm not going to go digging
> through your links to find code to justify why you want this feature.
> Post some code here, or at very least, link directly to the code that
> would be improved by this feature.
>
> Soni, you're very close to my mental blocklist. Please put a bit more
> effort into your posts to make it clear what you're actually
> proposing, rather than making each of us do the work.
>

I have to agree with Chris here -- Soni, please put a bit more effort in
your posts, if you want to remain welcome here. From your URL I gather you
may not have the best social skills. That's fine. We all try to accommodate
a diverse audience here. But at some point, if you don't at least show that
you're trying your best, you will wear out your welcome here. Maybe that
has happened elsewhere. Don't blame it entirely on others or whatever
handicap you may have (we have no idea here, except that we observe your
posts to be somewhat cryptic). You have started a large number of threads
in a short amount of time, and most of them have generated little of use to
the Python community. Please think about how you can contribute something
more constructive.

-- 
--Guido van Rossum (python.org/~guido)
*Pronouns: he/him **(why is my pronoun here?)*

___
Python-ideas mailing list -- python-ideas@python.org
To unsubscribe send an email to python-ideas-le...@python.org
https://mail.python.org/mailman3/lists/python-ideas.python.org/
Message archived at 
https://mail.python.org/archives/list/python-ideas@python.org/message/ZPQHDMUZCGYCMHKF6REC3L6GYPJY4VUM/
Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/

[Python-ideas] Re: Add a __valid_getitem_requests__ protocol

[Soni L.]

On 2020-02-18 6:04 p.m., Chris Angelico wrote:

Too short, didn't read. Specifically, I'm not going to go digging
through your links to find code to justify why you want this feature.
Post some code here, or at very least, link directly to the code that
would be improved by this feature.

Soni, you're very close to my mental blocklist. Please put a bit more
effort into your posts to make it clear what you're actually
proposing, rather than making each of us do the work.

ChrisA
___
Python-ideas mailing list -- python-ideas@python.org
To unsubscribe send an email to python-ideas-le...@python.org
https://mail.python.org/mailman3/lists/python-ideas.python.org/
Message archived at 
https://mail.python.org/archives/list/python-ideas@python.org/message/HVXVW7TPZNWBLMWU5D7BEGPPOVM773ZA/
Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/

Alright, sorry.

The documentation states:

"ABDL expressions are regex-like constructs for matching and validating 
object structures. They can be used with JSON and similar formats, and 
even self-referential data structures."
"ABDL expressions have the ability to iterate, index, validate and 
filter data structures, through the use of the syntax elements below."
"An arrow is ``->`` and indicates indexing/iteration (Mappings, 
Sequences, Sets). Whether indexing or iteration is used is defined by 
the elements that follow, with iteration being used by default."
"A variable is a sequence of alphanumeric characters, not starting with 
a digit. A ``(key, value)`` tuple containing the respective matched 
element will be identified by this name in the results dict."


And this sums up the core aspect of the library: the library is built on 
the idea of iterating "canonical keys" and their corresponding values, 
and validating and filtering them. ("[...] iteration being used by 
default", meaning indexing takes additional syntax - this is unlike some 
JSON and XML query languages where indexing takes /less/ syntax and 
filtering is generally highly limited and verbose.)


Iteration is done thusly:

def _pairs(obj):
    if isinstance(obj, collections.abc.Mapping):
    return iter(obj.items())
    elif isinstance(obj, collections.abc.Sequence):
    return iter(enumerate(obj, 0))
    elif isinstance(obj, collections.abc.Set):
    return iter(((e, e) for e in obj))
    else:
    # maybe there's more stuff I can implement later
    raise TypeError

I think having a proper protocol for this behaviour would be beneficial, 
as no (monkey)patching would be needed to add support for additional 
collections and data types. The comment saying there may be additional 
data types I've missed would then become irrelevant, as they'd be 
covered by __valid_getitem_requests__.


Sometimes you just want to treat everything as a (read-only) dict. 
Mostly when dealing with user input (e.g. configs), but not only.

___
Python-ideas mailing list -- python-ideas@python.org
To unsubscribe send an email to python-ideas-le...@python.org
https://mail.python.org/mailman3/lists/python-ideas.python.org/
Message archived at 
https://mail.python.org/archives/list/python-ideas@python.org/message/BO75Q4QMZ7UDMSMK3F2MM5BBLKVV7ZME/
Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/

[Python-ideas] Re: Add a __valid_getitem_requests__ protocol

[Guido van Rossum]

On Tue, Feb 18, 2020 at 1:45 PM Soni L.  wrote:

> [...]
> Iteration is done thusly:
>
> def _pairs(obj):
>  if isinstance(obj, collections.abc.Mapping):
>  return iter(obj.items())
>  elif isinstance(obj, collections.abc.Sequence):
>  return iter(enumerate(obj, 0))
>  elif isinstance(obj, collections.abc.Set):
>  return iter(((e, e) for e in obj))
>  else:
>  # maybe there's more stuff I can implement later
>  raise TypeError
>
> I think having a proper protocol for this behaviour would be beneficial,
> as no (monkey)patching would be needed to add support for additional
> collections and data types. The comment saying there may be additional
> data types I've missed would then become irrelevant, as they'd be
> covered by __valid_getitem_requests__.
>
> Sometimes you just want to treat everything as a (read-only) dict.
> Mostly when dealing with user input (e.g. configs), but not only.
>

But what will you do with the pairs?

For mappings and sequences, the pairs represent (key, value) or (index,
value) pairs, which makes sense, since (as you write in your first post)
one can write obj[key] to obtain values from a mapping or sequence (key ~~
index).

But then you go on and propose returning pairs (value, value) for sets, and
there's nothing corresponding to obj[key]. So I'm not sure what your intent
for the proposed is. Why do you want pairs for everything? Suppose obj is a
number x, perhaps you would want to get a single pair (x, x) from the
iteration? (I know that's probably bending the metaphor too far. :-)

Even if you were to answer this question, consider that perhaps your
application is rather unique in this insistence on pairs. Or perhaps you
should've stopped at proposing an API that unifies mappings and sequences
(which more sensible since both support __getitem__) -- isn't that what
your original post was about?

However even for mappings and sequences the analogy only goes so far, since
*iterating* over them behaves very differently: for a mapping, iteration
yields keys, while for a sequence, it yields values. A legitimate question
that comes up from time to time is actually how to *distinguish* between
mappings and sequences -- se the other python-ideas thread that I mentioned
previously.

-- 
--Guido van Rossum (python.org/~guido)
*Pronouns: he/him **(why is my pronoun here?)*

___
Python-ideas mailing list -- python-ideas@python.org
To unsubscribe send an email to python-ideas-le...@python.org
https://mail.python.org/mailman3/lists/python-ideas.python.org/
Message archived at 
https://mail.python.org/archives/list/python-ideas@python.org/message/MLWXVXG5JIT34E27XM3UNA3OTYF2XFSG/
Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/

[Python-ideas] Re: Add a __valid_getitem_requests__ protocol

[Soni L.]

On 2020-02-18 7:03 p.m., Guido van Rossum wrote:
On Tue, Feb 18, 2020 at 1:45 PM Soni L. > wrote:


[...]
Iteration is done thusly:

def _pairs(obj):
 if isinstance(obj, collections.abc.Mapping):
 return iter(obj.items())
 elif isinstance(obj, collections.abc.Sequence):
 return iter(enumerate(obj, 0))
 elif isinstance(obj, collections.abc.Set):
 return iter(((e, e) for e in obj))
 else:
 # maybe there's more stuff I can implement later
 raise TypeError

I think having a proper protocol for this behaviour would be
beneficial,
as no (monkey)patching would be needed to add support for additional
collections and data types. The comment saying there may be
additional
data types I've missed would then become irrelevant, as they'd be
covered by __valid_getitem_requests__.

Sometimes you just want to treat everything as a (read-only) dict.
Mostly when dealing with user input (e.g. configs), but not only.


But what will you do with the pairs?

For mappings and sequences, the pairs represent (key, value) or 
(index, value) pairs, which makes sense, since (as you write in your 
first post) one can write obj[key] to obtain values from a mapping or 
sequence (key ~~ index).


But then you go on and propose returning pairs (value, value) for 
sets, and there's nothing corresponding to obj[key]. So I'm not sure 
what your intent for the proposed is. Why do you want pairs for 
everything? Suppose obj is a number x, perhaps you would want to get a 
single pair (x, x) from the iteration? (I know that's probably bending 
the metaphor too far. :-)


Yep, I'll bring you back to the previous post:

"(Friendly warning, it does handle sets in a rather unusual way. I've 
never used that feature outside unit tests, either. Pay no attention to 
that however, as it's not relevant to this proposal.)"


I kinda just really wish sets did easy interning with a very low chance 
of accidentally mapping two different things to the same (or otherwise 
wrong) objects (e.g. intern_cache["a"]=None), and so I decided to encode 
that into my _pairs. But that is unrelated to this proposal.




Even if you were to answer this question, consider that perhaps your 
application is rather unique in this insistence on pairs. Or perhaps 
you should've stopped at proposing an API that unifies mappings and 
sequences (which more sensible since both support __getitem__) -- 
isn't that what your original post was about?


I should've stopped myself from adding this weird behaviour with sets. 
I've never even used it yet. Sequences and dicts, I do use, but not sets.




However even for mappings and sequences the analogy only goes so far, 
since *iterating* over them behaves very differently: for a mapping, 
iteration yields keys, while for a sequence, it yields values. A 
legitimate question that comes up from time to time is actually how to 
*distinguish* between mappings and sequences -- se the other 
python-ideas thread that I mentioned previously.


Yeah I can't say I don't have some "I like the way Lua does this" 
feelings. I'll be honest tho, if I were to implement fully separate 
behaviour for lists and dicts, the fact that dicts iterate by key and 
lists iterate by value means I would have to go with either a slower 
implementation (such as an operator that basically just converts an 
iterator of keys into one of values - or at least I'm pretty sure python 
doesn't optimize "indexing a dict with the key you're iterating", even 
if that may or may not be a cpython implementation detail) or one with 
loads of duplicated code (different code for lists and for dicts, and 
different arrow operators to select between them). I opted for this 
instead, it seemed like an acceptable tradeoff altho I'm not sure the 
python community likes it.




--
--Guido van Rossum (python.org/~guido )
/Pronouns: he/him //(why is my pronoun here?)/ 



___
Python-ideas mailing list -- python-ideas@python.org
To unsubscribe send an email to python-ideas-le...@python.org
https://mail.python.org/mailman3/lists/python-ideas.python.org/
Message archived at 
https://mail.python.org/archives/list/python-ideas@python.org/message/VOVPPW3ELXCAVT4WL3J25FAXWXWN2Q77/
Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/

[Python-ideas] Re: Add a __valid_getitem_requests__ protocol

[Steven D'Aprano]

On Tue, Feb 18, 2020 at 09:04:21PM +, Paul Moore wrote:

> This looks to me like Lua's `items()` function.

I can't find that function listed anywhere.

https://www.lua.org/manual/5.3/

Are you maybe thinking of `pairs()`?

https://www.lua.org/manual/5.3/manual.html#pdf-pairs

> It's useful in Lua,
> but I'm not sure there's any obvious reason to assume it'll be a
> natural fit for idiomatic Python code. As people have said, do you
> have a good Python example of real code where this would be useful?
> (And where dct.items() or enumerate(lst) wouldn't be sufficient - code
> that expects to work equally with lists or dictionaries seems more
> Lua-like than Pythonic, IMO).

In Lua, lists (arrays) *are* dictionaries, they keys are merely 
implicitly set to consecutive integers.

My personal experience is that the analogy between (index, item) and 
(key, item) is more useful in theory and practice, but if I ever needed 
to do such a thing, a thin helper function:

def items(dict_or_seq):
try:
return obj.items()
except AttributeError:
return enumerate(obj)

would do the job.

I don't think this is useful or important enough to turn it into a 
language-wide protocol. It's not as if the concept has much, if any, use 
outside of mappings and sequences.


-- 
Steven
___
Python-ideas mailing list -- python-ideas@python.org
To unsubscribe send an email to python-ideas-le...@python.org
https://mail.python.org/mailman3/lists/python-ideas.python.org/
Message archived at 
https://mail.python.org/archives/list/python-ideas@python.org/message/TO2HDDRJC5VLA6APR4NFVQRL72FYSOBX/
Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/

[Python-ideas] Re: Add a __valid_getitem_requests__ protocol

[Steven D'Aprano]

On Tue, Feb 18, 2020 at 08:44:07PM +, Rhodri James wrote:

> Language, sunshine.

What about it?

Just for the record, I had no issues with Soni's language, but I do 
object to attempts to shame him for it. This isn't the Disney Chanel, 
it's been over 100 years since Victoria was Queen of England, and we're 
all adults here.


-- 
Steven
___
Python-ideas mailing list -- python-ideas@python.org
To unsubscribe send an email to python-ideas-le...@python.org
https://mail.python.org/mailman3/lists/python-ideas.python.org/
Message archived at 
https://mail.python.org/archives/list/python-ideas@python.org/message/DBQWU6I3WD5Q56FXLP42K5FJMMQDOI7D/
Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/

[Python-ideas] Re: Add a __valid_getitem_requests__ protocol

[Ethan Furman]

On 02/18/2020 04:26 PM, Steven D'Aprano wrote:

On Tue, Feb 18, 2020 at 08:44:07PM +, Rhodri James wrote:



Language, sunshine.


What about it?

Just for the record, I had no issues with Soni's language, but I do
object to attempts to shame him for it.


Since when is simply drawing one's attention to something shaming?


This isn't the Disney Chanel,
it's been over 100 years since Victoria was Queen of England, and we're
all adults here.


Really?  I didn't realize those under the legal age of majority were not 
allowed on this list.

At any rate, we should be able to control what we say and how we say it, adult 
or not.

--
~Ethan~
___
Python-ideas mailing list -- python-ideas@python.org
To unsubscribe send an email to python-ideas-le...@python.org
https://mail.python.org/mailman3/lists/python-ideas.python.org/
Message archived at 
https://mail.python.org/archives/list/python-ideas@python.org/message/F3DL2KU2GKXBV6O7SAWKOK3KFMENHUVG/
Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/

[Python-ideas] Re: Add a __valid_getitem_requests__ protocol

[Andrew Barnert via Python-ideas]

On Feb 18, 2020, at 17:11, Ethan Furman  wrote:
> 
> On 02/18/2020 04:26 PM, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
>> On Tue, Feb 18, 2020 at 08:44:07PM +, Rhodri James wrote:
> 
>>> Language, sunshine.
>> What about it?
>> Just for the record, I had no issues with Soni's language, but I do
>> object to attempts to shame him for it.
> 
> Since when is simply drawing one's attention to something shaming?
> 
>> This isn't the Disney Chanel,
>> it's been over 100 years since Victoria was Queen of England, and we're
>> all adults here.
> 
> Really?  I didn't realize those under the legal age of majority were not 
> allowed on this list.

Isn’t the point of having a Code of Conduct that we shouldn’t have to have 
these arguments? Or, if there is an argument about whether a single figurative 
use as a word qualifies as “excessive swearing” per the CoC, surely an -ideas 
thread isn’t the place to have it?
___
Python-ideas mailing list -- python-ideas@python.org
To unsubscribe send an email to python-ideas-le...@python.org
https://mail.python.org/mailman3/lists/python-ideas.python.org/
Message archived at 
https://mail.python.org/archives/list/python-ideas@python.org/message/GOKPFN55FTAGLB7WJ6B6MOUJ3FLDWBZ7/
Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/

[Python-ideas] Re: Add a __valid_getitem_requests__ protocol

[Paul Moore]

On Tue, 18 Feb 2020 at 23:40, Steven D'Aprano  wrote:
>
> On Tue, Feb 18, 2020 at 09:04:21PM +, Paul Moore wrote:
>
> > This looks to me like Lua's `items()` function.
>
> I can't find that function listed anywhere.
>
> https://www.lua.org/manual/5.3/
>
> Are you maybe thinking of `pairs()`?
>
> https://www.lua.org/manual/5.3/manual.html#pdf-pairs

Sorry, yes I was - I should have checked instead of relying on memory.

Paul
___
Python-ideas mailing list -- python-ideas@python.org
To unsubscribe send an email to python-ideas-le...@python.org
https://mail.python.org/mailman3/lists/python-ideas.python.org/
Message archived at 
https://mail.python.org/archives/list/python-ideas@python.org/message/A7ZDOU53G3LDCJKOIB5QR644THDYIOIG/
Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/

[Python-ideas] Re: Add a __valid_getitem_requests__ protocol

[Kyle Stanley]

> Isn’t the point of having a Code of Conduct that we shouldn’t have to
have these arguments? Or, if there is an argument about whether a single
figurative use as a word qualifies as “excessive swearing” per the CoC,
surely an -ideas thread isn’t the place to have it?

Yeah, I very much doubt that "shitty wrapper" constitutes as excessive
swearing. It'd be one thing if the post contained many or was directed at
someone else, but the OP was using it to refer to something they personally
wrote. Personally, I think it's a non-issue in that sort of context.

On Tue, Feb 18, 2020 at 10:40 PM Andrew Barnert via Python-ideas <
python-ideas@python.org> wrote:

> On Feb 18, 2020, at 17:11, Ethan Furman  wrote:
> >
> > On 02/18/2020 04:26 PM, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
> >> On Tue, Feb 18, 2020 at 08:44:07PM +, Rhodri James wrote:
> >
> >>> Language, sunshine.
> >> What about it?
> >> Just for the record, I had no issues with Soni's language, but I do
> >> object to attempts to shame him for it.
> >
> > Since when is simply drawing one's attention to something shaming?
> >
> >> This isn't the Disney Chanel,
> >> it's been over 100 years since Victoria was Queen of England, and we're
> >> all adults here.
> >
> > Really?  I didn't realize those under the legal age of majority were not
> allowed on this list.
>
> Isn’t the point of having a Code of Conduct that we shouldn’t have to have
> these arguments? Or, if there is an argument about whether a single
> figurative use as a word qualifies as “excessive swearing” per the CoC,
> surely an -ideas thread isn’t the place to have it?
> ___
> Python-ideas mailing list -- python-ideas@python.org
> To unsubscribe send an email to python-ideas-le...@python.org
> https://mail.python.org/mailman3/lists/python-ideas.python.org/
> Message archived at
> https://mail.python.org/archives/list/python-ideas@python.org/message/GOKPFN55FTAGLB7WJ6B6MOUJ3FLDWBZ7/
> Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
>
___
Python-ideas mailing list -- python-ideas@python.org
To unsubscribe send an email to python-ideas-le...@python.org
https://mail.python.org/mailman3/lists/python-ideas.python.org/
Message archived at 
https://mail.python.org/archives/list/python-ideas@python.org/message/QFBU42VVYYTC4IHEZ2HVRAB7AYJO2VXD/
Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/

[Python-ideas] Re: Add a __valid_getitem_requests__ protocol

[Rhodri James]

On 19/02/2020 00:26, Steven D'Aprano wrote:

On Tue, Feb 18, 2020 at 08:44:07PM +, Rhodri James wrote:


Language, sunshine.


What about it?

Just for the record, I had no issues with Soni's language, but I do
object to attempts to shame him for it. This isn't the Disney Chanel,
it's been over 100 years since Victoria was Queen of England, and we're
all adults here.


Actually we aren't all adults here, I happen to know, but never mind.  I 
still thought Soni's language was inappropriate and just cautioning them 
was appropriate.  If I thought "shitty wrapper" was unacceptable, I 
wouldn't have bothered cautioning them and just reported the CoC breach.


--
Rhodri James *-* Kynesim Ltd
___
Python-ideas mailing list -- python-ideas@python.org
To unsubscribe send an email to python-ideas-le...@python.org
https://mail.python.org/mailman3/lists/python-ideas.python.org/
Message archived at 
https://mail.python.org/archives/list/python-ideas@python.org/message/VC2ROZN7FOIOBMQJUNZDGVM3GYRR36J2/
Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/

[Python-ideas] Re: Add a __valid_getitem_requests__ protocol

[Soni L.]

On 2020-02-18 5:33 p.m., Soni L. wrote:



Similar to len(). Just a shitty wrapper for __valid_getitem_requests__.




Correction: Just a simple wrapper for __valid_getitem_requests__.
___
Python-ideas mailing list -- python-ideas@python.org
To unsubscribe send an email to python-ideas-le...@python.org
https://mail.python.org/mailman3/lists/python-ideas.python.org/
Message archived at 
https://mail.python.org/archives/list/python-ideas@python.org/message/FGNTAFZ57TA2DLNV3ZSDNKKRUXPDO2V7/
Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/

[Python-ideas] Re: Add a __valid_getitem_requests__ protocol

[Rhodri James]

On 19/02/2020 16:55, Soni L. wrote:



On 2020-02-18 5:33 p.m., Soni L. wrote:



Similar to len(). Just a shitty wrapper for __valid_getitem_requests__.




Correction: Just a simple wrapper for __valid_getitem_requests__.


Thank you! :-)

--
Rhodri James *-* Kynesim Ltd
___
Python-ideas mailing list -- python-ideas@python.org
To unsubscribe send an email to python-ideas-le...@python.org
https://mail.python.org/mailman3/lists/python-ideas.python.org/
Message archived at 
https://mail.python.org/archives/list/python-ideas@python.org/message/YDV5Q2M4Q73NCMROHMAPB45QWH3OBSF5/
Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/

[Python-ideas] Re: Add a __valid_getitem_requests__ protocol

[Ethan Furman]

On 02/19/2020 08:55 AM, Soni L. wrote:

On 2020-02-18 5:33 p.m., Soni L. wrote:



Similar to len(). Just a [crappy] wrapper for __valid_getitem_requests__.


Correction: Just a simple wrapper for __valid_getitem_requests__.


Hopefully unsurprisingly, those words do not mean the same:

simple: little if any extra functionality, possibly just a name redirect
crappy: serious performance penalties, weird/incorrect edge cases, different 
order of parameters, hard to understand code, etc.

--
~Ethan~
___
Python-ideas mailing list -- python-ideas@python.org
To unsubscribe send an email to python-ideas-le...@python.org
https://mail.python.org/mailman3/lists/python-ideas.python.org/
Message archived at 
https://mail.python.org/archives/list/python-ideas@python.org/message/CAAUJ2VJK65AJG56T5OHQWDHI37F7EBO/
Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/

[Python-ideas] Re: Add a __valid_getitem_requests__ protocol

[Steven D'Aprano]

I've been sitting on this email for the best part of a week. It hasn't 
been an easy decision to decide to send it, because I expect it will 
ruffle some feathers, including someone who, last time I ruffled his 
feathers, banned me from one of the other mailing lists.

But I am part of this community, and if I'm too scared to state my 
opinions for fear of retaliation, then I'm not really part of the 
community, the supposed community values of being open and welcoming is 
a sham, and it's best if I find out now.

When I posted my reply to Rhodi, I wasn't intending to shine the 
spotlight on his comment to Soni more than the simple statement I made. 
But since Ethan disagreed with me, I should elaborate.


On Tue, Feb 18, 2020 at 05:09:39PM -0800, Ethan Furman wrote:
> On 02/18/2020 04:26 PM, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
> >On Tue, Feb 18, 2020 at 08:44:07PM +, Rhodri James wrote:
> 
> >>Language, sunshine.
> >
> >What about it?
> >
> >Just for the record, I had no issues with Soni's language, but I do
> >object to attempts to shame him for it.
> 
> Since when is simply drawing one's attention to something shaming?

Of course drawing attention to something can often be shaming and a 
disguised attack:

"You're fat. He's filthy. She's promiscuous. Your language is 
unacceptable and bad (and by implication, so are you)."

Having attention drawn to your social transgression is shaming. That's 
why we do it: to stop people from transgressing again.

"Language" is short for "Watch your language", a command, not an 
observation or even a suggestion. But I'm pretty sure that you, Ethan, 
already knew that. Defending Rhodi on the basis that he's merely stating 
a fact is disingenious.

In Commonwealth English, calling someone you don't know "sunshine" is a 
mock-friendly but actually hostile act, rather like the way "pal" or 
"buddy" can be used in American English. Even if you did not know this, 
you surely knew that in the context of this email thread, calling 
someone "sunshine" is condescending, like calling them "pumpkin" or 
"sweety-pie".

What Rhodi did was not "simply drawing one's attention", it was a 
rebuke. Ethan, I find it difficult to believe that you did not know 
that, and that your question was made in good faith.


> >This isn't the Disney Chanel,
> >it's been over 100 years since Victoria was Queen of England, and we're
> >all adults here.
> 
> Really?  I didn't realize those under the legal age of majority were not 
> allowed on this list.

Ethan, you've been involved with the Python community long enough to 
know the meaning of "we're all adults here", and it doesn't mean 
anything about legal age of majority.

The point is, this is not a child-friendly space, this is an space for 
adults. We shouldn't be expected to dumb-down our conversation to that 
suitable for six year olds.

If there are any underage people on this list, I expect them to (1) 
behave like adults, and (2) not freak out when the rest of us behave 
like adults. And that includes using "grown up words" (dear gods, why 
are we even having this conversation?) that I am pretty sure most of us, 
if not all of us, use off-list, hear our peers use, hear at the movies, 
on television, and on radio.

Besides, I know what kids are like. I was one once, as we all were. The 
idea that an unsupervised child on the Internet doesn't already know 
this "bad word" by the time they're eight is at best laughably naive, if 
not patronising and demeaning.

When the CoC was first debated, the PSF promised that the CoC would not 
be used to ban "rude words". Have they reneged on that promise? If not, 
Soni's language shouldn't even be an issue and Rhodi's rebuke was 
unnecessary. If they have, then we have a much more serious problem with 
this community.


> At any rate, we should be able to control what we say and how we say it, 
> adult or not.

Indeed we should. And if that means we want to call a shitty piece of 
software a shitty piece of software, especially when it's our own 
software, we shouldn't need fear that somebody will tell us off for it.


-- 
Steven
___
Python-ideas mailing list -- python-ideas@python.org
To unsubscribe send an email to python-ideas-le...@python.org
https://mail.python.org/mailman3/lists/python-ideas.python.org/
Message archived at 
https://mail.python.org/archives/list/python-ideas@python.org/message/QMU5JGGOPGW7OCYEKRN62IS7N3PPY3JL/
Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/

[Python-ideas] Re: Add a __valid_getitem_requests__ protocol

[Chris Angelico]

On Mon, Feb 24, 2020 at 10:04 AM Steven D'Aprano  wrote:
> > At any rate, we should be able to control what we say and how we say it,
> > adult or not.
>
> Indeed we should. And if that means we want to call a shitty piece of
> software a shitty piece of software, especially when it's our own
> software, we shouldn't need fear that somebody will tell us off for it.
>

For the record, I think Soni's original description (implying that the
thin wrappers like iter(x) calling x.__iter__() etc are in some way
bad) was rude, but not a CoC violation or anything. It's the sort of
rude that colours someone's posts and thus other people's views of
their arguments, but shouldn't get the person banned.

But it WAS rude, and I don't think Rhodri was wrong to call that out.
If you're going to rail on the code patterns that currently exist
(profane language is mostly irrelevant here), that really doesn't do
your arguments any favours, and it's fine IMO to call someone out for
it just as much as you'd call someone out for posting their entire
feature request in all-caps with no punctuation or line breaks.

ChrisA
___
Python-ideas mailing list -- python-ideas@python.org
To unsubscribe send an email to python-ideas-le...@python.org
https://mail.python.org/mailman3/lists/python-ideas.python.org/
Message archived at 
https://mail.python.org/archives/list/python-ideas@python.org/message/X7ZTNCVEW7XZLQCI3LRR5HNPPYQ2YUAE/
Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/

[Python-ideas] Re: Add a __valid_getitem_requests__ protocol

[C. Titus Brown]

WHATS WRONG WITH TOP POSTING IN ALL CAPS AND NO PUNCTUATION!?!?!?!

:)

No one has complained to the moderators that CoC is being violated. and if they 
did, there’s a whole bunch of safeguards to ensure that it’s not being misused. 
 I do occasionally (once or twice a year?) place specific members back on 
moderate temporarily so that I can intercept heated discussions before they 
spiral out of control, but I’ve tried to keep moderation rapid enough that I 
don’t think it’s intrusive. Nothing on this list is time critical, IMO, and I 
also note that new members are moderated _by default_.

Also, if someone thinks that the CoC is being over applied (!?) or the list 
moderation is too heavy handed (!?) on this list, this list is also not the 
place to discuss it. That place would be conduct...@python.org, and I’m sure 
they would appreciate any concerns anyone has to convey.

best,
—titus

> On Feb 23, 2020, at 5:38 PM, Chris Angelico  wrote:
> 
> On Mon, Feb 24, 2020 at 10:04 AM Steven D'Aprano  wrote:
>>> At any rate, we should be able to control what we say and how we say it,
>>> adult or not.
>> 
>> Indeed we should. And if that means we want to call a shitty piece of
>> software a shitty piece of software, especially when it's our own
>> software, we shouldn't need fear that somebody will tell us off for it.
>> 
> 
> For the record, I think Soni's original description (implying that the
> thin wrappers like iter(x) calling x.__iter__() etc are in some way
> bad) was rude, but not a CoC violation or anything. It's the sort of
> rude that colours someone's posts and thus other people's views of
> their arguments, but shouldn't get the person banned.
> 
> But it WAS rude, and I don't think Rhodri was wrong to call that out.
> If you're going to rail on the code patterns that currently exist
> (profane language is mostly irrelevant here), that really doesn't do
> your arguments any favours, and it's fine IMO to call someone out for
> it just as much as you'd call someone out for posting their entire
> feature request in all-caps with no punctuation or line breaks.
> 
> ChrisA
> ___
> Python-ideas mailing list -- python-ideas@python.org
> To unsubscribe send an email to python-ideas-le...@python.org
> https://mail.python.org/mailman3/lists/python-ideas.python.org/
> Message archived at 
> https://mail.python.org/archives/list/python-ideas@python.org/message/X7ZTNCVEW7XZLQCI3LRR5HNPPYQ2YUAE/
> Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
___
Python-ideas mailing list -- python-ideas@python.org
To unsubscribe send an email to python-ideas-le...@python.org
https://mail.python.org/mailman3/lists/python-ideas.python.org/
Message archived at 
https://mail.python.org/archives/list/python-ideas@python.org/message/GN6JZCH4MRS3VWZMH47XJBE4IDH5UMAY/
Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/

[Python-ideas] Re: Add a __valid_getitem_requests__ protocol

[Chris Angelico]

On Mon, Feb 24, 2020 at 1:00 PM C. Titus Brown  wrote:
>
> WHATS WRONG WITH TOP POSTING IN ALL CAPS AND NO PUNCTUATION!?!?!?!
>
> :)

Oh, it's alright, you just put all the punctuation at the end :)

ChrisA
___
Python-ideas mailing list -- python-ideas@python.org
To unsubscribe send an email to python-ideas-le...@python.org
https://mail.python.org/mailman3/lists/python-ideas.python.org/
Message archived at 
https://mail.python.org/archives/list/python-ideas@python.org/message/AFFD65YLNC5USCYSAXFHCJVPIJB44GGJ/
Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/

[Python-ideas] Re: Add a __valid_getitem_requests__ protocol

[MRAB]

On 2020-02-24 02:22, Chris Angelico wrote:

On Mon, Feb 24, 2020 at 1:00 PM C. Titus Brown  wrote:


WHATS WRONG WITH TOP POSTING IN ALL CAPS AND NO PUNCTUATION!?!?!?!

:)


Oh, it's alright, you just put all the punctuation at the end :)


Not all of it; it's still missing an apostrophe. :-)
___
Python-ideas mailing list -- python-ideas@python.org
To unsubscribe send an email to python-ideas-le...@python.org
https://mail.python.org/mailman3/lists/python-ideas.python.org/
Message archived at 
https://mail.python.org/archives/list/python-ideas@python.org/message/WOKOMHUMBZTZ7QIOB5HFTOH3LGSDEAXX/
Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/

[Python-ideas] Re: Add a __valid_getitem_requests__ protocol

[Paul Moore]

On Mon, 24 Feb 2020 at 02:44, MRAB  wrote:
>
> On 2020-02-24 02:22, Chris Angelico wrote:
> > On Mon, Feb 24, 2020 at 1:00 PM C. Titus Brown  wrote:
> >>
> >> WHATS WRONG WITH TOP POSTING IN ALL CAPS AND NO PUNCTUATION!?!?!?!
> >>
> >> :)
> >
> > Oh, it's alright, you just put all the punctuation at the end :)
> >
> Not all of it; it's still missing an apostrophe. :-)

That's coming in his next email when he talks about the plural of POTATO.
___
Python-ideas mailing list -- python-ideas@python.org
To unsubscribe send an email to python-ideas-le...@python.org
https://mail.python.org/mailman3/lists/python-ideas.python.org/
Message archived at 
https://mail.python.org/archives/list/python-ideas@python.org/message/7Z2ODIGKQP447TV7N5IDHBNSWKRV2CTM/
Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/