[Python-announce] Pyparsing 3.1.0b2 released (final beta!)
I just pushed release 3.1.0b2 of pyparsing. 3.1.0 with some fixes to bugs that came up in the past few weeks - testing works! If your project uses pyparsing, please please *please* download this beta release (using "pip install -U pyparsing==3.1.0b2") and open any compatibility issues you might have at the pyparsing GitHub repo (https://github.com/pyparsing/pyparsing). In the absence of any dealbreakers, I'll make the final release in June. You can view the changes here: https://github.com/pyparsing/pyparsing/blob/master/CHANGES ___ Python-announce-list mailing list -- python-announce-list@python.org To unsubscribe send an email to python-announce-list-le...@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman3/lists/python-announce-list.python.org/ Member address: arch...@mail-archive.com
Re: Addition of a .= operator
On 21/05/23 9:18 am, Richard Damon wrote: This just can't happen (as far as I can figure) for .= unless the object is defining something weird for the inplace version of the operation, Indeed. There are clear use cases for overriding +=, but it's hard to think of one for this. So it would just be syntactic sugar, which is harder to justify. -- Greg -- https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Addition of a .= operator
On 21/05/23 5:54 am, Alex Jando wrote: hash.=hexdigest() That would be a very strange and unprecedented syntax that munges together an attribute lookup and a call. Keep in mind that a method call in Python is actually two separate things: y = x.m() is equivalent to f = x.m y = f() But it would not be possible to break down your .= syntax in that way. Another oddity is that these are equivalent: x += y x += (y) i.e. the RHS is evaluated as usual before doing the +=. But these would not be equivalent: hash .= hexdigest() hash .= (hexdigest()) In fact the latter would probably have to be disallowed, as it's not at all clear what it should mean. -- Greg -- https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Addition of a .= operator
On 5/20/23 4:15 PM, Peter J. Holzer wrote: On 2023-05-20 10:54:59 -0700, Alex Jando wrote: I have many times had situations where I had a variable of a certain type, all I cared about it was one of it's methods. For example: hash = hash.hexdigest() num = num.value So what I'm suggesting is something like this: hash.=hexdigest() num.=value I actually needed to read those twice to get their meaning. I think hash .= hexdigest() num .= value would have been clearer (yes, I nag my colleagues about white-space, too). Do you have any examples (preferably from real code) where you don't assign to a simple variable? I feel that x += 1 isn't much of an improvement over x = x + 1 but self.data[line+len(chars)-1] += after is definitely an improvement over self.data[line+len(chars)-1] + self.data[line+len(chars)-1] + after hp For immutable types, it is just syntactic sugar, but for mutable type there is an important difference x = [] y = x x += [1] changes the list named by y, but x = [] y = x x = x + [] does not. The key is that if a type actually implements the inplace operator, then using the op= version doesn't bind the name to a new object but mutates the object to a new value. This just can't happen (as far as I can figure) for .= unless the object is defining something weird for the inplace version of the operation, which is probably best to not actually allow. -- Richard Damon -- https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Error installing packages or upgrading pip
On 5/18/23 04:30, Test Only wrote:
Hi there, I hope you are in a great health
I am having a problem with python even though I uninstall and reinstall it
again multiple times
Ummm... there's usually not a great reason to do that. I know it's the
traditional "Windows Way" of the past, but usually looking for actual
solutions first is better than "reinstall because it might be
corrupted". To put it in snarky terms: reach for the sledgehammer only
once you know the use of a sledge is warranted.
Have you tried searching for this through a search engine? A really
quick try shows several hits, including some StackOverflow articles.
There's no way for us to judge if any of those scenarios actually would
apply to your case, so suggesting you take a look first.
the error I get when I try to upgrade or install a package for example
pip install requests
I get this error which I could not find a solution for
pip install requests
Requirement already satisfied: requests in
c:\users\uly\appdata\local\programs\python\python310\lib\site-packages\requests-2.30.0-py3.10.egg
(2.30.0)
WARNING: Retrying (Retry(total=4, connect=None, read=None, redirect=None,
status=None)) after connection broken by 'ProtocolError('Connection
aborted.', FileNotFoundError(2, 'No such file or directory'))':
/simple/charset-normalizer/
WARNING: Retrying (Retry(total=3, connect=None, read=None, redirect=None,
status=None)) after connection broken by 'ProtocolError('Connection
aborted.', FileNotFoundError(2, 'No such file or directory'))':
/simple/charset-normalizer/
WARNING: Retrying (Retry(total=2, connect=None, read=None, redirect=None,
status=None)) after connection broken by 'ProtocolError('Connection
aborted.', FileNotFoundError(2, 'No such file or directory'))':
/simple/charset-normalizer/
WARNING: Retrying (Retry(total=1, connect=None, read=None, redirect=None,
status=None)) after connection broken by 'ProtocolError('Connection
aborted.', FileNotFoundError(2, 'No such file or directory'))':
/simple/charset-normalizer/
WARNING: Retrying (Retry(total=0, connect=None, read=None, redirect=None,
status=None)) after connection broken by 'ProtocolError('Connection
aborted.', FileNotFoundError(2, 'No such file or directory'))':
/simple/charset-normalizer/
WARNING: Retrying (Retry(total=4, connect=None, read=None, redirect=None,
status=None)) after connection broken by 'ProtocolError('Connection
aborted.', FileNotFoundError(2, 'No such file or directory'))':
/simple/requests/
WARNING: Retrying (Retry(total=3, connect=None, read=None, redirect=None,
status=None)) after connection broken by 'ProtocolError('Connection
aborted.', FileNotFoundError(2, 'No such file or directory'))':
/simple/requests/
WARNING: Retrying (Retry(total=2, connect=None, read=None, redirect=None,
status=None)) after connection broken by 'ProtocolError('Connection
aborted.', FileNotFoundError(2, 'No such file or directory'))':
/simple/requests/
WARNING: Retrying (Retry(total=1, connect=None, read=None, redirect=None,
status=None)) after connection broken by 'ProtocolError('Connection
aborted.', FileNotFoundError(2, 'No such file or directory'))':
/simple/requests/
WARNING: Retrying (Retry(total=0, connect=None, read=None, redirect=None,
status=None)) after connection broken by 'ProtocolError('Connection
aborted.', FileNotFoundError(2, 'No such file or directory'))':
/simple/requests/
ERROR: Could not find a version that satisfies the requirement
charset_normalizer<4,>=2 (from requests) (from versions: none)
ERROR: No matching distribution found for charset_normalizer<4,>=2
WARNING: There was an error checking the latest version of pip.
--
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Addition of a .= operator
On 2023-05-20 10:54:59 -0700, Alex Jando wrote: > I have many times had situations where I had a variable of a certain > type, all I cared about it was one of it's methods. > > For example: > > > hash = hash.hexdigest() > > num = num.value > > > So what I'm suggesting is something like this: > > > hash.=hexdigest() > > num.=value > I actually needed to read those twice to get their meaning. I think hash .= hexdigest() num .= value would have been clearer (yes, I nag my colleagues about white-space, too). Do you have any examples (preferably from real code) where you don't assign to a simple variable? I feel that x += 1 isn't much of an improvement over x = x + 1 but self.data[line+len(chars)-1] += after is definitely an improvement over self.data[line+len(chars)-1] + self.data[line+len(chars)-1] + after hp -- _ | Peter J. Holzer| Story must make more sense than reality. |_|_) || | | | h...@hjp.at |-- Charles Stross, "Creative writing __/ | http://www.hjp.at/ | challenge!" signature.asc Description: PGP signature -- https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
RE: Addition of a .= operator
I would suggest thinking carefully about ramifications as well as any benefits of adding some or .=operator. It sounds substantially different than the whole slew of +=, *= and so on types of operators. The goal some would say of those is to either allow the interpreter optimize by not evaluating twice as in x = x + 1 or python extensions of the dunder type like __iadd__() that allow you to control what exactly is done and which sometimes make a += b do things a bit different than a= a+b. So what would a __i_invoke_method__() function look like? It seems you want the command to sort of replace Object = Object.method(args) But for any method whatsoever. But Python objects can have methods all over the place as they may be subclasses that inherit methods, or may implement an abstract method or use multiple inheritance. All that searching happens in the current way, so if Object.method(args)) Works as expected, would your new method be just syntactic sugar, or would it look for a dunder method that may have no idea initially what you want? Just curious. Is there an alternative way you could get the functionality without using the same way that is used for a very different circumstance? -Original Message- From: Python-list On Behalf Of 2qdxy4rzwzuui...@potatochowder.com Sent: Saturday, May 20, 2023 2:49 PM To: python-list@python.org Subject: Re: Addition of a .= operator On 2023-05-21 at 06:11:02 +1200, dn via Python-list wrote: > On 21/05/2023 05.54, Alex Jando wrote: > > I have many times had situations where I had a variable of a certain type, > > all I cared about it was one of it's methods. > > > > For example: > > > > > > import hashlib > > hash = hashlib.sha256(b'word') > > hash = hash.hexdigest() > > > > import enum > > class Number(enum.Enum): > > One: int = 1 > > Two: int = 2 > > Three: int = 3 > > num = Number.One > > num = num.value > > > > > > Now to be fair, in the two situations above, I could just access the method > > right as I declare the object, however, sometimes when passing values into > > functions, it's a lot messier to do that. Can you give an example, preferably one from an actual program, that shows the mess? Is it More Messier™ than the difference between the following examples? # example 1 hash = hashlib.sha256(b'word') f(hash.hexdigest()) # call f with hash's hexdigest # example 2 hash = hashlib.sha256(b'word') hash = hash.hexdigest() # extract hash's hexdigest f(hash) # call f with hash's hexdigest Can you also show what your code would look like with a .= operator? > > So what I'm suggesting is something like this: > > > > > > import hashlib > > hash = hashlib.sha256(b'word') > > hash.=hexdigest() > > > > import enum > > class Number(enum.Enum): > > One: int = 1 > > Two: int = 2 > > Three: int = 3 > > num = Number.One > > num.=value > > > > A custom-class wrapper? > Even, a decorator-able function? -- https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list -- https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Addition of a .= operator
On 2023-05-21 at 06:11:02 +1200, dn via Python-list wrote: > On 21/05/2023 05.54, Alex Jando wrote: > > I have many times had situations where I had a variable of a certain type, > > all I cared about it was one of it's methods. > > > > For example: > > > > > > import hashlib > > hash = hashlib.sha256(b'word') > > hash = hash.hexdigest() > > > > import enum > > class Number(enum.Enum): > > One: int = 1 > > Two: int = 2 > > Three: int = 3 > > num = Number.One > > num = num.value > > > > > > Now to be fair, in the two situations above, I could just access the method > > right as I declare the object, however, sometimes when passing values into > > functions, it's a lot messier to do that. Can you give an example, preferably one from an actual program, that shows the mess? Is it More Messier™ than the difference between the following examples? # example 1 hash = hashlib.sha256(b'word') f(hash.hexdigest()) # call f with hash's hexdigest # example 2 hash = hashlib.sha256(b'word') hash = hash.hexdigest() # extract hash's hexdigest f(hash) # call f with hash's hexdigest Can you also show what your code would look like with a .= operator? > > So what I'm suggesting is something like this: > > > > > > import hashlib > > hash = hashlib.sha256(b'word') > > hash.=hexdigest() > > > > import enum > > class Number(enum.Enum): > > One: int = 1 > > Two: int = 2 > > Three: int = 3 > > num = Number.One > > num.=value > > > > A custom-class wrapper? > Even, a decorator-able function? -- https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Addition of a .= operator
On 21/05/2023 05.54, Alex Jando wrote: I have many times had situations where I had a variable of a certain type, all I cared about it was one of it's methods. For example: import hashlib hash = hashlib.sha256(b'word') hash = hash.hexdigest() import enum class Number(enum.Enum): One: int = 1 Two: int = 2 Three: int = 3 num = Number.One num = num.value Now to be fair, in the two situations above, I could just access the method right as I declare the object, however, sometimes when passing values into functions, it's a lot messier to do that. So what I'm suggesting is something like this: import hashlib hash = hashlib.sha256(b'word') hash.=hexdigest() import enum class Number(enum.Enum): One: int = 1 Two: int = 2 Three: int = 3 num = Number.One num.=value A custom-class wrapper? Even, a decorator-able function? -- Regards, =dn -- https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Addition of a .= operator
I have many times had situations where I had a variable of a certain type, all I cared about it was one of it's methods. For example: import hashlib hash = hashlib.sha256(b'word') hash = hash.hexdigest() import enum class Number(enum.Enum): One: int = 1 Two: int = 2 Three: int = 3 num = Number.One num = num.value Now to be fair, in the two situations above, I could just access the method right as I declare the object, however, sometimes when passing values into functions, it's a lot messier to do that. So what I'm suggesting is something like this: import hashlib hash = hashlib.sha256(b'word') hash.=hexdigest() import enum class Number(enum.Enum): One: int = 1 Two: int = 2 Three: int = 3 num = Number.One num.=value -- https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
