I've never liked that idea. Down with it!
On 6/16/05, Raymond Hettinger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The principal use case was largely met by enumerate(). From PEP 276's
rationale section:
A common programming idiom is to take a collection of objects and apply
some operation to each item in
While the majority of Python users deem this to be a nice-to-have
feature, the community has been unable to reach a consensus on the
proper syntax after more than two years of intensive debate (the PEP was
introduced in early April 2003).
Most agree that there should be only-one-way-to-do-it;
[Raymond]
Let me go on record as a strong -1 for continue EXPR. The for-loop is
our most basic construct and is easily understood in its present form.
The same can be said for continue and break which have the added
advantage of a near zero learning curve for people migrating from other
After nine months, no support has grown beyond the original poster. The
PEP did however generate some negative responses when brought-up on
comp.lang.python (it made some people's stomach churn).
The PEP fails the tests of obviousness and necessity. The PEP's switch
example is easily handled by
These PEPs are four years old. Nothing is intrinsically wrong with them, but they have garnered little enthusiasm, discussion, or support, suggesting that the original need was somewhat modest.In addition, the principal (but not only) use cases for a builtin rational type and corresponding
At 08:24 PM 6/16/2005 -0400, Raymond Hettinger wrote:
As a further benefit, using
attributes was a natural approach because that same technique has long
been used with classes (so no new syntax was needed and the learning
curve was zero).
On Friday 17 Jun 2005 02:53, Phillip J. Eby wrote:
Ugh.
This PEP has been open for two and half years without generating
discussion or support.
Its primary case (converting cumulative seconds into a tuple days,
hours, minutes, and seconds) is a bit wanting because it doesn't
generalize to months and years. That need is already met in a more
robust
Hello,
I found your paper very interesting. I have also written a very
minimalistic white paper, mostly aimed at the PyGTK community, with a
small module for pseudo-threads using python generators:
http://www.gnome.org/~gjc/gtasklet/gtasklets.html
I don't have time to follow this
Raymond Hettinger wrote:
Executive summary: cute, but unpersuasive and unnecessary, not worth
the time to code, test, document, maintain, and explain.
Plus, it fails the not every 3-line function has to be a builtin
guideline:
def extended_divmod(numerator, *denominators):
remainders
Skip http://python.org/sf/677103
Thomas There's no patch attached.
*sigh*
Thanks for noticing the problem. Apparently, since I last updated the
patch, SF implemented a 250kbyte limit on file uploads. This one is big
because it includes a suitably modified configure script that was
On Fri, 2005-06-17 at 00:43, Raymond Hettinger wrote:
Let me go on record as a strong -1 for continue EXPR. The for-loop is
our most basic construct and is easily understood in its present form.
The same can be said for continue and break which have the added
advantage of a near zero
On Fri, 2005-06-17 at 05:57, Raymond Hettinger wrote:
This PEP has been open for two and half years without generating
discussion or support.
Interesting. Just yesterday I wrote a simple stopwatch-like timer
script and I found that I needed three divmod calls to convert from
seconds into a
+M to reject.
On 6/16/05, Raymond Hettinger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
While the majority of Python users deem this to be a nice-to-have
feature, the community has been unable to reach a consensus on the
proper syntax after more than two years of intensive debate (the PEP was
introduced in
At 11:29 AM 6/17/2005 +0100, Gustavo J. A. M. Carneiro wrote:
In conjunction with pseudo-threads, I think a python main loop
implementation is fundamental. Such main loop with permit the programmer
to register callbacks for events, such as timeouts, IO conditions, idle
tasks, etc., such as one
Raymond Hettinger wrote:
Plus, it fails the not every 3-line function has to be a builtin
guideline:
Not to pick, but I hope this doesn't become a recurring refrain. That
isn't a real guideline, it's more of a snipe. It also runs counter to
Zen about proposals not being complex and being
[Raymond Hettinger]
After nine months, no support has grown beyond the original poster.
Never will, either -- even Roman numeral literals are more Pythonic
than this one.
More Pythonic: make integers callable: i(arglist) returns the i'th
argument. So, e.g., people who find it inconvenient to
About PEP 303, I use divmod for lots (and lots) of things, but I've
got no real use for an extended divmod() either. -1: it would be
low-use, confusing clutter.
[Barry]
Interesting. Just yesterday I wrote a simple stopwatch-like timer
script and I found that I needed three divmod calls to
IIRC, there was a decision to not implement phase C and to keep the
trailing L in representations of long integers.
If so, I believe the PEP can be marked as final. We've done all we're
going to do.
Raymond
___
Python-Dev mailing list
Guido van Rossum wrote:
On 6/17/05, Raymond Hettinger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
IIRC, there was a decision to not implement phase C and to keep the
trailing L in representations of long integers.
For 2.x, yes. I'm fine with marking it as Final and adding this to PEP
3000 instead.
Since PEP 313
Guido van Rossum wrote:
Recommend accepting just the basic PEP which only targets simple,
obvious cases. The discussed extensions are unattractive and should be
skipped.
-1. The unary colon looks unPythonic to me.
Step 1 would be to require parentheses around the whole thing (ala
At 08:03 PM 6/16/2005 -0700, Guido van Rossum wrote:
I do like continue EXPR but I have to admit I haven't even tried to
come up with examples -- it may be unnecessary. As Phillip says, yield
expressions and g.next(EXPR) are the core -- and also incidentally
look like they will cause the most
Guido van Rossum wrote:
However, I can see other uses for looping over a sequence using a
generator and telling the generator something interesting about each
of the sequence's items, e.g. whether they are green, or should be
printed, or which dollar value they represent if any (to make up a
22 matches
Mail list logo
