Guido van Rossum wrote:
On Fri, Sep 23, 2011 at 7:13 PM, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
http://code.activestate.com/recipes/577068-floating-point-range/
I notice that your examples carefully skirt around the rounding issues.
I also carefully *didn't* claim that it made rounding issues disappear
compl
On 9/23/2011 10:40 PM, Guido van Rossum wrote:
On Fri, Sep 23, 2011 at 7:13 PM, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
I also carefully *didn't* claim that it made rounding issues disappear
completely. I'll add a note clarifying that rounding still occurs and as a
consequence results can be unexpected.
To
On Fri, Sep 23, 2011 at 11:55 PM, Georg Brandl wrote:
> Am 24.09.2011 04:40, schrieb Guido van Rossum:
>> On Fri, Sep 23, 2011 at 7:13 PM, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
> http://code.activestate.com/recipes/577068-floating-point-range/
I notice that your examples carefully skirt around the
I see a lot of flawed "proposals". This is clearly a python-ideas
discussion. (Anatoly, take note -- please post your new gripe there.)
In the mean time, there's a reasonable work-around if you have to
copy/paste a large block of formatted code:
>>> exec('''
.
.
.
.
.
.
''')
>>
You're right that in principle for function definitions there is no ambiguity.
But you also presented the downfall of that proposal: all multi-clause
statements will still need an explicit way of termination, and of course the
"pass" would be exceedingly ugly, not to mention much more confusing tha
Could you elaborate on what would be wrong if function definitions ended
only after an explicitly less indented line? The only problem that comes to
mind is global scope "if" statements that wouldn't execute when expected (we
actually might need to terminate them with a dedented "pass").
On Sep 24,
Am 24.09.2011 01:32, schrieb Guido van Rossum:
> On Fri, Sep 23, 2011 at 4:25 PM, anatoly techtonik
> wrote:
>> Currently if you work in console and define a function and then
>> immediately call it - it will fail with SyntaxError.
>> For example, copy paste this completely valid Python script in
