On Tue Mar 11 2014 at 11:59:23 PM, Chris Angelico ros...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Mar 12, 2014 at 2:20 PM, Ethan Furman et...@stoneleaf.us wrote:
I sure hope this is accepted. I could have used it at least a half-dozen
times in the last week -- which is more often than I would have used the
On Wed, Mar 12, 2014 at 12:10 AM, Chris Angelico ros...@gmail.com wrote:
PEP 463, Exception-catching expressions, is stable and I believe ready
for pronouncement. Drumroll please...
http://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0463/
PEP: 463
Title: Exception-catching expressions
Version: $Revision$
On Thu, Mar 13, 2014 at 2:14 AM, Brett Cannon br...@python.org wrote:
While I'm +0 on the idea, I'm -1 on the syntax; I just don't like having a
colon in an expression.
Which is why there are alternatives listed, and the best four of them
(including the proposed one) ranked.
ChrisA
On Wed, Mar 12, 2014 at 11:16 AM, Chris Angelico ros...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Mar 13, 2014 at 2:14 AM, Brett Cannon br...@python.org wrote:
While I'm +0 on the idea, I'm -1 on the syntax; I just don't like having
a
colon in an expression.
Which is why there are alternatives listed, and
On Mar 12, 2014, at 11:14 AM, Brett Cannon wrote:
While I'm +0 on the idea, I'm -1 on the syntax; I just don't like having a
colon in an expression.
I'm -0 on the idea, mostly be cause it's never occurred to me to even need
something like this, and because I don't personally think the existing
On Thu, Mar 13, 2014 at 2:44 AM, Barry Warsaw ba...@python.org wrote:
That being said, the colon really bothers me, despite what is written in
Common objections. True, colons are used in places other than suite
introduction, but with exception handling, colons *do* introduce a new suite,
so
On 12 March 2014 16:05, Chris Angelico ros...@gmail.com wrote:
Tooling issues should already have been solved for lambda, but if you
don't like the colon, go with one of the other options - Brett
expressed support for 'then', which makes very good sense (it does
require creating a new keyword,
[resending to list]
-- Forwarded message --
From: Jeremy Kloth jeremy.kl...@gmail.com
Date: Wed, Mar 12, 2014 at 10:27 AM
Subject: Re: [Python-Dev] Requesting pronouncement on PEP 463:
Exception-catching expressions
To: Chris Angelico ros...@gmail.com
On Wed, Mar 12, 2014 at
On 12 March 2014 15:21, Brett Cannon br...@python.org wrote:
On Wed, Mar 12, 2014 at 11:16 AM, Chris Angelico ros...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Mar 13, 2014 at 2:14 AM, Brett Cannon br...@python.org wrote:
While I'm +0 on the idea, I'm -1 on the syntax;
I just don't like having a
On Tue, Mar 11, 2014 at 9:10 PM, Chris Angelico ros...@gmail.com wrote:
PEP 463, Exception-catching expressions, is stable and I believe ready
for pronouncement. Drumroll please...
http://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0463/
PEP: 463
Title: Exception-catching expressions
Version: $Revision$
On Mon, 10 Mar 2014 14:26:14 +1100, Chris Angelico ros...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Mar 10, 2014 at 1:16 PM, Jim J. Jewett jimjjew...@gmail.com wrote:
I don't claim that syntax is perfect. I do think it is less flawed
than the no-parentheses (or external parentheses) versions:
(expr1
On 03/12/2014 10:09 AM, Guido van Rossum wrote:
I want to reject this PEP. [...]
But the thing I can't get behind are the motivation and rationale. I don't
think that e.g. dict.get() would be
unnecessary once we have except expressions, and I disagree with the position
that EAFP is better
On Mar 12, 2014, at 10:40 AM, Ethan Furman wrote:
Does this mean a better motivation and rationale may cause you to change your
mind?
My motivation is for simpler, easier to read code: instead of a full-blown
try/except block or a double-lookup into an indexable object I would much
rather do:
Am 12.03.14 04:58, schrieb Chris Angelico:
On Wed, Mar 12, 2014 at 2:20 PM, Ethan Furman et...@stoneleaf.us wrote:
I sure hope this is accepted. I could have used it at least a half-dozen
times in the last week -- which is more often than I would have used the
ternary-if! :)
Where do we
On Thu, Mar 13, 2014 at 4:09 AM, Guido van Rossum gu...@python.org wrote:
But the thing I can't get behind are the motivation and rationale. I don't
think that e.g. dict.get() would be unnecessary once we have except
expressions, and I disagree with the position that EAFP is better than LBYL,
On Thu, Mar 13, 2014 at 7:14 AM, Barry Warsaw ba...@python.org wrote:
Interestingly enough, where ternaries are most useful are in the same
situations where I think exception expressions would be most useful, in the
setting of a variable or attribute to one of two different values. In both
On Thu, Mar 13, 2014 at 7:26 AM, Martin v. Löwis mar...@v.loewis.de wrote:
I think you (or someone) first needs to find a BDFL delegate.
Traditionally, with syntax changes, there is a good chance that Guido
doesn't want to delegate at all, so ask him whether he wants to delegate
or not.
He
On 3/12/2014 1:44 PM, Chris Angelico wrote:
unless someone's going to employ me to champion PEPs full time :)
(Hmm. That would be an interesting job title on the resume.)
It's available now -- www.pepboys.com :)
Emile
___
Python-Dev mailing list
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 03/12/2014 04:49 PM, Chris Angelico wrote:
You can use hasattr() in place of AttributeError
I use:
getattr(subject, attrname, default)?
*all the time*.
Tres.
- --
===
Tres
On Thu, Mar 13, 2014 at 8:37 AM, Tres Seaver tsea...@palladion.com wrote:
On 03/12/2014 04:49 PM, Chris Angelico wrote:
You can use hasattr() in place of AttributeError
I use:
getattr(subject, attrname, default)?
*all the time*.
Umm, yeah, that one. Why did I think hasattr was the only
20 matches
Mail list logo
