Re: [Python-Dev] PEP 8 updated on whether to break before or after a binary update

On Fri, Apr 15, 2016, at 23:46, Peter Ludemann via Python-Dev wrote: > If Python ever adopts the BCPL rule for implicit line continuation if > the last thing on a line is an operator (or if there's an open > parentheses), then the break-after-an-operator rule would be more > persuasive. ;) > >

Re: [Python-Dev] PEP 8 updated on whether to break before or after a binary update

If Python ever adopts the BCPL rule for implicit line continuation if the last thing on a line is an operator (or if there's an open parentheses), then the break-after-an-operator rule would be more persuasive. ;) [IIRC, the BCPL rule was that there was an implicit continuation if the grammar

Re: [Python-Dev] RFC: PEP 509: Add a private version to dict

.2016-04-15 23:45 GMT+02:00 Jim J. Jewett : >> It's an useful property. For example, let's say that you have a guard >> on globals()['value']. The guard is created with value=3. An unit test >> replaces the value with 50, but then restore the value to its previous >> value

Re: [Python-Dev] RFC: PEP 509: Add a private version to dict

On Fri, Apr 15, 2016 at 4:41 PM, Victor Stinner wrote: > 2016-04-15 19:54 GMT+02:00 Jim J. Jewett : >> (2) Why *promise* not to update the version_tag when replacing a >> value with itself? > It's an useful property. For example, let's say that

Re: [Python-Dev] RFC: PEP 509: Add a private version to dict

Hi, FYI I updated the implementation of the PEP 509: https://bugs.python.org/issue26058 2016-04-15 11:01 GMT+02:00 Antoine Pitrou : > Why do this? It's a nice property that two dicts always have different > version tags, and now you're killing this property for... no obvious

Re: [Python-Dev] RFC: PEP 509: Add a private version to dict

2016-04-15 23:16 GMT+02:00 Ethan Furman : >> It's an useful property. For example, let's say that you have a guard >> on globals()['value']. The guard is created with value=3. An unit test >> replaces the value with 50, but then restore the value to its previous >> value (3).

Re: [Python-Dev] RFC: PEP 509: Add a private version to dict

2016-04-15 23:07 GMT+02:00 Random832 : > Why is iterating over items different from iterating over keys? > > in other words, why do I have to write: > > for k in dict: > v = dict[k] > ...do some stuff... > dict[k] = something > > rather than > > for k, v in

Re: [Python-Dev] RFC: PEP 509: Add a private version to dict

On 04/15/2016 01:41 PM, Victor Stinner wrote: 2016-04-15 19:54 GMT+02:00 Jim J. Jewett: (2) Why *promise* not to update the version_tag when replacing a value with itself? It's an useful property. For example, let's say that you have a guard on globals()['value']. The guard is created with

Re: [Python-Dev] RFC: PEP 509: Add a private version to dict

On Fri, Apr 15, 2016, at 16:41, Victor Stinner wrote: > If the dictionary values are modified during the loop, the dict > version is increased. But it's allowed to modify values when you > iterate on *keys*. Why is iterating over items different from iterating over keys? in other words, why do I

Re: [Python-Dev] PEP 8 updated on whether to break before or after a binary update

Cross posting the comment I’d left on the issue [1]. > My preference is to actually break that logic up and avoid the wrapping in > the first place, as in [2]. Which in this particular class has the side > benefit of that value being used again in the same function anyways. > I'm starting to

Re: [Python-Dev] RFC: PEP 509: Add a private version to dict

2016-04-15 19:54 GMT+02:00 Jim J. Jewett : > (1) Meta Question: If this is really only for CPython, then is > "Standards Track" the right classification? Yes, I think so. It doesn't seem to be an Informal nor a Process: https://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0001/#pep-types

Re: [Python-Dev] RFC: PEP 509: Add a private version to dict

On 15 April 2016 at 18:54, Jim J. Jewett wrote: > > [2A] Do you want to promise that replacing a value with a > non-identical object *will* trigger a version_tag update *even* > if the objects are equal? > > I would vote no, but I realize backwards-compatibility may create >

Re: [Python-Dev] PEP 8 updated on whether to break before or after a binary update

On Apr 15, 2016, at 09:53 AM, Guido van Rossum wrote: >After a fruitful discussion on python-ideas I've decided that it's fine to >break lines *before* a binary operator. Thanks Guido, your changes look great. -Barry ___ Python-Dev mailing list

Re: [Python-Dev] RFC: PEP 509: Add a private version to dict

On Thu Apr 14 11:19:42 EDT 2016, Victor Stinner posted the latest draft of PEP 509; dict version_tag (1) Meta Question: If this is really only for CPython, then is "Standards Track" the right classification? (2) Why *promise* not to update the version_tag when replacing a value with itself?

Re: [Python-Dev] PEP 8 updated on whether to break before or after a binary update

On 2016-04-15 18:03, Victor Stinner wrote: > Hum. > > if (width == 0 > and height == 0 > and color == 'red' > and emphasis == 'strong' > or highlight > 100): > raise ValueError("sorry, you lose") > > Please remove one space

Re: [Python-Dev] PEP 8 updated on whether to break before or after a binary update

The update is already serving its real purpose: showing that style is debatable and cannot always easily be reduced to fixed rules. On Fri, Apr 15, 2016 at 10:24 AM, Serhiy Storchaka wrote: > On 15.04.16 20:03, Victor Stinner wrote: > >> Hum. >> >> if (width == 0

Re: [Python-Dev] PEP 8 updated on whether to break before or after a binary update

On 15.04.16 20:03, Victor Stinner wrote: Hum. if (width == 0 and height == 0 and color == 'red' and emphasis == 'strong' or highlight > 100): raise ValueError("sorry, you lose") Please remove one space to vertically

Re: [Python-Dev] PEP 8 updated on whether to break before or after a binary update

On Fri, Apr 15, 2016 at 10:03 AM, Victor Stinner wrote: > Hum. > > if (width == 0 > and height == 0 > and color == 'red' > and emphasis == 'strong' > or highlight > 100): > raise ValueError("sorry, you

Re: [Python-Dev] PEP 8 updated on whether to break before or after a binary update

On 15 April 2016 at 18:03, Victor Stinner wrote: > Hum. > > if (width == 0 > and height == 0 > and color == 'red' > and emphasis == 'strong' > or highlight > 100): > raise ValueError("sorry, you lose")

Re: [Python-Dev] PEP 8 updated on whether to break before or after a binary update

[Guido] > After a fruitful discussion on python-ideas I've decided that it's fine to > break lines *before* a binary operator. It looks better and Knuth recommends > it. > ... > Therefore it is permissible to break before or > after a binary operator, as long as the convention is consistent >

Re: [Python-Dev] PEP 8 updated on whether to break before or after a binary update

Hum. if (width == 0 and height == 0 and color == 'red' and emphasis == 'strong' or highlight > 100): raise ValueError("sorry, you lose") Please remove one space to vertically align "and" operators with the opening parenthesis:

[Python-Dev] PEP 8 updated on whether to break before or after a binary update

After a fruitful discussion on python-ideas I've decided that it's fine to break lines *before* a binary operator. It looks better and Knuth recommends it. The head of the python-ideas discussion: https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-ideas/2016-April/039752.html See also the discussion in

[Python-Dev] Summary of Python tracker Issues

ACTIVITY SUMMARY (2016-04-08 - 2016-04-15) Python tracker at http://bugs.python.org/ To view or respond to any of the issues listed below, click on the issue. Do NOT respond to this message. Issues counts and deltas: open5489 (+12) closed 33039 (+46) total 38528 (+58) Open issues

Re: [Python-Dev] Should secrets include a fallback for hmac.compare_digest?

On 15 April 2016 at 14:52, Steven D'Aprano wrote: > Now that PEP 506 has been approved, I've checked in the secrets module, > but an implementation question has come up regarding compare_digest. > > Currently, the module tries to import hmac.compare_digest, and if that >

Re: [Python-Dev] PEP 506 secrets module

On 15 April 2016 at 19:39, Victor Stinner wrote: > Hi, > > Would it make sense to add a function to generate a random UUID4 (as a > string) in secrets? > > The current implement in uuid.py of CPython 3.6 already uses os.urandom(): > > def uuid4(): > """Generate a

Re: [Python-Dev] Pathlib enhancements - acceptable inputs and outputs for __fspath__ and os.fspath()

On 15 April 2016 at 00:52, Stephen J. Turnbull wrote: > Nick Coghlan writes: > > > The use case for returning bytes from __fspath__ is DirEntry, so you > > can write things like this in low level code: > > > > def myscandir(dirpath): > > for entry in

Re: [Python-Dev] Should secrets include a fallback for hmac.compare_digest?

On 15 April 2016 at 10:35, Victor Stinner wrote: > 2016-04-15 11:21 GMT+02:00 Steven D'Aprano : >> This isn't just a question about the secrets module. PEP 399 suggests >> than any C classes/functions should have a pure Python version as >> fallback,

Re: [Python-Dev] Should secrets include a fallback for hmac.compare_digest?

2016-04-15 11:21 GMT+02:00 Steven D'Aprano : > This isn't just a question about the secrets module. PEP 399 suggests > than any C classes/functions should have a pure Python version as > fallback, but compare_digest doesn't. I don't know whether it should or > not. The hmac

Re: [Python-Dev] PEP 506 secrets module

Hi, Would it make sense to add a function to generate a random UUID4 (as a string) in secrets? The current implement in uuid.py of CPython 3.6 already uses os.urandom(): def uuid4(): """Generate a random UUID.""" return UUID(bytes=os.urandom(16), version=4) Victor

Re: [Python-Dev] RFC: PEP 509: Add a private version to dict

2016-04-15 11:01 GMT+02:00 Antoine Pitrou : > Victor Stinner gmail.com> writes: >> You're right that incrementing the global version is useless for these >> specific cases, and using the version 0 should work. It only matters >> that the version (version? version tag?) is

Re: [Python-Dev] Should secrets include a fallback for hmac.compare_digest?

On Fri, Apr 15, 2016 at 10:26:31AM +0200, Victor Stinner wrote: > It's easy to implement this function (in the native language of your Python > implemenation), it's short. I'm not sure that a Python version is really > safe. > > The secrets module is for Python 3.6, in this version the hmac

Re: [Python-Dev] RFC: PEP 509: Add a private version to dict

Victor Stinner schrieb am 15.04.2016 um 10:20: > Le vendredi 15 avril 2016, Stefan Behnel a écrit : > >> How can that be achieved? If the tag is just a sequentially growing number, >> creating two dicts and applying one operation to the first one should give >> both the same version tag, right?

Re: [Python-Dev] RFC: PEP 509: Add a private version to dict

Victor Stinner gmail.com> writes: > > Hi, > > 2016-04-14 22:42 GMT+02:00 Armin Rigo tunes.org>: > > Hi Victor, > > > > On 14 April 2016 at 17:19, Victor Stinner gmail.com> wrote: > >> Each time a dictionary is created, the global > >> version is incremented and the dictionary version is

Re: [Python-Dev] RFC: PEP 509: Add a private version to dict

Le vendredi 15 avril 2016, Stefan Behnel a écrit : > How can that be achieved? If the tag is just a sequentially growing number, > creating two dicts and applying one operation to the first one should give > both the same version tag, right? > Armin didn't propose to get

Re: [Python-Dev] pathlib - current status of discussions

On 15 April 2016 at 00:01, Random832 wrote: > On Thu, Apr 14, 2016, at 09:50, Chris Angelico wrote: >> Adding integers and floats is considered "safe" because most people's >> use of floats completely compasses their use of ints. (You'll get >> OverflowError if it can't be