The easiest and straightforward way to help python would be taking the mantle
of implementing PEP 638 or restarting the development of a library for
syntactic macros since you believe it will be a benefit to Python in general.
Sent from my iPhone
> On Feb 5, 2023, at 3:58 PM, cd...@cam.ac.uk wr
> Python has consistently refused to be turned into a platform for DSLs for
> almost 3 decades.
I think SymPy, PyMC, Pyomo, Pyro, and many more packages would all be very
surprised to hear they're no longer welcome in Python. Still, it seems like it
would be quite hard to kick them out, and wo
El vie, 3 feb 2023 a las 8:01, Stéfane Fermigier ()
escribió:
> "
>
>
> On Fri, Feb 3, 2023 at 12:28 PM Stephen J. Turnbull <
> stephenjturnb...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Stéfane Fermigier writes:
>>
>> > NB: on a very basic level, I remember trying, a few years ago, to use
>> the
>> > Unicode "emp
"
On Fri, Feb 3, 2023 at 12:28 PM Stephen J. Turnbull <
stephenjturnb...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Stéfane Fermigier writes:
>
> > NB: on a very basic level, I remember trying, a few years ago, to use
> the
> > Unicode "empty set" symbol as a synonym for set(), and it didn't end
> well,
> > for sev
Stéfane Fermigier writes:
> NB: on a very basic level, I remember trying, a few years ago, to use the
> Unicode "empty set" symbol as a synonym for set(), and it didn't end well,
> for several reasons, including the fact that Python didn't like it as a
> variable name.
I know about the issue
On Thu, Feb 2, 2023 at 12:46 PM Stéfane Fermigier wrote:
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematical_operators_and_symbols_in_Unicode
> https://oeis.org/wiki/List_of_LaTeX_mathematical_symbols
> NB: on a very basic level, I remember trying, a few years ago, to use the
> Unicode "empty set" symbo
On Thu, Feb 2, 2023 at 8:34 AM Stephen J. Turnbull <
stephenjturnb...@gmail.com> wrote:
> cd...@cam.ac.uk writes:
>
> > I don't want to be forced to learn lots of weird little functions
> > like `np.matmul(x1, x2)` when there's already one obvious syntax
> > I'm very familiar with: `x1 * x2`.
>
cd...@cam.ac.uk writes:
> I think that's exactly the problem with a lack of Python
> macros. The full quote, of course, goes: "There should be one-- and
> preferably only one --*obvious* way to do it."
You understand that the Zen is humorous? Most of the Zen, if taken
universally and seriousl
I think that's exactly the problem with a lack of Python macros. The full
quote, of course, goes: "There should be one-- and preferably only one
--*obvious* way to do it."
Often, there's a mathematical notation for something, and *this* is the only
obvious way to write anything out. But this do
Unfortunately, it's no longer being maintained.
___
Python-Dev mailing list -- python-dev@python.org
To unsubscribe send an email to python-dev-le...@python.org
https://mail.python.org/mailman3/lists/python-dev.python.org/
Message archived at
https://mai
Joshua Herman writes:
> I think that this would be better as a library in my opinion.
There's a third party package called MacroPy that provides macros,
although I haven't heard anything about it in a couple of years.
I seem to recall that it's a preprocessor that hooks into the import
system.
I’ve used lisp and scheme and one reason why you wouldn’t want a syntactic
macro is because there should be one and only one way to do a task.
Sure we have deviated that in the ecosystem but allowing syntactic macros can
have the side effect of many programs or projects to have multiple ways to
It looks like this hasn't gone anywhere in the past few years, which is a
shame. Syntactic macros are one of the 2 or 3 "Killer features" that pushed me
out of Python and into Julia (along with JITting inferred types and multiple
dispatch). Math+data science code written in Julia is a lot more r
I'm excited about the potential introduction of Lisp-style syntactic macros
into Python. 😁
It's unclear to me whether PEP 638 ("Syntactic Macros") is still being actively
developed, since the last activity I see on it is over a year ago (Sep & Oct
2020), but I thought I'd leave some initial com
Martin sent good links, I'll just add a practical example:
Without macros, styled-components works like this:
import styled from "styled-components";
const Label = styled.div`
color: red;
`;
(that's a js template literal, next level after f-strings, here
without any arguments)
When e.g. Hi i
On Fri, 16 Oct 2020 at 23:22, Guido van Rossum wrote:
>
> Dima,
>
> Do you have a link to "babel macros"? Searching for that brought up several
> different things; not being a frequent JS user I don't know how to filter
> these.
These links should help:
https://babeljs.io/blog/2017/09/11/zero-
On Fri, Oct 16, 2020, at 18:59, Dan Stromberg wrote:
> The complexity of a language varies with the square of its feature
> count,
Says who? I'd assume the orthogonality and regularity of features matters at
least as much if not more than the number of features, and providing a system
like this
On Sat, Sep 26, 2020 at 5:11 AM Mark Shannon wrote:
> Hi everyone,
>
> I've submitted my PEP on syntactic macros as PEP 638.
> https://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0638/
>
Speaking as a former C developer, why do "We need to let the community
develop their own extensions"? What's insufficient ab
Dima,
Do you have a link to "babel macros"? Searching for that brought up several
different things; not being a frequent JS user I don't know how to filter
these.
--Guido
On Wed, Oct 14, 2020 at 11:55 PM Dima Tisnek wrote:
> My 2c as a Python user (mostly) and someone who dabbled in ES2020:
>
My 2c as a Python user (mostly) and someone who dabbled in ES2020:
The shouting syntax! does not sit well with me.
The $hygenic is also cumbersome.
To contrast, babel macros:
* looks like regular code, without special syntax: existing tooling
works, less mental strain
* have access to call site e
Hi,
On 29/09/2020 1:43 am, Emily Bowman wrote:
On Mon, Sep 28, 2020 at 7:23 AM Marco Sulla
mailto:marco.sulla.pyt...@gmail.com>> wrote:
On Mon, 28 Sep 2020 at 13:56, Nick Coghlan mailto:ncogh...@gmail.com>> wrote:
> For usage, whether something is a macro or not should either be
i
On Mon, Sep 28, 2020 at 7:23 AM Marco Sulla
wrote:
> On Mon, 28 Sep 2020 at 13:56, Nick Coghlan wrote:
> > For usage, whether something is a macro or not should either be
> irrelevant (when they're used as a more powerful function call or
> > decorator), or else entirely obvious from the way you
On Mon, 28 Sep 2020 at 13:56, Nick Coghlan wrote:
> For usage, whether something is a macro or not should either be irrelevant
> (when they're used as a more powerful function call or
> decorator), or else entirely obvious from the way you use it (when they're
> defining a new pseudo-statement),
On Mon., 28 Sep. 2020, 1:22 am Marco Sulla,
wrote:
> I like this, but IMHO adding a character at the end of the macro name
> (the exclamation mark), lowers readability.
> I'd prefer a character at the start of the macro, a character that is
> not used as an unary operator.
>
For usage, whether s
I like this, but IMHO adding a character at the end of the macro name
(the exclamation mark), lowers readability.
I'd prefer a character at the start of the macro, a character that is
not used as an unary operator.
On Sat, 26 Sep 2020 at 14:11, Mark Shannon wrote:
>
> Hi everyone,
>
> I've submit
25 matches
Mail list logo
