On 09/01/2016 02:04 PM, Paul Moore wrote:
Thanks. That's a nice example of how the proposal might help. But you
could of course have written your original code as
def update(names, value):
(dbsession.query(Table1)
.filter(Table1.name.in_(names))
.update({'valu
On 09/01/2016 01:24 PM, Brendan Barnwell wrote:
I sometimes write similar code with a sequence of pandas
operations. I think you can get a lot of mileage out of accepting the
loss in precious vertical space and just putting the closing parenthesis
on its own line, indented to the same level
On 1 September 2016 at 19:44, Shane Hathaway wrote:
> Sometimes I fix unbalanced parentheses incorrectly. Here's something I
> might type. There should be another closing parenthesis in the middle:
>
> def update(names, value):
> (dbsession.query(Table1)
> .filter(Table1.nam
On 2016-08-31 14:46, Shane Hathaway wrote:
Hi,
I write a lot of SQLAlchemy code that looks more or less like this:
rows = (
dbsession.query(Table1)
.join(
Table2, Table2.y = Table1.y)
.filter(Table1.x = xx)
.all())
The expressions get very long and nearly alwa
On 09/01/2016 09:35 AM, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
On Wed, Aug 31, 2016 at 03:46:13PM -0600, Shane Hathaway wrote:
Cons:
- Extra parentheses are required.
You have to have extra *something* no matter how you do it. An extra
semi-colon at the end of the statement, in semi-colon language. An extra
I sometimes get the error message:
TypeError: Cannot create a consistent method resolution
order (MRO) for bases …
I suggest that Python report
* cycles (if there are any), or
* a list of orderings of direct base classes (if there are no cycles).
A cycle for the base classes A, B, C, D can be re
Guido van Rossum writes:
> On Wed, Aug 31, 2016 at 8:57 PM, Stephen J. Turnbull
> wrote:
> > That seems to be right approach: in system administration, these
> > numbers are used mostly to understand resource usage, and
> > underestimates are almost never what you want,
>
> That would see
On Thu, Sep 01, 2016 at 10:04:12AM -0500, Ryan Hiebert wrote:
>
> > On Sep 1, 2016, at 1:40 AM, Greg Ewing wrote:
> >
> > Guido van Rossum wrote:
> >> Would this be enforced in the grammar or by the lexer? Since you say
> >> you expect the indentation to be enforced, that suggests it would be
>
On Wed, Aug 31, 2016 at 03:46:13PM -0600, Shane Hathaway wrote:
> Cons:
>
> - Extra parentheses are required.
You have to have extra *something* no matter how you do it. An extra
semi-colon at the end of the statement, in semi-colon language. An extra
backslash at the end of the line. An extra
> On Sep 1, 2016, at 1:40 AM, Greg Ewing wrote:
>
> Guido van Rossum wrote:
>> Would this be enforced in the grammar or by the lexer? Since you say
>> you expect the indentation to be enforced, that suggests it would be
>> done by the grammar,
>
> I think it could be done by having the lexer en
On Thu, Sep 1, 2016, at 02:17, Greg Ewing wrote:
> I don't think a space should be automatic. The typographical
> recommendation is to put a thin non-breaking space between
> the value and the unit, but this is not possible with a
> monospaced font, so some people might decide that it's
> better wi
On Thu, Sep 01, 2016 at 01:38:19PM +0300, Joonas Liik wrote:
> On 1 September 2016 at 11:10, Sjoerd Job Postmus
> wrote:
> > On Thu, Sep 01, 2016 at 10:43:17AM +0300, Joonas Liik wrote:
> >> Not sure if this is a good idea but it might also make some sense to
> >> in stead have an operator at the
On 1 September 2016 at 11:10, Sjoerd Job Postmus
wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 01, 2016 at 10:43:17AM +0300, Joonas Liik wrote:
>> Not sure if this is a good idea but it might also make some sense to
>> in stead have an operator at the beginning of the line
>>
>> for example some languages have a chainging
On 2016-08-31 17:19, Guido van Rossum wrote:
I guess we need to debate what it should do if the value is
way out of range of the SI scale system -- what's it going to do when
I pass it 1e50? I propose that it should fall back to 'g' style then,
but use "engineering" style where exponents are alw
On Thu, Sep 01, 2016 at 10:43:17AM +0300, Joonas Liik wrote:
> Not sure if this is a good idea but it might also make some sense to
> in stead have an operator at the beginning of the line
>
> for example some languages have a chainging operator for method calls:
>
> my_object.m1()
> ..m2()
>
On 1 September 2016 at 09:40, Greg Ewing wrote:
> Guido van Rossum wrote:
>>
>> Would this be enforced in the grammar or by the lexer? Since you say
>> you expect the indentation to be enforced, that suggests it would be
>> done by the grammar,
>
>
> I think it could be done by having the lexer en
16 matches
Mail list logo
