On 29 October 2016 at 07:21, Nick Coghlan wrote:
> A short-circuiting if-else protocol for arbitrary "THEN if COND else
> ELSE" expressions could then look like this:
>
> _condition = COND
> if _condition:
> _then = THEN
> if hasattr(_condition, "__then__"):
> r
On Sat, Oct 29, 2016 at 03:03:22PM +1000, Nick Coghlan wrote:
> On 29 October 2016 at 01:46, Ryan Gonzalez wrote:
> > On Oct 28, 2016 3:30 AM, "Nick Coghlan" wrote:
> >> *snip*
> >> 4. Do we collectively agree that "?then" and "?else" would be
> >> reasonable spellings for such operators?
> >
> >
On 29 October 2016 at 07:30, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
> So even though I *want* to use non-ASCI operators, I have to admit that
> I *can't* realistically use non-ASCII operators. Not yet.
Personally, I'm not even sure I want non-ASCII operators until
non-ASCII characters are common, and used withou
On Sat, Oct 29, 2016 at 02:52:42PM +1000, Nick Coghlan wrote:
> On 29 October 2016 at 04:08, Mark Dickinson wrote:
> > On Fri, Oct 28, 2016 at 9:30 AM, Nick Coghlan wrote:
> >> [...] the current practicises of:
> >>
> >> * obj is not None (many different use cases)
> >> * obj is not Ellipsis (in
On Fri, Oct 28, 2016 at 06:30:05PM +1000, Nick Coghlan wrote:
[...]
> 1. Do we collectively agree that "existence checking" is a useful
> general concept that exists in software development and is distinct
> from the concept of "truth checking"?
Not speaking for "we", only for myself: of course.
>From that page:
> User-defined literals are basically normal function calls with a fancy
> syntax. [...] While user defined literals look very neat, they are not much
> more than syntactic sugar. There is not much difference between defining
> and calling a literal operator with "foo"_bar and doi
I certainly like the concept, but I worry that use of __exists__() could
generalize it a bit beyond what you're intending in practice. It seems like
this should only check if an object exists, and that adding the magic
method would only lead to confusion.
-Ryan Birmingham
On 28 October 2016 at 0
On Tuesday, October 25, 2016 at 6:26:17 PM UTC-4, Nathaniel Smith wrote:
>
> On Sat, Oct 22, 2016 at 9:02 AM, Nick Coghlan > wrote:
> > On 20 October 2016 at 07:02, Nathaniel Smith > wrote:
> >> The first change is to replace the outer for loop with a while/pop
> >> loop, so that if an excep
On Oct 28, 2016 3:30 AM, "Nick Coghlan" wrote:
> *snip*
>
> 1. Do we collectively agree that "existence checking" is a useful
> general concept that exists in software development and is distinct
> from the concept of "truth checking"?
I'd hope so!
> 2. Do we collectively agree that the Python e
Steven d'Aprano writes:
> I think you mean WHITE SQUARE? At least, I can not see any "OPEN
> SQUARE" code point in Unicode, and the character you use below □
> is called WHITE SQUARE.
You're right, I just used a common Japanese name for it. I even
checked the table to make sure it was BMP but
On 2016-10-29 17:43, Nick Timkovich wrote:
[snip]
Also, for discussion, remember to make the distinction between 'units'
(amps, meters, seconds) and 'prefixes' (micro, milli, kilo, mega). Right
away from comments, it seems 1_m could look like 1 meter to some, or
0.001 to others. Typically when I
On Sat, Oct 29, 2016 at 12:43 PM, Nick Timkovich
wrote:
> From that page:
>
>> User-defined literals are basically normal function calls with a fancy
>> syntax. [...] While user defined literals look very neat, they are not much
>> more than syntactic sugar. There is not much difference between d
On 29 October 2016 at 18:19, Stephen J. Turnbull
wrote:
>> For better or worse, it may be emoji that drive that change ;-)
>
> I suspect that the 100 million or so Chinese, Japanese, Korean, and
> Indian programmers who have had systems that have no trouble
> whatsoever handling non-ASCII for as l
Ah, always mess up micro = 6/9 until I think about it for half a second.
Maybe a "n" suffix could have saved me there ;) For "long" numbers there's
the new _ so you can say 0.000_000_1 if you so preferred for 0.1 micro (I
generally see _ as more useful for high-precison numbers with more non-zero
d
On 29 October 2016 at 18:19, Stephen J. Turnbull
wrote:
>> For better or worse, it may be emoji that drive that change ;-)
>>
>> I suspect that the 100 million or so Chinese, Japanese, Korean, and
>> Indian programmers who have had systems that have no trouble
>> whatsoever handling non-ASCII for
On 29 October 2016 at 21:44, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 28, 2016 at 06:30:05PM +1000, Nick Coghlan wrote:
>
> [...]
>> 1. Do we collectively agree that "existence checking" is a useful
>> general concept that exists in software development and is distinct
>> from the concept of "truth ch
On Sat, Oct 29, 2016 at 3:53 AM, Steven D'Aprano
wrote:
> Hmmm. I see your point, but honestly, None *is* special. Even for
> special objects, None is even more special.
As a contributor to and user of many numerical computing libraries in
Python (e.g., NumPy, pandas, Dask, TensorFlow) I also a
17 matches
Mail list logo
