A question came up on python-list regarding the message given when you
call float(""). It's somewhat unclear due to the way humans tend to
ignore a lack of content:
>>> float("spam")
Traceback (most recent call last):
File "", line 1, in
ValueError: could not convert string to float: 'spam'
>>>
On 06/06/2017 12:51 PM, Chris Angelico wrote:
> Firstly, is there a reason for the empty string to not be surrounded
> with quotes? The source code, AIUI, is this:
>
> x = PyOS_string_to_double(s, (char **)&end, NULL);
> if (end != last) {
> PyErr_Format(PyExc_ValueError,
>
I think this diff is probably the correct solution. Basically it just
checks if there's anything left after spaces are stripped and then
throws an error if not:
(By the way sorry for not being clearer in my other message. This diff
is against the current 3.7 master branch. I didn't look at the ori
Greg Ewing wrote:
>Steven D'Aprano wrote:
>> There's not much, if any, benefit to writing:
>>
>> ∫(expression, lower_limit, upper_limit, name)
>More generally, there's a kind of culture clash between mathematical
>notation and programming notation. Mathematical notation tends to
>almost exclu
Mikhail V wrote:
I find actually symbols ≤ ≥ (inclusive comparison) nice.
Yes, there are a few symbols it would be nice to have.
A proper ≠ symbol would have avoided the wars between
<> and !=. :-)
--
Greg
___
Python-ideas mailing list
Python-ideas@p
07.06.17 08:34, Greg Ewing пише:
Mikhail V wrote:
I find actually symbols ≤ ≥ (inclusive comparison) nice.
Yes, there are a few symbols it would be nice to have.
A proper ≠ symbol would have avoided the wars between
<> and !=. :-)
But this would start the war between ≤ and ⩽ (symbols used by
Le 07/06/17 à 07:34, Greg Ewing a écrit :
Yes, there are a few symbols it would be nice to have.
A proper ≠ symbol would have avoided the wars between
<> and !=. :-)
I'm not sure it's worth any change in the language, it's already really
easy to read and write as is.
But I agree this can b
