On Thu, Aug 30, 2018, 9:23 PM David Mertz wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 31, 2018, 12:08 AM Guido van Rossum wrote:
>
>> Hm. YAML is indeed a great, readable alternative to JSON or XML. But the
>> term DSL implies (to me) more than just nested key-value pairs. (Though who
>> knows maybe that's all Keras n
If you want, feel free to take some of the code from:
https://docs.openstack.org/debtcollector/latest/reference/index.html
It was made for a similar purpose (and uses warnings module at its
lowest level) and may offer some things that could be in this new
warnings module.
Code is at:
http
On Fri, Aug 31, 2018 at 03:40:22AM +0200, Guido van Rossum wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 31, 2018 at 3:19 AM, Michael Selik wrote:
>
> > On Thu, Aug 30, 2018 at 5:31 PM James Lu wrote:
> >
[James]
> >> It would be nice if there was a DSL for describing neural networks
> >> (Keras).
> >>
> >> model.add(D
On Fri, Aug 31, 2018, 12:08 AM Guido van Rossum wrote:
> Hm. YAML is indeed a great, readable alternative to JSON or XML. But the
> term DSL implies (to me) more than just nested key-value pairs. (Though who
> knows maybe that's all Keras needs, and then it's a poor argument for
> having a DSL.)
On Fri, Aug 31, 2018 at 4:04 AM, David Mertz wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 30, 2018 at 9:41 PM Guido van Rossum wrote:
>
>> On Fri, Aug 31, 2018 at 3:19 AM, Michael Selik wrote:
>>
>>> On Thu, Aug 30, 2018 at 5:31 PM James Lu wrote:
>>>
It would be nice if there was a DSL for describing neural net
Hi Ethan,
You are right, I deleted it without noticing.
It should say: pre(len(lst) < 10).
Le jeu. 30 août 2018 à 23:02, Ethan Furman a écrit :
> On 08/30/2018 01:49 PM, Marko Ristin-Kaufmann wrote:
>
> > classC(A):
> > # C.some_func also inherits the contracts from A.
> > # It wea
On Thu, Aug 30, 2018 at 9:41 PM Guido van Rossum wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 31, 2018 at 3:19 AM, Michael Selik wrote:
>
>> On Thu, Aug 30, 2018 at 5:31 PM James Lu wrote:
>>
>>> It would be nice if there was a DSL for describing neural networks
>>> (Keras).
>>>
>>> model.add(Dense(units=64, activatio
On Fri, Aug 31, 2018 at 3:19 AM, Michael Selik wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 30, 2018 at 5:31 PM James Lu wrote:
>
>> It would be nice if there was a DSL for describing neural networks
>> (Keras).
>>
>> model.add(Dense(units=64, activation='relu', input_dim=100))
>> model.add(Dense(units=10, activation='
On Thu, Aug 30, 2018 at 5:31 PM James Lu wrote:
> It would be nice if there was a DSL for describing neural networks (Keras).
>
> model.add(Dense(units=64, activation='relu', input_dim=100))
> model.add(Dense(units=10, activation='softmax'))
>
>
Why not JSON or XML for cross-language compatibilit
Why shouldn't Python be better at implementing Domain Specific Languages?
>From Johnathan Fine:
> I really do wish we could have language that had all of Ruby's
> strengths, and also all of Python's. That would be really nice. Quite
> something indeed.
> Languages do influence each other. Ruby is
In 20 years of programming Python, I have never wanted to augment two
distinct variables by two distinct return values from a function.
I'm sure it's possible to construct some situation where that would be
convenient, and presumably the OP actually encountered that. But the need
is exceedingly ra
> Rather,
>
because Python has become a big and very complete programming
>
environment, and a fairly large language, implementing new syntax
>
requires that a feature increase expressiveness substantially.
That makes sense.
> By comparison,
> x, y += a, b
>
is neither more expressive, nor easie
def example_func(x, y):
def __assert_before__(example_func):
#implicit, AST-able assertion expressions
# ... code
def __assert_after__(example_func):
#
def __assert_after__invariants_02(example_func):
# "
But these need to be composed / mixed in in MRO or
Neil Girdhar wrote:
Powers of other numbers have to keep the same behavior since in general
those kinds of expressions don't create rational numbers.
There are infinitely many other rational numbers that *could*
be given the same treatment, though, e.g. (-8) ** (2/3). If
you don't want to inclu
On 08/30/2018 01:49 PM, Marko Ristin-Kaufmann wrote:
classC(A):
# C.some_func also inherits the contracts from A.
# It weakens the precondition:
# it operates either on sorted lists OR
# the lists that are shorter than 10 elements.
#
# It strenght
Hi,
@David Mertz, @Paul Moore: first of all, thank you very much for your
thorough answers!
@Paul Moore : Thanks in particular for suggesting a
road map. I still think that we need somewhat broader agreement even on
this list that contracts are useful at an abstract level before we dig in
and fin
Sooner or later authors and maintainers of libraries change public
interfaces of their creations.
Usually one of the two approaches is taken:
1. Outright breaking change
2. Soft deprecation later followed by [1]
While [1] is perfectly suitable for libraries with limited audience, [2] is
what p
On 2018-08-30 00:07, Greg Ewing wrote:> Jonathan Goble wrote:
>> How? Raising something to the 2/3 power means squaring it and then
>> taking the cube root of it.
>
> On reflection, "wrong" is not quite accurate. A better
> word might be "surprising".
>
> (-1) ** (2/3) == 1 would imply that 1 ** (
I would also like to point out that the current behavior of Fraction
is consistent with other parts of the numeric system, e.g.
1/1 produces 1.0 (rather than 1)
math.sqrt(4) produces 2.0 (rather than 2)
1j-1j produces 0j (rather than 0.0 or 0)
So in general the type of the output is determined by
On Thu, 30 Aug 2018 at 14:06, Nicolas Rolin wrote:
> I think you could take the implementation further and decide that any
> power of Fraction(1) is Fraction(1) and any positive power of Fraction(0)
> is Fraction(0).
> I woudn't be shocked that Fraction(1) ** 3.7 == Fraction(1) and
> Fraction(0)
I think you could take the implementation further and decide that any power
of Fraction(1) is Fraction(1) and any positive power of Fraction(0) is
Fraction(0).
I woudn't be shocked that Fraction(1) ** 3.7 == Fraction(1) and Fraction(0)
** 3.7 == 0.
However the implementation for Fraction(-1) seems
On Wed, Aug 29, 2018 at 09:39:05PM -0700, Neil Girdhar wrote:
> Would there be any problem with changing:
>
> In [4]: Fraction(1, 1) ** Fraction(2, 3)
> Out[4]: 1.0
>
> In [5]: Fraction(-1, 1) ** Fraction(2, 3)
> Out[5]: (-0.4998+0.8660254037844387j)
>
> In [6]: Fraction(0, 1) ** Fr
On Thu, 30 Aug 2018 at 12:04, Jonathan Fine wrote:
> First, the docs for the fraction module could be improved. Here's the
> page and it's history.
>
> https://docs.python.org/3/library/fractions.html
> https://github.com/python/cpython/commits/3.7/Doc/library/fractions.rst
>
> Already, do
Hey, no worries. I do think though that people should feel free to suggest
ideas even if they have never contributed anything. I read python-ideas
for the discussion. Thank you for your feedback about my suggestion.
On Thu, Aug 30, 2018 at 8:18 AM Jonathan Fine wrote:
> Hi Neil
>
> When I wr
Hi Neil
When I wrote my previous message, I didn't know who you were, or your
previous contributions. Perhaps I should have. But I didn't.
If I had known, my remarks would have been different. In particular, I
would have acknowledged your previous contributions. I apologise for
any offence I may
Yeah, you're right, my original mail was posted on google groups. Sorry
for the trouble.
On Thu, Aug 30, 2018 at 8:15 AM Paul Moore wrote:
> Thu, 30 Aug 2018 at 12:55, Neil Girdhar wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, Aug 30, 2018 at 7:13 AM Paul Moore wrote:
> >>
> >> (You're still not fixing your mail he
Thu, 30 Aug 2018 at 12:55, Neil Girdhar wrote:
>
> On Thu, Aug 30, 2018 at 7:13 AM Paul Moore wrote:
>>
>> (You're still not fixing your mail headers. Please do, it's hard to be
>> bothered responding if I keep having to fix your mails in order to do
>> so).
>
>
> Sorry about that, I don't unders
On Thu, Aug 30, 2018 at 7:13 AM Paul Moore wrote:
> (You're still not fixing your mail headers. Please do, it's hard to be
> bothered responding if I keep having to fix your mails in order to do
> so).
>
Sorry about that, I don't understand where it's coming from. I'm never
using google groups
On Thu, Aug 30, 2018 at 7:03 AM Jonathan Fine wrote:
> Hi Neil
>
> Summary: You say something should be done. But by who? Perhaps the
> should starts with you.
>
What does this mean? Are you asking who is going to do the
implementation? I posted here to get feedback about whether it would be a
Thanks for the feedback.
On Thu, Aug 30, 2018 at 7:13 AM Paul Moore wrote:
> (You're still not fixing your mail headers. Please do, it's hard to be
> bothered responding if I keep having to fix your mails in order to do
> so).
>
> On Thu, 30 Aug 2018 at 11:28, Neil Girdhar wrote:
> >
> > But I'
On Thu, Aug 30, 2018 at 3:44 AM Marko Ristin-Kaufmann <
marko.ris...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Related to the text I emphasized, would you mind to explain a bit more
> in-depth which features you have in mind? I see contracts formally written
> out and automatically verified as a completely indispensabl
(You're still not fixing your mail headers. Please do, it's hard to be
bothered responding if I keep having to fix your mails in order to do
so).
On Thu, 30 Aug 2018 at 11:28, Neil Girdhar wrote:
>
> But I'm only asking for fractional powers of -1, 0, and 1. Is that really a
> complex issue?
Y
Hi Neil
Summary: You say something should be done. But by who? Perhaps the
should starts with you.
Warning: This has been written quickly, and might have rough edges. If
so, I apologise.
You wrote
> But I'm only asking for fractional powers of -1, 0, and 1. Is that really a
> complex issue?
>
On Thu, Aug 30, 2018 at 5:51 AM Nicolas Rolin
wrote:
>
>
>
>>> Right, but we already have some special cases:
>>
>> In [8]: Fraction(2, 3) ** Fraction(3, 1)
>> Out[8]: Fraction(8, 27)
>>
>> Fraction.__pow__ already tries to return Fraction objects where possible.
>>
>
>
> I think the main point t
Jeroen Demeyer wrote
from sympy import Rational
Rational(1,2) ** Rational(2,3)
> 2**(1/3)/2
Rational(1,1) ** Rational(2,3)
> 1
Rational(-1,1) ** Rational(2,3)
> (-1)**(2/3)
Rational(0,1) ** Rational(2,3)
> 0
Thank you very much for this, Jeroen. Most helpful.
Perhaps rev
>> Right, but we already have some special cases:
>
> In [8]: Fraction(2, 3) ** Fraction(3, 1)
> Out[8]: Fraction(8, 27)
>
> Fraction.__pow__ already tries to return Fraction objects where possible.
>
I think the main point to see here is what the scope of a built-in function
should be.
For a fra
On Thu, Aug 30, 2018 at 5:27 AM Greg Ewing
wrote:
> Neil Girdhar wrote:
> > we want branch continuity in the power.
> > After all, floating point values have some inaccuracy, and we wouldn't
> > want chaotic behavior, i.e., small changes to the power to have drastic
> > changes to the result.
> >
With gmpy2 (note that mpq=fractions, mpfr=floating-point reals):
>>> from gmpy2 import mpq
>>> mpq("1/1") ** mpq("2/3")
mpfr('1.0')
>>> mpq("-1/1") ** mpq("2/3")
mpfr('nan')
>>> mpq("0/1") ** mpq("2/3")
mpfr('0.0')
___
Python-ideas mailing list
Python-
On 2018-08-30 11:11, Jonathan Fine wrote:
If anyone has time and ready access, it would help to know what
https://www.sympy.org/en/index.html does with this.
It handles such powers symbolically, not actually returning a numerical
result:
>>> from sympy import Rational
>>> Rational(1,2) ** Ra
Neil Girdhar wrote:
we want branch continuity in the power.
After all, floating point values have some inaccuracy, and we wouldn't
want chaotic behavior, i.e., small changes to the power to have drastic
changes to the result.
This is not like Fraction where we know that x ** Fraction(1, 3) i
On Thu, Aug 30, 2018 at 5:11 AM Jonathan Fine wrote:
> Hi Neil
>
> We wrote
>
> >> This gives the same results as Python's Fraction, except for your
> >> example [6]. There, it gives the Fraction(0) you ask for.
> >>
> >> If the smart mathematicians and computer scientists that wrote gp/pari
> >>
On 2018-08-30 11:05, Jonathan Fine wrote:
I'm used to using a number theory computer algebra system
https://pari.math.u-bordeaux.fr/.
I don't think that a comparison with PARI is very relevant because PARI
doesn't really have a type system the way that Python does. For example
the fraction 3/
Hi Neil
We wrote
>> This gives the same results as Python's Fraction, except for your
>> example [6]. There, it gives the Fraction(0) you ask for.
>>
>> If the smart mathematicians and computer scientists that wrote gp/pari
>> get the same answers, it suggests to me that improvement would be
>> h
Hi Neil
You wrote:
> Would there be any problem with changing:
> In [4]: Fraction(1, 1) ** Fraction(2, 3)
> Out[4]: 1.0
> In [5]: Fraction(-1, 1) ** Fraction(2, 3)
> Out[5]: (-0.4998+0.8660254037844387j)
> In [6]: Fraction(0, 1) ** Fraction(2, 3)
> Out[6]: 0.0
> I'd like these to
On Thu, Aug 30, 2018 at 4:38 AM Stephen J. Turnbull <
turnbull.stephen...@u.tsukuba.ac.jp> wrote:
> Neil Girdhar writes:
>
> > There are a lot of misunderstandings in this thread. It's probably
> > best to start by reading up on the roots of unity (
> > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Root_of_un
Thank you for responding.
I'm afraid that Windows doesn't and won't support AES zip archive and AES
implementation itself is not small task(at least for me), so I would say
AES support can be next.
https://blogs.msdn.microsoft.com/oldnewthing/20180515-00/?p=98755
https://pypi.org/project/pycrypto/
Neil Girdhar writes:
> There are a lot of misunderstandings in this thread. It's probably
> best to start by reading up on the roots of unity (
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Root_of_unity).
That's not very polite, especially in context where somebody has
already conceded that his "wrong" wa
On Thu, Aug 30, 2018 at 4:01 AM Paul Moore wrote:
> On Thu, 30 Aug 2018 at 08:38, Neil Girdhar wrote:
> >
> > There are a lot of misunderstandings in this thread. It's probably best
> to start by reading up on the roots of unity (
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Root_of_unity). The key ideas a
Sorry if this gets double posted. Can people using Google Groups
*please* adjust the mail headers so that mailing list posters can
reply without getting errors? Ideally stop using Google Groups, but if
you have to, please consider those that don't. Specifically, please
remove the Google Groups addr
On Wed, 29 Aug 2018 at 23:08, Marko Ristin-Kaufmann
wrote:
>
> Hi,
> I think we got entangled in a discussion about whether design-by-contract is
> useful or not. IMO, the personal experience ("I never used/needed this
> feature") is quite an inappropriate rule whether something needs to be
> i
On Thu, 30 Aug 2018 at 08:38, Neil Girdhar wrote:
>
> There are a lot of misunderstandings in this thread. It's probably best to
> start by reading up on the roots of unity
> (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Root_of_unity). The key ideas are that a real
> number has two complex square roots, th
Hi,
@David Mertz, Eric Fahlgren re inheritance: thank you very much for your
suggestions. I will try to see how inheritance can be implemented with
metaclasses and annotations and put it into icontract library.
@David Mertz re costs:
> Adding a new feature, even if it is *technically* backwards
On 30.08.2018 03:27, 大野隆弘 wrote:
> Dear all,
>
> I would like to use zipfile encryption as python standard library.
> https://github.com/python/cpython/blob/master/Lib/zipfile.py
>
> Below document says "currently" cannot.
> https://github.com/python/cpython/blob/master/Doc/library/zipfile.rst
>
There are a lot of misunderstandings in this thread. It's probably best to
start by reading up on the roots of unity (
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Root_of_unity). The key ideas are that a
real number has two complex square roots, three complex cube roots, and so
on.
Normally, in Python, we ret
Jonathan Goble wrote:
How? Raising something to the 2/3 power means squaring it and then
taking the cube root of it.
On reflection, "wrong" is not quite accurate. A better
word might be "surprising".
(-1) ** (2/3) == 1 would imply that 1 ** (3/2) == -1.
I suppose that could be considered true
55 matches
Mail list logo