On Jul 25, 2019, at 14:57, Chris Angelico wrote:
>
>> On Fri, Jul 26, 2019 at 7:47 AM Greg Ewing
>> wrote:
>>
>> Also, this would really only work sensibly for Cartesian products of
>> two sets, not three or more. Writing s1 * s2 * s3 wouldn't give you
>> a set of 3-tuples (a, b, c), but a
On Fri, Jul 26, 2019 at 7:47 AM Greg Ewing wrote:
>
> Batuhan Taskaya wrote:
> > I think it looks very fine when you type {1, 2, 3} * {"a", "b", "c"} and
> > get set(itertools.product({1, 2, 3}, {"a", "b", "c"})). So i am
> > proposing set multiplication implementation as cartesian product.
>
>
Batuhan Taskaya wrote:
I think it looks very fine when you type {1, 2, 3} * {"a", "b", "c"} and
get set(itertools.product({1, 2, 3}, {"a", "b", "c"})). So i am
proposing set multiplication implementation as cartesian product.
I'm not sure this would be used frequently enough to justify making
25.07.19 15:14, Batuhan Taskaya пише:
Why do i need to convince a core developer for my PEP? AFAIK the
steering council can include non core developers (i know it isn't that
current case but for the future this is important). And if the last
authority who will approve my PEP is the steering
On Thu, Jul 25, 2019 at 5:21 AM Rhodri James wrote:
> On 25/07/2019 13:14, Batuhan Taskaya wrote:
> > Why do i need to convince a core developer for my PEP? AFAIK the steering
> > council can include non core developers (i know it isn't that current
> case
> > but for the future this is
On Thu, Jul 25, 2019 at 9:32 AM Batuhan Taskaya
wrote:
> What i see is when you post the ideas channel and it is something that
> doesnt change much on the frontside people dont care. And when people dont
> care, they forgot. PEP reviewing process is way better than posting to
> ideas and try to
On 07/25/2019 05:31 AM, Batuhan Taskaya wrote:
What i see is when you post the ideas channel and it is something
that doesnt change much on the frontside people dont care. And
when people dont care, they forgot. PEP reviewing process is way
better than posting to ideas and try to convince
On Jul 25, 2019, at 09:46, Batuhan Taskaya wrote:
>
> I think it looks very fine when you type {1, 2, 3} * {"a", "b", "c"} and get
> set(itertools.product({1, 2, 3}, {"a", "b", "c"})). So i am proposing set
> multiplication implementation as cartesian product.
I think it might make more
I think it looks very fine when you type {1, 2, 3} * {"a", "b", "c"} and
get set(itertools.product({1, 2, 3}, {"a", "b", "c"})). So i am proposing
set multiplication implementation as cartesian product.
>>>
___
Python-ideas mailing list --
And i know this is proposed before but it should be reconsidered under
steering council.
On Thu, Jul 25, 2019 at 7:46 PM Batuhan Taskaya
wrote:
> I think it looks very fine when you type {1, 2, 3} * {"a", "b", "c"} and
> get set(itertools.product({1, 2, 3}, {"a", "b", "c"})). So i am proposing
Nam, I think it'd be better to frame the proposal as a security
enhancement. Stating some of the common bugs/gotchas found when manually
implementing parsers, and the impact this has had on python over the years.
Seeing a full list of security issues (CVEs) by module would give us a
sense of how
On Thu, 25 Jul 2019 at 15:53, Nam Nguyen wrote:
>> You need to start by getting agreement on the premise that adding a
>> newly-written parser to the stdlib is a good idea. And so far your
>> *only* argument seems to be that "it will avoid a class of security
>> bugs" which I find extremely
On Thu, Jul 25, 2019 at 2:32 AM Paul Moore wrote:
> On Thu, 25 Jul 2019 at 02:16, Nam Nguyen wrote:
> > Back to my original requests to the list: 1) Whether we want to have a
> (possibly private) parsing library in the stdlib
>
> In the abstract, no. Propose a specific library, and that answer
On Thu, Jul 25, 2019 at 10:34 PM Batuhan Taskaya wrote:
>
> What i see is when you post the ideas channel and it is something that doesnt
> change much on the frontside people dont care. And when people dont care,
> they forgot. PEP reviewing process is way better than posting to ideas and
>
On Thu, Jul 25, 2019 at 10:16 PM Batuhan Taskaya wrote:
>
> Why do i need to convince a core developer for my PEP? AFAIK the steering
> council can include non core developers (i know it isn't that current case
> but for the future this is important). And if the last authority who will
>
What i see is when you post the ideas channel and it is something that
doesnt change much on the frontside people dont care. And when people dont
care, they forgot. PEP reviewing process is way better than posting to
ideas and try to convince people.
On Thu, Jul 25, 2019 at 3:21 PM Rhodri James
On 25/07/2019 13:14, Batuhan Taskaya wrote:
Why do i need to convince a core developer for my PEP? AFAIK the steering
council can include non core developers (i know it isn't that current case
but for the future this is important). And if the last authority who will
approve my PEP is the
Why do i need to convince a core developer for my PEP? AFAIK the steering
council can include non core developers (i know it isn't that current case
but for the future this is important). And if the last authority who will
approve my PEP is the steering council i just need to convince them not
On Thu, 25 Jul 2019 at 02:16, Nam Nguyen wrote:
> Back to my original requests to the list: 1) Whether we want to have a
> (possibly private) parsing library in the stdlib
In the abstract, no. Propose a specific library, and that answer would
change to "maybe".
> and 2) What features it should
19 matches
Mail list logo
