[Python-ideas] Re: Add a "partial with placeholders" function to the functools module

On Sat, Jul 27, 2019 at 9:28 PM Steven D'Aprano wrote: > If you're going to add support for a placeholder, there is no need to > create a new kind of partial function? > Exactly! This is just an enhanced functools.partial. An enhancement that has already been done in several 3rd party

[Python-ideas] Re: Add a "partial with placeholders" function to the functools module

On Jul 27, 2019, at 12:47, Anders Hovmöller wrote: > > >> On 27 Jul 2019, at 21:10, Andrew Barnert wrote: >> >> Many of the compelling examples for PEP 570 are good examples here. The >> following are all impossible intentionally, and for different reasons: >> >> skipper = partial(range,

[Python-ideas] Re: Add a "partial with placeholders" function to the functools module

On Sat, Jul 27, 2019 at 12:47:39PM -, Dominik Vilsmeier wrote: > I propose adding a function to `functools` that works with > placeholders and thus offers even greater flexibility. The Ellipsis > literal `...` seems a intuitive choice for that task. When eventually > calling such a

[Python-ideas] Re: Add a "partial with placeholders" function to the functools module

Before we go too far down this route, let's consider whether these can't be solved with lambda rather than introducing new special cases to partial(). -- --Guido van Rossum (python.org/~guido) *Pronouns: he/him/his **(why is my pronoun here?)*

[Python-ideas] Re: Add a "partial with placeholders" function to the functools module

On 2019-07-27 20:10, Andrew Barnert via Python-ideas wrote: On Jul 27, 2019, at 08:04, Anders Hovmöller wrote: On 27 Jul 2019, at 14:47, Dominik Vilsmeier wrote: currently, regarding positional arguments, `partial` gives us the option to partialize functions from the left. There's been

[Python-ideas] Re: Add a "partial with placeholders" function to the functools module

> On 27 Jul 2019, at 21:10, Andrew Barnert wrote: > > On Jul 27, 2019, at 08:04, Anders Hovmöller wrote: >> >>> On 27 Jul 2019, at 14:47, Dominik Vilsmeier >>> wrote: >>> >>> currently, regarding positional arguments, `partial` gives us the option to >>> partialize functions from the

[Python-ideas] Re: Add a "partial with placeholders" function to the functools module

On Jul 27, 2019, at 08:04, Anders Hovmöller wrote: > >> On 27 Jul 2019, at 14:47, Dominik Vilsmeier wrote: >> >> currently, regarding positional arguments, `partial` gives us the option to >> partialize functions from the left. There's been some interest about >> partializing functions from

[Python-ideas] Re: Cartesian Product on `__mul__`

On 07/27/2019 03:17 AM, Batuhan Taskaya wrote: Its more clear and understandable than itertools.product for people from outside of a programming background. The simplicity is useful when we are working with multiple expressions at sametime. (cset(a & b) * cset(a | b)) So build that

[Python-ideas] Re: for ... except, with ... except

On 07/27/2019 01:19 AM, Serhiy Storchaka wrote: 26.07.19 23:57, Guido van Rossum пише: However, I worry that when people see this syntax, they will think that the except clause is for handling exceptions in the loop body. (That's certainly what I assumed when I read just your subject line.

[Python-ideas] Re: Add a "partial with placeholders" function to the functools module

> On 27 Jul 2019, at 14:47, Dominik Vilsmeier wrote: > > Hello, > > currently, regarding positional arguments, `partial` gives us the option to > partialize functions from the left. There's been some interest about > partializing functions from the right instead (e.g. [SO post, 9k views,

[Python-ideas] Add a "partial with placeholders" function to the functools module

Hello, currently, regarding positional arguments, `partial` gives us the option to partialize functions from the left. There's been some interest about partializing functions from the right instead (e.g. [SO post, 9k views, 39 upvotes](https://stackoverflow.com/q/7811247/3767239)), especially

[Python-ideas] Re: for ... except, with ... except

> On 27 Jul 2019, at 10:19, Serhiy Storchaka wrote: > > 26.07.19 23:57, Guido van Rossum пише: >> These are interesting ideas. It looks like you intend the except clause of >> the for loop to *only* cover the iter() and next() calls that are implicit >> in the for loop. You're right that

[Python-ideas] Re: for ... except, with ... except

26.07.19 21:52, Bruce Leban пише: On Fri, Jul 26, 2019 at 11:27 AM Serhiy Storchaka > wrote: So you will be able to add errors handling like in:      with connect() as stream:          for data in stream:              try:                  

[Python-ideas] Re: Skip modules by default in star-import

26.07.19 23:53, Guido van Rossum пише: Serhiy proposed a relatively minor change to the behavior of `import *` in the absence of __all__. This sounds like an idea we could try though we should have a look at the implications for various well-known packages. It is also a relatively minor

[Python-ideas] Re: for ... except, with ... except

26.07.19 23:57, Guido van Rossum пише: These are interesting ideas. It looks like you intend the except clause of the for loop to *only* cover the iter() and next() calls that are implicit in the for loop. You're right that it's awkward to catch exceptions there. Right. If you want to catch

[Python-ideas] Re: for ... except, with ... except

26.07.19 23:46, MRAB пише: On 2019-07-26 19:26, Serhiy Storchaka wrote: [snip] I propose to add "except" clause to "for" and "with" statement to catch exceptions in the code that can't be wrapped with "try ... except".   for VAR in EXPR:   BLOCK   except EXC:   HANDLER

[Python-ideas] Re: Skip modules by default in star-import

> On 26 Jul 2019, at 22:53, Guido van Rossum wrote: > > Serhiy proposed a relatively minor change to the behavior of `import *` in > the absence of __all__. This sounds like an idea we could try though we > should have a look at the implications for various well-known packages. It is >