[Python-ideas] Re: foo.setParseAction(lambda a, b, c: raise FuckPython(":("))

2019-11-03 Thread Andrew Barnert via Python-ideas
On Nov 4, 2019, at 00:58, Soni L. wrote: > > That was meant to be NYI (Not Yet Implemented), sorry. (feel free to treat > "NIY" as "Not Implemented Yet" :P) Ah. I use NotImplementedError for that, because there are unit testing frameworks that know how to count that differently from other

[Python-ideas] Re: foo.setParseAction(lambda a, b, c: raise FuckPython(":("))

2019-11-03 Thread Soni L.
On 2019-11-03 2:01 p.m., Andrew Barnert wrote: On Nov 3, 2019, at 15:38, Soni L. wrote: >> > Or, C#'s throw is allowed in certain specific contexts (lambda bodies and conditional expressions) without being a general expression. >> Just like, e.g., yield_expr is allowed in assignment

[Python-ideas] Re: foo.setParseAction(lambda a, b, c: raise ForkPython(":("))

2019-11-03 Thread Greg Ewing
Andrew Barnert via Python-ideas wrote: I don’t know what NIY means here, Not Invented Yet. It's used by the time machine to prevent temporal paradoxes due to anachronistic use of technology, for example if you try to use van Finkelstein's algorithm for solving the halting problem before

[Python-ideas] Re: Allow Path object instances in subprocess.Popen

2019-11-03 Thread Ethan Furman
On 11/03/2019 02:31 AM, Anders Hovmöller wrote: Side note! When switching subjects mid-thread, please re-title the subject. This side-note sub-thread is now nearly as long as the original thread. -- ~Ethan~ ___ Python-ideas mailing list --

[Python-ideas] Re: Allow Path object instances in subprocess.Popen

2019-11-03 Thread Chris Angelico
On Mon, Nov 4, 2019 at 3:49 AM Anders Hovmöller wrote: > It's not a proposal though. It's way too late to change this now. I'm just > saying the situation for the switch wasn't ideal. I think we all agree on > that but for different reasons ;) > No, I don't think we do agree :) Some of us

[Python-ideas] Re: Allow Path object instances in subprocess.Popen

2019-11-03 Thread MRAB
On 2019-11-03 08:24, Steven D'Aprano wrote: On Sat, Nov 02, 2019 at 07:31:55PM -0400, Eric V. Smith wrote: On 11/2/2019 7:24 PM, Steven D'Aprano wrote: >I see no reason why this shouldn't be allowed. It seems like a >straight-forward feature request, and one that is compatible with the >basic

[Python-ideas] Re: Allow Path object instances in subprocess.Popen

2019-11-03 Thread Brendan Barnwell
On 2019-11-03 01:21, Steven D'Aprano wrote: On Sun, Nov 03, 2019 at 12:23:02AM -0700, Brendan Barnwell wrote: For the record, I have always thought that str.join should call str on all its arguments. The fact that it doesn't is really annoying. Given: values =

[Python-ideas] Re: Allow Path object instances in subprocess.Popen

2019-11-03 Thread Anders Hovmöller
> On 3 Nov 2019, at 16:50, Andrew Barnert wrote: > >  >> >>> On Nov 3, 2019, at 16:07, Anders Hovmöller wrote: >>> On 3 Nov 2019, at 13:31, Andrew Barnert wrote: >>> >>> On Nov 3, 2019, at 13:01, Anders Hovmöller wrote: Well, the last part requires that print can coerce

[Python-ideas] Re: foo.setParseAction(lambda a, b, c: raise FuckPython(":("))

2019-11-03 Thread Andrew Barnert via Python-ideas
On Nov 3, 2019, at 15:38, Soni L. wrote: >> > Or, C#'s throw is allowed in certain specific contexts (lambda bodies and >> > conditional expressions) without being a general expression. >> Just like, e.g., yield_expr is allowed in assignment statements without >> being a general expression,

[Python-ideas] Re: Allow Path object instances in subprocess.Popen

2019-11-03 Thread Andrew Barnert via Python-ideas
> On Nov 3, 2019, at 16:07, Anders Hovmöller wrote: > >> On 3 Nov 2019, at 13:31, Andrew Barnert wrote: >> >> On Nov 3, 2019, at 13:01, Anders Hovmöller wrote: >>> >>> Well, the last part requires that print can coerce bytes to str, not >>> strictly that it must do so via str(). repr()

[Python-ideas] Re: Allow Path object instances in subprocess.Popen

2019-11-03 Thread Anders Hovmöller
> On 3 Nov 2019, at 13:31, Andrew Barnert wrote: > > On Nov 3, 2019, at 13:01, Anders Hovmöller wrote: >> >> Well, the last part requires that print can coerce bytes to str, not >> strictly that it must do so via str(). repr() should return b'foo' but str() >> could have returned . > >

[Python-ideas] Re: Python 4000: Have stringlike objects provide sequence views rather than being sequences

2019-11-03 Thread Andrew Barnert via Python-ideas
On Nov 2, 2019, at 20:33, Random832 wrote: > >> On Sun, Oct 27, 2019, at 03:10, Andrew Barnert wrote: >>> On Oct 26, 2019, at 19:59, Random832 wrote: >>> >>> A string representation considering of (say) a UTF-8 string, plus an >>> auxiliary list of byte indices of, say, 256-codepoint-long

[Python-ideas] Re: foo.setParseAction(lambda a, b, c: raise FuckPython(":("))

2019-11-03 Thread Soni L.
On 2019-11-03 12:24 p.m., Andrew Barnert via Python-ideas wrote: On Nov 2, 2019, at 21:02, Random832 wrote: > >> On Sun, Oct 27, 2019, at 19:17, Andrew Barnert via Python-ideas wrote: >>> On Oct 27, 2019, at 15:07, Ben Rudiak-Gould wrote: >>> >>> throw is an expression, not a statement,

[Python-ideas] Re: foo.setParseAction(lambda a, b, c: raise FuckPython(":("))

2019-11-03 Thread Andrew Barnert via Python-ideas
On Nov 2, 2019, at 21:02, Random832 wrote: > >> On Sun, Oct 27, 2019, at 19:17, Andrew Barnert via Python-ideas wrote: >>> On Oct 27, 2019, at 15:07, Ben Rudiak-Gould wrote: >>> >>> throw is an expression, not a statement, in C++. I see no reason raise >>> couldn't be an expression in Python.

[Python-ideas] Re: Allow Path object instances in subprocess.Popen

2019-11-03 Thread brunoais
Sorry about that. For some reason, the line got trimmed and I didn't notice when I sent the response. `Popen((PathLike))` is what I meant as you mention there ___ Python-ideas mailing list -- python-ideas@python.org To unsubscribe send an email to

[Python-ideas] Re: Allow Path object instances in subprocess.Popen

2019-11-03 Thread Andrew Barnert via Python-ideas
On Nov 3, 2019, at 13:01, Anders Hovmöller wrote: > > Well, the last part requires that print can coerce bytes to str, not strictly > that it must do so via str(). repr() should return b'foo' but str() could > have returned . That would be very confusing. When they differ, it’s always repr

[Python-ideas] Re: Allow Path object instances in subprocess.Popen

2019-11-03 Thread Serhiy Storchaka
03.11.19 12:31, Anders Hovmöller пише: On 3 Nov 2019, at 10:28, Steven D'Aprano wrote: Given: values = ["Hello", b"World"] would you expect ' '.join(values) to return "Hello b'World'" because that's what you'll get calling str automatically. Side note! That misfeature of python 3

[Python-ideas] Re: Allow Path object instances in subprocess.Popen

2019-11-03 Thread Anders Hovmöller
> On 3 Nov 2019, at 11:39, Chris Angelico wrote: > > On Sun, Nov 3, 2019 at 9:34 PM Anders Hovmöller wrote: >> >> >> On 3 Nov 2019, at 10:28, Steven D'Aprano wrote: >>> >>> On Sun, Nov 03, 2019 at 12:23:02AM -0700, Brendan Barnwell wrote: >>> For the record, I have always

[Python-ideas] Re: Allow Path object instances in subprocess.Popen

2019-11-03 Thread Anders Hovmöller
> On 3 Nov 2019, at 12:17, Steven D'Aprano wrote: > > On Sun, Nov 03, 2019 at 11:31:22AM +0100, Anders Hovmöller wrote: > >>> Given: >>> values = ["Hello", b"World"] >>> would you expect ' '.join(values) to return >>> "Hello b'World'" >>> because that's what you'll get calling str

[Python-ideas] Re: Allow Path object instances in subprocess.Popen

2019-11-03 Thread Steven D'Aprano
On Sun, Nov 03, 2019 at 11:31:22AM +0100, Anders Hovmöller wrote: > > Given: > > > >values = ["Hello", b"World"] > > > > would you expect ' '.join(values) to return > > > >"Hello b'World'" > > > > because that's what you'll get calling str automatically. > > Side note! > > That

[Python-ideas] Re: Allow Path object instances in subprocess.Popen

2019-11-03 Thread Chris Angelico
On Sun, Nov 3, 2019 at 9:34 PM Anders Hovmöller wrote: > > > > > On 3 Nov 2019, at 10:28, Steven D'Aprano wrote: > > > > On Sun, Nov 03, 2019 at 12:23:02AM -0700, Brendan Barnwell wrote: > > > >>For the record, I have always thought that str.join should call str > >>on all its

[Python-ideas] Re: Allow Path object instances in subprocess.Popen

2019-11-03 Thread Anders Hovmöller
> On 3 Nov 2019, at 10:28, Steven D'Aprano wrote: > > On Sun, Nov 03, 2019 at 12:23:02AM -0700, Brendan Barnwell wrote: > >>For the record, I have always thought that str.join should call str >>on all its arguments. The fact that it doesn't is really annoying. > > Given: > >

[Python-ideas] Re: Allow Path object instances in subprocess.Popen

2019-11-03 Thread Steven D'Aprano
On Sun, Nov 03, 2019 at 12:23:02AM -0700, Brendan Barnwell wrote: > For the record, I have always thought that str.join should call str > on all its arguments. The fact that it doesn't is really annoying. Given: values = ["Hello", b"World"] would you expect ' '.join(values)

[Python-ideas] Re: Allow Path object instances in subprocess.Popen

2019-11-03 Thread Steven D'Aprano
On Sat, Nov 02, 2019 at 07:31:55PM -0400, Eric V. Smith wrote: > On 11/2/2019 7:24 PM, Steven D'Aprano wrote: > >I see no reason why this shouldn't be allowed. It seems like a > >straight-forward feature request, and one that is compatible with the > >basic idea that Path objects should be usable

[Python-ideas] Re: Allow Path object instances in subprocess.Popen

2019-11-03 Thread Gregory P. Smith
On Sun, Nov 3, 2019 at 12:33 AM Brendan Barnwell wrote: > On 2019-11-03 00:02, Eric V. Smith wrote: > > On 11/2/2019 10:02 PM, Jonathan Goble wrote: > >> So there's no reason in that regard to not allow it, and I'm +1 on the > idea. > > > > I disagree. I don't think there's precedent in Python

[Python-ideas] Re: Allow Path object instances in subprocess.Popen

2019-11-03 Thread Brendan Barnwell
On 2019-11-03 00:02, Eric V. Smith wrote: On 11/2/2019 10:02 PM, Jonathan Goble wrote: So there's no reason in that regard to not allow it, and I'm +1 on the idea. I disagree. I don't think there's precedent in Python for stringifying parameters. By your logic, shouldn't we also call str() on

[Python-ideas] Re: Allow Path object instances in subprocess.Popen

2019-11-03 Thread Eric V. Smith
On 11/2/2019 10:02 PM, Jonathan Goble wrote: On Sat, Nov 2, 2019 at 9:52 PM MRAB wrote: On 2019-11-03 00:38, Chris Angelico wrote: On Sun, Nov 3, 2019 at 11:34 AM Eric V. Smith wrote: On 11/2/2019 7:24 PM, Steven D'Aprano wrote: I see no reason why this shouldn't be allowed. It seems