On Jan 19, 2020, at 22:22, Soni L. wrote:
>
>
>> >> > or maybe:
>> >> > > foo = f"{from foo.bar import 'foo.txt'}" # string imports
>> >> > bbar = fb"{from foo.bar import 'bar.txt'}" # bytes imports
>> >> >> This version would require turning import from a statement into an
>> >> >>
On Mon, Jan 20, 2020 at 5:23 PM Soni L. wrote:
> What the eff is this then?
> https://docs.python.org/3/library/importlib.html#module-importlib.resources
>
> Because I'm pretty sure this is literally part of the existing import
> machinery. Because importlib *is* the existing import machinery.
On Sun, Jan 19, 2020 at 8:16 PM Andrew Barnert wrote:
> On Jan 19, 2020, at 15:20, Guido van Rossum wrote:
>
>
> On Sun, Jan 19, 2020 at 3:10 PM Tim Peters wrote:
>
>> [Guido, on Pythons before 1.0.2 always printing non-None expression
>> statement results]
>> > Heh. That was such a
On Jan 19, 2020, at 20:13, Soni L. wrote:
>
>
>> On 2020-01-20 12:48 a.m., Andrew Barnert wrote:
>> On Jan 19, 2020, at 15:10, Soni L. wrote:
>> > > We have importlib. We have importlib.resources. We can import modules.
>> > > We cannot (yet) import resources using the same-ish module import
On Jan 19, 2020, at 15:20, Guido van Rossum wrote:
>
>> On Sun, Jan 19, 2020 at 3:10 PM Tim Peters wrote:
>> [Guido, on Pythons before 1.0.2 always printing non-None expression
>> statement results]
>> > Heh. That was such a misfeature that I had thoroughly suppressed any
>> > memory of its
On 2020-01-20 12:48 a.m., Andrew Barnert wrote:
On Jan 19, 2020, at 15:10, Soni L. wrote:
>
> We have importlib. We have importlib.resources. We can import modules. We cannot (yet) import resources using the same-ish module import machinery.
First, do you know about setuptools resources?
On Jan 19, 2020, at 15:10, Soni L. wrote:
>
> We have importlib. We have importlib.resources. We can import modules. We
> cannot (yet) import resources using the same-ish module import machinery.
First, do you know about setuptools resources? It’s not exactly what you’re
looking for, but it
note that there is a FAQ about this:
https://docs.python.org/3/faq/design.html#why-are-colons-required-for-the-if-while-def-class-statements
And if you google hard enough (my 30 seconds wasn't enough), I'm pretty
sure you can find a description of actual usability tests (if informal)
mack in the
By the way, if anyone is actually interested in this other than for
nostalgia , there have been a number of lengthy discussion on this list
about "Fluent" interfaces for Python. LIke this one for instance:
On Sun, Jan 19, 2020 at 11:59 AM Tim Peters wrote:
> For a bit of history that I may have made up (heh - memory fades over
> time!), as I recall, the very first Python pre-releases echoed to
> stdout every non-None statement result.
which is what MATLAB does, if you don't put a semi-colon at
On 2020-01-19 8:49 p.m., Tener Hades wrote:
> def unpack_defaults():
> open("templates/index.html", "w").write(f"{from ganarchy.templates
> import 'index.html'}")
This is non-idiomatic to not only Python, but any language I've seen
thus far in my career.
What does this achieve which
On Sun, Jan 19, 2020 at 3:10 PM Tim Peters wrote:
> [Guido, on Pythons before 1.0.2 always printing non-None expression
> statement results]
> > Heh. That was such a misfeature that I had thoroughly suppressed any
> > memory of its existence. -k indeed. :-)
>
> I prefer to think of it as a bit
[Guido, on Pythons before 1.0.2 always printing non-None expression
statement results]
> Heh. That was such a misfeature that I had thoroughly suppressed any
> memory of its existence. -k indeed. :-)
I prefer to think of it as a bit of genius :-)
The natural desire to avoid mounds of useless
We have importlib. We have importlib.resources. We can import modules.
We cannot (yet) import resources using the same-ish module import machinery.
It would be nice if we could.
I'm thinking of something like:
from foo.bar import resources "foo.txt" as foo, "bar.txt" as bar #
string imports
Heh. That was such a misfeature that I had thoroughly suppressed any memory
of its existence. -k indeed. :-)
On Sun, Jan 19, 2020 at 1:33 PM Tim Peters wrote:
> [Guido]
> > Sounds like a hallucination or fabrication.
>
> Nope! Turns out my memory was right :-)
>
> > The behavior of `for i in
I should really upgrade to 1.02!
% python
Python 1.0.1 (Jul 15 2016)
Copyright 1991-1994 Stichting Mathematisch Centrum, Amsterdam
>>> def f():
... for i in range(5): i
...
>>> f()
0
1
2
3
4
On Sun, Jan 19, 2020 at 4:33 PM Tim Peters wrote:
> [Guido]
> > Sounds like a hallucination or
[Guido]
> Sounds like a hallucination or fabrication.
Nope! Turns out my memory was right :-)
> The behavior of `for i in range(10): i` in the REPL exists
> to this day, and list.append() never returned a value.
Sure, but those weren't the claims. The claim was that the result of
an
On Sun, Jan 19, 2020 at 3:56 PM Steven D'Aprano wrote:
> > The "fluent interface" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fluent_interface)
> is
> > popular in many programming languages, including in the sort of
> > "mini-language" Pandas, within portion.
>
> I can't speak about Pandas, but what the OP
On Jan 19, 2020, at 12:15, David Mertz wrote:
>
> In contrast, in pure Python, most of that you do is in loops over the
> elements of collections. In that case is does a good job of drawing your eye
> to the fact that a method is called but not assigned to anything. When I see
>
On Sun, Jan 19, 2020 at 02:37:14PM -0500, David Mertz wrote:
> The "fluent interface" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fluent_interface) is
> popular in many programming languages, including in the sort of
> "mini-language" Pandas, within portion.
I can't speak about Pandas, but what the OP is
On Sun, Jan 19, 2020 at 08:32:43AM -0800, Guido van Rossum wrote:
> I'm not excited about suggesting the walrus operator when people want to
> chain mutating method calls like this. It results in ugly code with way too
> many parentheses and a distinctly un-Pythonic flavor. I hope the OP doesn't
>
Sounds like a hallucination or fabrication. The behavior of `for i in
range(10): i` in the REPL exists to this day, and list.append() never
returned a value.
The only thing I'm only 90% sure of is whether the REPL always ignored None
values.
On Sun, Jan 19, 2020 at 11:58 AM Tim Peters wrote:
>
[David Mertz ]
> ...
> What we get instead is a clear divide between mutating methods
> on collections that (almost) always return None, and functions
> like sorted() and reversed() that return copies of the underlying
> collection/iterable. Of course, there are many methods that don't
> have
The "fluent interface" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fluent_interface) is
popular in many programming languages, including in the sort of
"mini-language" Pandas, within portion.
But it is definitely not Pythonic. The Wikipedia article even shows how you
*could* do it in Python, but mentions that
On Sun, Jan 19, 2020 at 10:03 PM Guido van Rossum wrote:
> I'm not excited about suggesting the walrus operator when people want to
> chain mutating method calls like this. It results in ugly code with way too
> many parentheses and a distinctly un-Pythonic flavor. I hope the OP doesn't
> go off
I'm not excited about suggesting the walrus operator when people want to
chain mutating method calls like this. It results in ugly code with way too
many parentheses and a distinctly un-Pythonic flavor. I hope the OP doesn't
go off and infect a whole subcommunity with this idiom.
On Sat, Jan 18,
On Fri, Jan 17, 2020, at 21:32, Josh Rosenberg wrote:
> The colon remains syntactically necessary in some cases, particularly
> to disambiguate cases involving one-lining (no block involved). Stupid
> example: If the colon is optional, what does:
I was only proposing making it optional in the
On Sun, 19 Jan, 2020, 11:35 Inada Naoki, wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 19, 2020 at 2:45 PM Siddharth Prajosh
> wrote:
> >
> > Moreover, shouldn't it work?
> > How do I add that feature in Python?
>
> How you can do it with warus operator.
>
> >>> (xs := list(range(10))).append(42)
> >>> xs
> [0, 1, 2,
28 matches
Mail list logo
