The idea is inspired by the following StackOverflow question:
https://stackoverflow.com/questions/40945752/inspect-who-imported-me and
the corresponding BPO issue: https://bugs.python.org/issue39643.
In the older Python versions the f_back attribute of the frame in which
the module code is
> Anyway, I think the spelled-out “Synchronous” may be a better name, to
avoid the (very likely) case of people mistakenly reading “Sync” as short
for “Synchronized”. It’s no longer than “ProcessPool”, and, although it is
easy to typo, tab-completion or copy-paste helps, and how many times do you
On Feb 17, 2020, at 15:41, Jonathan Crall wrote:
>
> FWIW I found the term "SyncExecutor" really confusing when I was reading this
> thread. I thought it was short for Synchonized, but I just realized its
> actually short for Synchronous, which makes much more sense. While
>
Based on the conversation so far, I agree with @Kyle Stanley's breakdown of
the proposal. I think shelving the "*Add a new way to create and specify
executor*" and focusing on "*Add a SerialExecutor, which does not use
threads or processes*" is the best way forward.
For context, I'm a machine
> I'm much more lukewarm on set_state(). How hard is it to reimplement
> one's own Future if someone wants a different implementation? By
> allowing people to change the future's internal state, we're also
> giving them a (small) gun to shoot themselves with.
Yeah, I don't feel quite as
On Mon, 17 Feb 2020 12:19:59 -0800
Guido van Rossum wrote:
> It's actually really hard to implement your own Future class that works
> well with concurrent.futures.as_completed() -- this is basically what
> complicated the OP's implementation. Maybe it would be useful to look into
> a protocol to
On Feb 17, 2020, at 04:09, ananthan ananthan
wrote:
>
> At last found what I was trying to convey.
>
> A new class>>BinaryInt(n: Integer *, bits,signed=False)
>
> It should accept float values.(now >> "bin(5.8)".. will raise an error).
Just float, or any type convertible to int?
It's actually really hard to implement your own Future class that works
well with concurrent.futures.as_completed() -- this is basically what
complicated the OP's implementation. Maybe it would be useful to look into
a protocol to allow alternative Future implementations to hook into that?
On
The module should also support bit masking (left or right justified) with
AND / OR / XOR / NotAND / NotOR / NotXOR operations.
ieg following the same structure:
binary.AND(a,b)
binary.OR(a,b)
binary.XOR(a,b)
binary.NOTAND(a,b)
binary.NOTOR(a,b)
binary.NOTXOR(a,b)
The number of larger length of
The module should also support bit masking (left and/or right justified)
with AND / OR / XOR / NotAND / NotOR / NotXOR operations.
___
Python-ideas mailing list -- python-ideas@python.org
To unsubscribe send an email to python-ideas-le...@python.org
> On Feb 17, 2020, at 05:21, Soni L. wrote:
>
> missing items raise, rather than being None. as such I feel like None-aware
> operators would encourage ppl to put None everywhere, which from what I can
> tell, goes completely against Python's data model.
I don’t think this is entirely true.
On Sun, Feb 16, 2020 at 10:07:13PM -0300, Soni L. wrote:
> I looked at the PEP for None-aware operators and I really feel like they
> miss one important detail of Python's data model:
[...]
> that is: missing items raise, rather than being None.
You are conflating two distinct cases. Your
On Tue, Feb 18, 2020 at 12:20 AM Soni L. wrote:
>
> I looked at the PEP for None-aware operators and I really feel like they
> miss one important detail of Python's data model:
>
> >>> {}[0]
> Traceback (most recent call last):
>File "", line 1, in
> KeyError: 0
> >>> [][0]
> Traceback
I want
>>BinaryInt(-2, 4)
0b1110
>>BinaryInt(-2, 4, True)
-0b010
>>BinaryInt(-0b010, 4)
0b1110
It should accept float values also.
Can anyone tell what should be the input and return types???
___
Python-ideas mailing list -- python-ideas@python.org
To
I looked at the PEP for None-aware operators and I really feel like they
miss one important detail of Python's data model:
>>> {}[0]
Traceback (most recent call last):
File "", line 1, in
KeyError: 0
>>> [][0]
Traceback (most recent call last):
File "", line 1, in
IndexError: list index
On 2/17/20 7:08 AM, ananthan ananthan wrote:
At last found what I was trying to convey.
A new class>>BinaryInt(n: Integer *, bits,signed=False)
It should accept float values.(now >> "bin(5.8)".. will raise an error).
BinaryInt(-2,4)
0b1110
I would expect this to be an error, as
At last found what I was trying to convey.
A new class>>BinaryInt(n: Integer *, bits,signed=False)
It should accept float values.(now >> "bin(5.8)".. will raise an error).
>>BinaryInt(-2,4)
0b1110
>>BinaryInt(5,4)
0b0101
>>BinaryInt(-2,4,True)
-0b010
It should accept float,int values .
___
Python-ideas mailing list -- python-ideas@python.org
To unsubscribe send an email to python-ideas-le...@python.org
https://mail.python.org/mailman3/lists/python-ideas.python.org/
Message archived at
On Sun, 16 Feb 2020 19:46:13 -0500
Kyle Stanley wrote:
>
> Based on the proposal in the OP, I had considered that it might also be
> needed to be able to manually set the state of the future through something
> like a `Future.set_state()`, which would have a parameter for accessing it
> safely
19 matches
Mail list logo
