I gladly honor Stephen T, who understands many things, including timezones
better than I do.
On Sat, Apr 18, 2020, 12:35 AM Steven D'Aprano wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 17, 2020 at 03:33:56PM -0400, David Mertz wrote:
>
> > I think I'm the first person to mention Lisp symbols. Maybe not
> > though.
>
On Fri, Apr 17, 2020 at 03:33:56PM -0400, David Mertz wrote:
> I think I'm the first person to mention Lisp symbols. Maybe not
> though.
I know it's not a competition, but I think Stephen Turnbull beat you by
five hours :-)
(At least if I can do timezone calculations correctly.)
--
On Sat, Apr 18, 2020 at 10:23:59AM +1200, Greg Ewing wrote:
> On 18/04/20 1:53 am, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
> >On Sat, Apr 18, 2020 at 12:22:36AM +1200, Greg Ewing wrote:
> >>Here's another idea for the bikeshed:
> >>
> >>f(spam, pass eggs, ham)
> >
> >
> >How is "pass" meaningful here?
>
> It
On Sat, Apr 18, 2020 at 01:09:32PM +1000, Chris Angelico wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 18, 2020 at 1:04 PM Steven D'Aprano wrote:
> >
> > The rush to push this to a PEP is unseemly. This has only been two
> > days and I am sure that there will be many people who could be
> > interested but haven't had a
On Fri, Apr 17, 2020 at 08:12:26PM -0300, Joao S. O. Bueno wrote:
> For what matters, when I stopped to think about this, I came out with this
> exactly design!
>
> Maybe this is a 'one obvious way' to deal with it, without changing any
> syntax?
There's nothing "obvious" about using a private
On Sat, Apr 18, 2020 at 1:04 PM Steven D'Aprano wrote:
>
> The rush to push this to a PEP is unseemly. This has only been two
> days and I am sure that there will be many people who could be
> interested but haven't had a chance to look at the thread yet due to
> other committments.
>
All the
The rush to push this to a PEP is unseemly. This has only been two
days and I am sure that there will be many people who could be
interested but haven't had a chance to look at the thread yet due to
other committments.
(Even in this time of Covid-19 lockdowns, some people have work and
other
I think you should hold off a little bit until there is a bit more
consensus on syntax. Or at least delay the parts that are specific to
syntax.
I think it would help your case if you avoided toy examples like the one
you started with:
foo(baz=baz, qux=qux)
and concentrated on real
On 2020-04-18 01:32, Dominik Vilsmeier wrote:
On 17.04.20 10:53, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
I think that, as little as I like the original proposal and am not
really convinced it is necessary, I think that it is better to have the
explicit token (the key/parameter name) on the left, and the
On 17.04.20 10:53, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
I think that, as little as I like the original proposal and am not
really convinced it is necessary, I think that it is better to have the
explicit token (the key/parameter name) on the left, and the implicit
token (blank) on the right:
key=
I
On 17.04.20 23:18, Andrew Barnert via Python-ideas wrote:
On Apr 17, 2020, at 13:39, Alex Hall wrote:
I also find the example with :keyword a bit jarring at first glance,
so I propose a double colon to alleviate the problem if we go in
that direction. Compare:
{ :a, "b": x, :c }
{
On Fri, 17 Apr 2020 at 17:06, David Mertz wrote:
> I'm kinda leaning -0.5 even on the form that I think is least bad (the
> mode switch approach).
>
> If typing the same variable from the caller to use in the parameter is
> really too much repetition, you could maybe just do this:
>
>
For what
On 18/04/20 1:53 am, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
On Sat, Apr 18, 2020 at 12:22:36AM +1200, Greg Ewing wrote:
Here's another idea for the bikeshed:
f(spam, pass eggs, ham)
How is "pass" meaningful here?
It means "pass these things on as they are". Think
football pass, not quiz show pass.
On 18/04/20 1:56 am, oliveira.rodrig...@gmail.com wrote:
This should be valid syntax:
```python
return render_template("index.html", *,
twitter, username=user["display_name"],
channel, channelid, error,
setups=database.list_setups(channelid),
sched_tz, schedule, sched_tweet,
At the (online) language summit yesterday, our erstwhile BDFL responded to
a suggestion to use '?' in annotations. He said that many ideas arose over
time to us the question mark for various things, but he felt none so far
were compelling enough to exclude some future better use.
I actually find
On 18/04/20 1:28 am, Chris Angelico wrote:
What's the advantage of a mode switch?
I don't particularly like the mode switch either. Personally
I'd be happy with either
f(arg=)
or
f(=arg)
The latter is maybe more suggestive that "arg" is to be
evaluated in the local scope.
--
Greg
So, going back to the original post, dynamicdict is definitely something
I've reimplemented myself multiple times essentially exactly as your
pseudo-code in your C-command describes, just with the factory being
required to be not None (because I explicitly didn't want it to accept the
'no-factory'
On Apr 17, 2020, at 13:12, David Mertz wrote:
>
> However, proposals for symbols in Python *do* pop
> up from time to time, so this would perhaps make such a thing harder if
> it ever becomes desired (which is unlikely, but possible).
Sure. It would also conflict with Nick Coghlan’s version of
On Apr 17, 2020, at 13:39, Alex Hall wrote:
>
>
> I also find the example with :keyword a bit jarring at first glance, so I
> propose a double colon to alleviate the problem if we go in that direction.
> Compare:
>
> { :a, "b": x, :c }
>
> { ::a, "b": x, ::c }
I can see the
On Apr 17, 2020, at 13:07, David Mertz wrote:
>
>
> I'm kinda leaning -0.5 even on the form that I think is least bad (the mode
> switch approach).
>
> If typing the same variable from the caller to use in the parameter is really
> too much repetition, you could maybe just do this:
>
> >>>
Thanks @ChrisAngelico! I will get to it. Once a first draft is ready I'll share
the github link in here.
___
Python-ideas mailing list -- python-ideas@python.org
To unsubscribe send an email to python-ideas-le...@python.org
>
> If typing the same variable from the caller to use in the parameter is
> really too much repetition, you could maybe just do this:
>
> >>> render_template("index.html",
> ... username="display_name",
> ... setups="setups",
> ... **Q("x y z"))
> ('index.html',)
> {'username':
On Sat, Apr 18, 2020 at 6:30 AM wrote:
> I do wish to carry on with writing a PEP with your help guys. What's the next
> step?
Your primary reference is here:
https://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0001/#pep-workflow
Since you have a sponsor, the next step is to fork the PEPs repo on
GitHub and
I also find the example with :keyword a bit jarring at first glance, so I
propose a double colon to alleviate the problem if we go in that direction.
Compare:
{ :a, "b": x, :c }
{ ::a, "b": x, ::c }
On Fri, Apr 17, 2020 at 10:05 PM Rhodri James wrote:
> On 17/04/2020 19:21, Andrew
@AndrewBarnert yes I should have thought it better that there is no need to use
`kwargs` forcibly. My bad. I am a little more convinced of this being a solid
candidate solution to the problem. Thanks for talking me through!
Rodrigo Martins de Oliveira
@ChrisAngelico @EricVSmith Thank you for be willing to sponsor the PEP. I think
it may be best to start writing it already, as I see it, the proposal wasn't a
clear no (nor a clear yes but if it was to be, probably someone else would
already have proposed something in these lines and we
On 4/17/20 3:04 PM, Andrew Barnert wrote:
> I can't think of any either...
> You know, an ellipsis is about the farthest thing from an *unmarked*
> elision that you can get [without brackets and reinsertion of a more
> verbose version of the thing you wanted to elide -ed].
Anyone who has read
Here's a script to find places where this proposal could be useful. Try it
on a directory.
```python
import ast
import linecache
import sys
from pathlib import Path
root = Path(sys.argv[1])
def main():
for path in root.rglob("**/*.py"):
source = path.read_text()
try:
I'm kinda leaning -0.5 even on the form that I think is least bad (the mode
switch approach).
If typing the same variable from the caller to use in the parameter is
really too much repetition, you could maybe just do this:
>>> render_template("index.html",
... username="display_name",
...
On 17/04/2020 19:21, Andrew Barnert via Python-ideas wrote:
On Apr 17, 2020, at 01:58, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
On Thu, Apr 16, 2020 at 09:21:05PM -0700, Andrew Barnert via Python-ideas
wrote:
But I don’t see why that rules out the “bare colon” form that I and
someone else apparently both
On Fri, Apr 17, 2020 at 10:29 AM Alex Hall wrote:
> Perhaps an easier next step would be to get better data about people's
> opinions with a simple poll? Is there a standard way to vote on things in
> this list?
>
No, but if you want to create a poll I would strongly advise that you
create a
On Thu, 2020-04-16 at 21:21 -0700, Andrew Barnert via Python-ideas
wrote:
> On Apr 16, 2020, at 20:48, oliveira.rodrig...@gmail.com wrote:
> > In Javascript ES6 they don't have sets built like python so `{}`
> > always refers to objects being constructed. It does indeed support
> > implicit key:
On Apr 17, 2020, at 11:30, David Mertz wrote:
>
> I can't think of any either...
You know, an ellipsis is about the farthest thing from an *unmarked* elision
that you can get [without brackets and reinsertion of a more verbose version of
the thing you wanted to elide -ed].
But the hyphen
On Sat, Apr 18, 2020 at 4:41 AM Paul Svensson wrote:
>
> On Fri, 17 Apr 2020, Alex Hall wrote:
>
> >Perhaps an easier next step would be to get better data about people's
> >opinions with a simple poll? Is there a standard way to vote on things in
> >this
> >but it's easy and may inform what to
On Fri, 17 Apr 2020, Alex Hall wrote:
Perhaps an easier next step would be to get better data about people's opinions
with a simple poll? Is there a standard way to vote on things in this
but it's easy and may inform what to do next.
For what it's worth, I'm a strong -1 on this whole thing,
On Fri, Apr 17, 2020 at 2:22 PM Andrew Barnert via Python-ideas <
python-ideas@python.org> wrote:
> What examples can you think of—in English, Python, other popular
> languages, math notation, whatever—where there’s an infix-operator-like
> thing and the right token is elided and inferred
> On Apr 17, 2020, at 01:58, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
>
> On Thu, Apr 16, 2020 at 09:21:05PM -0700, Andrew Barnert via Python-ideas
> wrote:
>
>> But I don’t see why that rules out the “bare colon” form that I and
>> someone else apparently both proposed in separate sub threads of this
>>
Perhaps an easier next step would be to get better data about people's
opinions with a simple poll? Is there a standard way to vote on things in
this list?
I say we do a simple approval vote. Everyone ticks all the syntaxes that
they think would be acceptable to include in the language. It's not
On Fri, Apr 17, 2020 at 6:09 PM David Mertz wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 17, 2020 at 9:57 AM wrote:
>
>> The mode-switch proposal though would not impede one to mix shorthand and
>> longhand forms. This should be valid syntax:
>>
>> ```python
>> return render_template("index.html", *,
>> twitter,
On Apr 16, 2020, at 21:42, oliveira.rodrig...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> I believe this is a different feature, non-exclusive to the one proposed
> here, that would also make it possible not to re-declare keywords.
Yes, it is a different feature from magic call syntax. And yes, theoretically
On Sat, Apr 18, 2020 at 2:41 AM Eric V. Smith wrote:
>
> On 4/17/2020 12:28 PM, Chris Angelico wrote:
> > On Sat, Apr 18, 2020 at 1:54 AM David Mertz wrote:
> >> Hmmm... I disagree with Chris.
> >>
> >> I'm definitely -1 on a magic dangling 'foo=' after variable names. And
> >> something less
On 4/17/2020 12:28 PM, Chris Angelico wrote:
On Sat, Apr 18, 2020 at 1:54 AM David Mertz wrote:
Hmmm... I disagree with Chris.
I'm definitely -1 on a magic dangling 'foo=' after variable names. And something less
than -1 on the even more magic "Lisp symbol that isn't a symbol" ':foo'.
Those
On Sat, Apr 18, 2020 at 1:35 AM Steven D'Aprano wrote:
>
> On Sat, Apr 18, 2020 at 12:01:55AM +1000, Chris Angelico wrote:
>
> > Oh but Steven, Steven, Steven, how can you pass up an opportunity to
> > reignite the fires of "pass by value" and "pass by reference"? This is
> > CLEARLY the way to
On Fri, Apr 17, 2020 at 9:57 AM wrote:
> The mode-switch proposal though would not impede one to mix shorthand and
> longhand forms. This should be valid syntax:
>
> ```python
> return render_template("index.html", *,
> twitter, username=user["display_name"],
> channel, channelid, error,
Hmmm... I disagree with Chris.
I'm definitely -1 on a magic dangling 'foo=' after variable names. And
something less than -1 on the even more magic "Lisp symbol that isn't a
symbol" ':foo'.
Those are just ugly and mysterious.
However, I don't HATE the "mode switch" use of '*' or '**' in
On Sat, Apr 18, 2020 at 12:01:55AM +1000, Chris Angelico wrote:
> Oh but Steven, Steven, Steven, how can you pass up an opportunity to
> reignite the fires of "pass by value" and "pass by reference"? This is
> CLEARLY the way to represent pass-by-reference where the reference is
> to a mythical
On Fri, Apr 17, 2020 at 11:59 PM Steven D'Aprano wrote:
>
> On Sat, Apr 18, 2020 at 12:22:36AM +1200, Greg Ewing wrote:
> > Here's another idea for the bikeshed:
> >
> >f(spam, pass eggs, ham)
>
>
> How is "pass" meaningful here? To me this looks like a choice of a
> random keyword:
>
>
On Fri, Apr 17, 2020 at 11:57 PM wrote:
>
> @ChrisAngelico I do prefer the original proposal, though I do see the point
> of it being harder for beginner to understand.
>
> The mode-switch proposal though would not impede one to mix shorthand and
> longhand forms. This should be valid syntax:
>
@ChrisAngelico I do prefer the original proposal, though I do see the point of
it being harder for beginner to understand.
The mode-switch proposal though would not impede one to mix shorthand and
longhand forms. This should be valid syntax:
```python
return render_template("index.html", *,
On Sat, Apr 18, 2020 at 12:22:36AM +1200, Greg Ewing wrote:
> Here's another idea for the bikeshed:
>
>f(spam, pass eggs, ham)
How is "pass" meaningful here? To me this looks like a choice of a
random keyword:
f(spam, import eggs, ham)
I don't see the link between a keyword that
>
> > What's the advantage of a mode switch? This seems perfectly clear to
>> > me without any sort of magical cutoff.
>>
>> I agree with Chris. I'm not a fan of the original proposal with the "="
>> (because I don't think this is a problem that needs solving), but at
>> least it made more sense
> What's the advantage of a mode switch? This seems perfectly clear to
> > me without any sort of magical cutoff.
>
> I agree with Chris. I'm not a fan of the original proposal with the "="
> (because I don't think this is a problem that needs solving), but at
> least it made more sense than a
On 4/17/2020 9:28 AM, Chris Angelico wrote:
On Fri, Apr 17, 2020 at 8:52 PM Alex Hall wrote:
But this means the reader could miss the star, especially with a very large
function call over multiple lines, and if that reader happens to use that
particular function A LOT and know the parameter
On Fri, Apr 17, 2020 at 8:52 PM Alex Hall wrote:
>>
>> But this means the reader could miss the star, especially with a very large
>> function call over multiple lines, and if that reader happens to use that
>> particular function A LOT and know the parameter order without having to
>> look
Here's another idea for the bikeshed:
f(spam, pass eggs, ham)
equivalent to
f(spam, eggs=eggs, ham=ham)
--
Greg
___
Python-ideas mailing list -- python-ideas@python.org
To unsubscribe send an email to python-ideas-le...@python.org
On 17.04.20 12:49, Alex Hall wrote:
But this means the reader could miss the star, especially with a
very large function call over multiple lines, and if that reader
happens to use that particular function A LOT and know the
parameter order without having to look they would
On 17/04/2020 11:37, Alex Hall wrote:
On Fri, Apr 17, 2020 at 11:57 AM Steven D'Aprano
wrote:
On Fri, Apr 17, 2020 at 11:25:15AM +0200, Alex Hall wrote:
You look at the function call and you can see a bunch of
names being passed to self.do_something. If the function call has
>
>> This holds even more strongly if the various parameters take the same
>> type:
>>
>> # a real signature from one of my functions
>> def function(
>>meta:bool,
>>dunder:bool,
>>private:bool,
>>ignorecase:bool,
>>invert:bool)
>
> But this means the reader could miss the star, especially with a very
> large function call over multiple lines, and if that reader happens to use
> that particular function A LOT and know the parameter order without having
> to look they would pretty easily believe the arguments are doing
On Fri, Apr 17, 2020 at 11:57 AM Steven D'Aprano
wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 17, 2020 at 11:25:15AM +0200, Alex Hall wrote:
>
> > I don't think you really need to know what it means to read the code for
> > most purposes.
>
> *blink*
>
> > You look at the function call and you can see a bunch of
> >
> open('example.txt', encoding, newline, errors, mode)
>
> open('example.txt', *, encoding, newline, errors, mode)
>
> Would you agree that the two of those have *radically* different
> meanings? The first will, if you are lucky, fail immediately; the second
> may succeed. But to the poor
On Fri, Apr 17, 2020 at 11:25:15AM +0200, Alex Hall wrote:
> I don't think you really need to know what it means to read the code for
> most purposes.
*blink*
> You look at the function call and you can see a bunch of
> names being passed to self.do_something. If the function call has
>
On Fri, Apr 17, 2020 at 03:46:31AM -, oliveira.rodrig...@gmail.com wrote:
> @Steven D'Aprano see that it doesn't actually have to look like a
> pair, it doesn't need to be one at all. Just like in:
> ```python
> def f(a):
> ...
> f(x)
> ```
>
> `x` is implicitly assigned with `a`
On Fri, Apr 17, 2020 at 5:08 AM Steven D'Aprano wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 16, 2020 at 07:50:30PM +0200, Alex Hall wrote:
> > >
> > > And what would you do if you wanted to call:
> > >
> > > self.do_something(positional, keyword=keyword, keyword1=somethingelse,
> > > keyword2=keyword2)
> > >
> > > ?
>
I agree that introducing a new way for creating implicit dict literals
only for the purpose of saving on keyword arguments seems too much of a
change. Although it would be an elegant solution as it builds on already
existing structures. And I don't think it hurts readability for function
calls,
Andrew Barnert via Python-ideas writes:
> But I don’t see why that rules out the “bare colon” form that I and
> someone else apparently both proposed in separate sub threads of
> this thread:
>
> { :a, "b": x, :c }
This sort of reminds me of the "leading colon" convention for keywords
On 17/04/2020 04:04, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
I know what it means in function definitions, but somehow we seem to
have (accidentally?) flipped from talking about Rhodi's dislike of the
`*` in function *definitions* to an (imaginary? proposed?) use of `*` in
function *calls*.
Have I missed
On Thu, Apr 16, 2020 at 09:21:05PM -0700, Andrew Barnert via Python-ideas wrote:
> But I don’t see why that rules out the “bare colon” form that I and
> someone else apparently both proposed in separate sub threads of this
> thread:
>
> { :a, "b": x, :c }
>
> as shorthand for:
>
> {
68 matches
Mail list logo
