On 2020-06-11 22:15, Ethan Furman wrote:
On 06/11/2020 01:18 PM, Rob Cliffe via Python-ideas wrote:
If the new super-duper all-singing-and-dancing-and-make-the-tea parser can cope
with
'print' without parens, it can cope with print followed by nothing. Good
addition to the proposal,
>
> instead of prefixing a letter, we may be able to omit the key of
> items inside dict display.
d = {:name, :addr, ’tel': '123-4567’}
>
This is my favorite variation on the notation so far. I'll give it a +1
On Wed, Jun 10, 2020 at 10:49 AM Atsuo Ishimoto wrote:
> Hi
> Thank you for
I like Atsou's suggestion of omitting the key for literals:
d = {:name, :addr, ’tel': '123-4567’}
but using empty kwargs feels gross:
d = dict(=name, =addr, tel='123-456')
And this feels like it could easily lead to confusion:
d = dict(name, addr, tell='123-456')
On Thu, Jun 11, 2020 at
On 06/11/2020 01:18 PM, Rob Cliffe via Python-ideas wrote:
If the new super-duper all-singing-and-dancing-and-make-the-tea parser can cope
with
'print' without parens, it can cope with print followed by nothing. Good
addition to the proposal, actually. :-)
(Repeated for clarity: I'm in favour
On 11/06/2020 16:45, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
On Wed, Jun 10, 2020 at 08:00:26PM -0400, Jonathan Crall wrote:
I wouldn't mind if this *only *worked for the specific characters "print".
I would. What's so special about print? It's just a function.
I use `iter` much more than print. Should we
Stephen J. Turnbull
> d = {first : first, last, addr1, addr2}
I'm not a huge fan of this solution. It feels a bit like a hack instead of
an intended syntax. Since prefixing characters on strings is already a
thing, I lean more towards that solution. It's slightly easier to search
(e.g. if the
> What's so special about print? It's just a function.
I'd argue it's a pretty special function given its history. Just because
it's used less frequently that something else doesn't mean it's not
"special" in some sense. `iter x` never worked, whereas `print x` used to
work, which is the only
On Tue, Jun 9, 2020 at 8:11 PM Guido van Rossum wrote:
> In Python 3.10 we will no longer be burdened by the old parser (though 3rd
> party tooling needs to catch up).
>
> One thing that the PEG parser makes possible in about 20 lines of code is
> something not entirely different from the old
On Wed, Jun 10, 2020 at 08:00:26PM -0400, Jonathan Crall wrote:
> I wouldn't mind if this *only *worked for the specific characters "print".
I would. What's so special about print? It's just a function.
I use `iter` much more than print. Should we make a special exception
for only 'iter' too?
I find this interesting, another solution would be for locals() to take
arguments:
dict(tel='1337-1337', **locals('name', 'surname'))
___
Python-ideas mailing list -- python-ideas@python.org
To unsubscribe send an email to python-ideas-le...@python.org
Of course ipython has a %autocall magic which, if set to 1:
Lets you type `print 42, 43, 46, sep='-'` and have it work.
Shows you the actual call so you can paste it
If you use the %save magic to output to a file saves the actual call, (with
parenthesis).
You can set this as your
On 11/06/20 2:08 pm, Jonathan Goble wrote:
+1 for the limited idea of bringing back the print statement with
positional arguments only, as syntactic sugar (and not a replacement)
for the print function
Would that apply only to the actual built-in print function, or
would it work for any
I seem to remember reading somewhere that some very early
Lisp systems had a REPL that allowed you to omit the parentheses
around a top-level call. But that feature seems to have sunk
without trace in the swamps of history. I can't see a good
reason for Python to refloat it.
--
Greg
13 matches
Mail list logo
