On Thu, Oct 22, 2020 at 4:17 AM Guido van Rossum wrote:
> In terms of API, assuming functions, I think there are two basic models.
> We could have two (or more) functions that were related though:
>>
>> # E.g. pat_with_names = "{foo:f}/{bar:4s}/{baz:3d}"
>> matches = scan_to_obj(pat_with_names, h
On Wed, Oct 21, 2020 at 7:12 PM David Mertz wrote:
> To bring it back to a concrete idea, here's how I see things:
>
>1. The idea of f-string-like assignment targets has little support.
>Only Chris, and maybe the OP who seems to have gone away.
>2. The idea of a "scanning language" se
To bring it back to a concrete idea, here's how I see things:
1. The idea of f-string-like assignment targets has little support.
Only Chris, and maybe the OP who seems to have gone away.
2. The idea of a "scanning language" seems to garner a fair amount of
enthusiasm from everyone who
If I was the list moderator, at this point I would put the thread on a
"cooling off" timeout for 8-16 hours. Both of you seem to be mainly
complaining about each other's interaction style rather than adding
anything of substance.
Then again neither am I so why am I even writing this. :-)
On Wed,
On Thu, Oct 22, 2020 at 10:36 AM Steven D'Aprano wrote:
>
> On Wed, Oct 21, 2020 at 12:16:16PM +1100, Chris Angelico wrote:
>
> > Please explain how it's "spooky action at a distance" if it's a
> > self-contained assignment statement?
>
> "Spooky action at a distance" is your phrase, not mine, or
On Wed, Oct 21, 2020 at 12:16:16PM +1100, Chris Angelico wrote:
> Please explain how it's "spooky action at a distance" if it's a
> self-contained assignment statement?
"Spooky action at a distance" is your phrase, not mine, or Rob's.
(I think David Mertz may have used it first, but I don't have
On Wed, Oct 21, 2020, 7:21 PM Steven D'Aprano
> There's a middle ground of text parsing tasks that would seem to be a good
> match for some sort of scanner, inspired by C's scanf, whether it uses % or
> {} format codes.
>
Maybe COBOL PICTURE clauses.
Admittedly, I've never used COBOL, but I thou
On Wed, Oct 21, 2020 at 11:07:28AM -0700, Christopher Barker wrote:
> As for the question of do we need a scanning language at all? We already
> have pretty full features string methods, and regex for the complex stuff.
>
> I think yes -- for both simplicity for the simple stuff (the easy stuff
>
On Thu, Oct 22, 2020 at 5:35 AM Madhu Mohan Nelemane
wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> I have been programming in python for about 6 years now. However, I am a
> newbie to this mailing list. My observation in the last couple of days is
> that this is literally an explosion of ideas and in various degrees. I am
Hi,
I have been programming in python for about 6 years now. However, I am a
newbie to this mailing list. My observation in the last couple of days is
that this is literally an explosion of ideas and in various degrees. I am
wondering if there is a common place or site where the ideas that went
be
On Tue, Oct 20, 2020 at 8:57 AM Antal Gábor
wrote:
> My idea is to return a list with an empty string in all cases mentioned
> above.
>
This will never be fixed in 3.x, but if it's fixed in The Version That Must
Not Be Named, my preference would be that they all return [] because then
it's easy
Interesting.
I agree that this is inconsistent and confusing (and I'm quite curious how
the implementation ended up this way).
But I have literally NEVER been bitten by this -- perhaps it's because I
WAS bitten by it way back when, and then started the habit of ignoring
empty strings before I spl
On Tue, Oct 20, 2020 at 12:14 PM David Mertz wrote:
> Well, "formatting" more generally, not only printing. But the fact they
> are different is EXACTLY the point I have tried to make a number of times.
> Trying to shoe-horn a "formatting string" into a role of a "scanning
> string" is exactly t
FWIW, one of my intro students just yesterday asked about this:
Is there a way to call a function in a python file directly from the
command line?
I have no idea what their programming background is, or why they expected
that to be possible, but there you go -- at least one newbie expected it to
Agree with Serhiy. IIRC Ruby allows skipping brackets for a function call,
this is very confusing sometimes
On Tue, Oct 20, 2020, 18:54 Antal Gábor wrote:
> Couldn't agree more.
>
> On 2020. 10. 20. 16:43, Serhiy Storchaka wrote:
> > 20.10.20 12:54, J. Pic пише:
> >> At the same time, Guido says
On Wed, Oct 21, 2020 at 3:02 AM Serhiy Storchaka
wrote:
> 21.10.20 05:23, Steve Barnes пише:
> > Of course there is also the problem of detecting any functions assigned
> > to _ or _T that may be called - otherwise there is a risk of breaking
> > the typical gettext usage in I18n!
>
> gettext is
16 matches
Mail list logo
