On 2020-12-05 05:49, Paul Sokolovsky wrote:
For that I would need to use RPython. I considered that circa 5 years
ago, and of course explored it. I "liked" what I saw, sure. But I
"wasn't happy" with what I saw.
There seem to be hints that I may be making this "strict mode" thingy
because I wasn
On Sat, Dec 5, 2020, 3:03 PM Christopher Barker wrote:
> just one more note:
>
>> > things like you are proposing with an eye to performance is not
>> > really where the Python community wants to go.
>>
>> I never met a Python user who said something like "I want Python to be
>> slow" or "I want
I like this literal syntax !!
Can't wait to use it !!
___
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
just one more note:
> > things like you are proposing with an eye to performance is not
> > really where the Python community wants to go.
>
> I never met a Python user who said something like "I want Python to be
> slow" or "I want Python to keep being slow", so we'll see how that goes.
>
But ma
On Sat, Dec 5, 2020 at 6:20 PM Steve Barnes wrote:
> How about reserving unicode numeric superscript characters 0..9 as label
> identifiers only to be used for loop & break, etc. Then the example below
> would become:
>
>
> while¹ not processed():
>
> for² x in the_stuff:
>
> if all_d
How about reserving unicode numeric superscript characters 0..9 as
label identifiers only to be used for loop & break, etc. Then the
example below would become:
while¹ not processed():
for x in the_stuff as 37:
if all_done(x):
break¹
I don't really care how the labels are spelle
How about reserving unicode numeric superscript characters 0..9 as label
identifiers only to be used for loop & break, etc. Then the example below would
become:
while¹ not processed():
for x in the_stuff as 37:
if all_done(x):
break¹
Steve Barnes
From: David Mertz
Sen
On Sat, Dec 5, 2020 at 11:05 AM Alexis Masson
wrote:
> I agree with you that the point of `break x` — labeled or numbered — is to
> target a specific loop to "jump" to, but I'm not comfortable with
> introducing labels to Python. The reason for this is that they look too
> much like identifiers,
Hello André,
On Sun, 29 Nov 2020 13:07:48 -0400
André Roberge wrote:
]
> > Thanks for posting this proposal. It should be pretty clear that's
> > the best process which should be followed.
>
> Thank you.
>
>
>
> > It's also should be pretty
> > clear that (almost) nobody follows it. If an
Hello,
On Wed, 2 Dec 2020 09:53:07 -0800
Christopher Barker wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 2, 2020 at 6:11 AM Paul Sokolovsky
> wrote:
>
> > Just imagine that if someone wrote previously such a detailed spec,
> > which I liked - I might implement it now. And if they actually even
> > provided a sample i
Hello,
On Wed, 2 Dec 2020 19:26:22 +1100
Chris Angelico wrote:
[]
> > > > A sufficiently smart JIT is sufficiently hard to develop. As an
> > > > example, a most well-known and most-used Python implementation,
> > > > CPython, doesn't have any JIT at all, not only "sufficiently
> > > > advanced
Le 04/12/2020 à 21:18, David Mertz a écrit :
I like the idea of named breaks, but I *hate* the idea of numerically
labeled breaks, whether numbered from the inside or from the outside.
On the occasions—which are actually relatively frequent—that I want to
break all the way out of an inner loop
12 matches
Mail list logo
