Steven D'Aprano writes:
> There are many things which are core to science and engineering but
> aren't part of the core Python language. What makes units of
> measurements more special than, say, numpy arrays or dataframes?
Arrays and dataframes are data structures, hidden behind the
wrote:
> This message is for those that would like to "play" with a more natural
> looking syntax for units in Python.
>
This is very cool -- thanks!
-CHB
--
Christopher Barker, PhD (Chris)
Python Language Consulting
- Teaching
- Scientific Software Development
- Desktop GUI and Web
Greetings,
This message is for those that would like to "play" with a more natural
looking syntax for units in Python.
First, a quick look:
> python -m ideas -t easy_units
Ideas Console version 0.0.23. [Python version: 3.10.2]
~>> import pint
~>> U = pint.UnitRegistry()
~>> walk = 3[km] +
On Sat, Apr 9, 2022 at 5:52 AM Steven D'Aprano wrote:
> > Python is so painful to use for units I've actually avoided it,
What have you tried? and what do you do instead?
MathCAD, maybe?
For my part, there is a bit of a barrier to entry: I need to pick a
library, I need to get over the
On Thu, Apr 07, 2022 at 11:18:57PM -, Brian McCall wrote:
> > What does it *really* matter which of these you write?
>
> > that's just arguing over the colour of the bikeshed.
>
> > you have shown nothing to justify why unit support must be built
> > into the language itself.
>
> I did
On Sat, Apr 9, 2022, 7:31 AM malmiteria wrote:
> Joao S. O. Bueno writes:
> > You are still repeating this:
> > "more in line with the expectation of the majority, "
> > Though, as already asked, there is zero (nothing) to support that.
>
Here's some more evidence of a sort: I've taught
On Fri, Apr 08, 2022 at 07:20:35AM -0400, Ricky Teachey wrote:
> Python is so painful to use for units I've actually avoided it, so there
> won't be many examples I can give anyway. Hence my silence in this thread
> the past few days.
Which of the many Python libraries have you tried, and what
Greg ewing writes:
> That sounds like exactly what Class.method(self) does today. Why
> do we need another way to do it?
Because that's a completely different syntax from the commonly used super, it's
likely enough that some people wouldn't think of it to be a problem.
Again, if you disagree
Joao S. O. Bueno writes:
> You are still repeating this:
> "more in line with the expectation of the majority, "
> Though, as already asked, there is zero (nothing) to support that.
I'm also still repeating:
People most common experience with super informs their understanding and
expectations
