I know this is not the point of this thread, but when i saw:
```
numbers = (i for i in range(10))
assert 3 in numbers
next(numbers)# 4!
```
I was totally surprised that generator expressions support `in` -- WTF?
they very much are NOT containers!
And, in fact, all iterators support `in` --
On Wed, 14 Jun 2023 at 09:05, BoppreH via Python-ideas
wrote:
>
> @ChrisA: There are already flags for enabling warnings on dangerous bytearray
> comparisons[1] or relying on locale-dependent encodings[2], not to mention a
> whole Development Mode flag[3] that adds extra checks. Some of those
@ChrisA: There are already flags for enabling warnings on dangerous bytearray
comparisons[1] or relying on locale-dependent encodings[2], not to mention a
whole Development Mode flag[3] that adds extra checks. Some of those checks
affect fewer people than my proposal. A "warn on reused
I think the discussion is sort of missing a very common use case, when a
user calls func(iterator) and the function is expecting an iterable but not
an iterator. The author of the called code might be thinking that the input
is a list but that doen't mean the caller thinks that. Even worse is a
> > If I wanted sorted numbers, then ValueError wouldn’t help, because I do not
> > get sorted numbers.
>
> I do want sorted numbers, but what can Python do in the face of broken code?
> There's a reason it raises errors for 1/0, str.invalid, and len(None). It's
> not "helpful" to the
I've also been a Python user for 24 years now. Since long before iterators
were a feature of Python. I wrote quite a few widely read articles about
iterators when they were introduced, including the first about leverageing
iterators for coroutines.
I can't say I've NEVER encountered a glitch
On Wed, 14 Jun 2023 at 07:52, BoppreH via Python-ideas
wrote:
>
> Sorry, I'm new to the list and was not aware the burden of proof was so high.
> Can you point me to one or two successful posts in Python-ideas where I can
> learn how to show there's a real need for a feature?
>
It's more a
Sorry, I'm new to the list and was not aware the burden of proof was so high.
Can you point me to one or two successful posts in Python-ideas where I can
learn how to show there's a real need for a feature?
On Tue, Jun 13, 2023, at 11:25 PM, Chris Angelico wrote:
> On Wed, 14 Jun 2023 at 07:02,
On Wed, 14 Jun 2023 at 07:02, BoppreH via Python-ideas
wrote:
>
> > In close to 10 years of experience with python I have never encountered
> > anything like this.
>
> Here's a small selection of the StackOverflow questions from people who
> encountered this exact issue:
But now try to find
> In close to 10 years of experience with python I have never encountered
> anything like this.
Here's a small selection of the StackOverflow questions from people who
encountered this exact issue:
In close to 10 years of experience with python I have never encountered
anything like this.
If I need to use a list later I never do ANY assignments to it. Why would I?
In the last example I would:
```
strings = ['aa', '', 'bbb', 'c’]
longest = max(filter(bool, strings), key=len)
n_unique =
On 2023-06-13 16:42, Chris Angelico wrote:
On Wed, 14 Jun 2023 at 01:07, BoppreH via Python-ideas
wrote:
And I have to say I'm surprised by the responses. Does nobody else hit bugs
like this and wish they were automatically detected?
Nope, I've never had that happen to me, and I *have*
On Wed, 14 Jun 2023 at 01:07, BoppreH via Python-ideas
wrote:
> And I have to say I'm surprised by the responses. Does nobody else hit bugs
> like this and wish they were automatically detected?
>
Nope, I've never had that happen to me, and I *have* made use of
calling iter() on
@ChrisA: Shadowing "iter()" would only help with Barry's example.
@Jonathan: Updating documentation is helpful, but I find an automated check
better. Too often the most obvious way to accomplish something silently
triggers this behavior:
strings = ['aa', '', 'bbb', 'c']
strings = filter(bool,
On Tue, 13 Jun 2023 at 21:03, BoppreH via Python-ideas
wrote:
>
> Any thoughts on logging a warning, perhaps behind an opt-in flag? I could not
> find a single false positive scenario, so I expect the signal-to-noise ratio
> to be high and prevent lots of bugs.
>
Shadow the iter() function and
The original example is:
numbers = (i for i in range(5))
assert 5 not in numbers
sorted(numbers)
I like this example. It provides an opportunity to improve the
documentation.
The problems goes away if we write any of the following
numbers = [i for i in range(5)]
numbers =
Any thoughts on logging a warning, perhaps behind an opt-in flag? I could not
find a single false positive scenario, so I expect the signal-to-noise ratio to
be high and prevent lots of bugs.
BoppreH
On Tue, Jun 13, 2023, at 1:05 AM, Greg Ewing wrote:
> On 13/06/23 9:59 am, Rob Cliffe via
On Tue, 13 Jun 2023 at 14:54, Greg Ewing wrote:
>
> On 13/06/23 11:38 am, Chris Angelico wrote:
> > (Fun fact: Pike looked at what Python was doing, and came up with a
> > concept of "continue functions"
>
> And I gather that the "async" and "await" keywords came
> from C#. Languages are always
18 matches
Mail list logo
