On 2023-07-05 00:00, Christopher Barker wrote:
I'm noting this, because I think it's part of the problem to be solved,
but maybe not the mainone (to me anyway). I've been focused more on
"these packages are worthwhile, by some definition of worthwhile). While
I think Chris A is more focused on
On 2023-07-05 07:13, Chris Angelico wrote:
Right; hence the question of how a "vetted Python package collection"
would compare. I can type "sudo apt install python-" and add the name
of a package, and I get some assurance that:
1) The package works
2) The package is useful enough
3) It's not mal
Why not just use gpg signatures and maintain trusted signing keys? There’s
no reason to reinvent the wheel. If a user wants to use a unsigned or
untrusted packages, they have to accept the risk.
Thanks,
Greg
On Wed, Jul 5, 2023 at 2:05 PM Chris Angelico wrote:
> On Thu, 6 Jul 2023 at 03:57, Jam
One way would be to categorise areas and sub-areas and have a clear indication,
where the work has not been done.
So that if I came to such place, I could find the sub-topic that I am
interested in with clear indication of the status.
> On 5 Jul 2023, at 21:48, Brendan Barnwell wrote:
>
> On
> On 5 Jul 2023, at 21:07, Chris Angelico wrote:
>
> On Thu, 6 Jul 2023 at 04:02, Dom Grigonis wrote:
>> What I would alternatively propose is to introduce a couple of (meaningless
>> operators), so that library developers can make use of them as they wish.
>> What characters aren't used? “$
On 2023-07-04 17:21, Christopher Barker wrote:
Anyway, I'd love to hear your thoughts on these ideas (or others?) -
both technical and social.
To my mind there are two interrelated social problems that make this
task difficult:
1) Promulgating a list of "good" packages tends to make people
On Thu, 6 Jul 2023 at 04:08, Gregory Disney
wrote:
>
> Why not just use gpg signatures and maintain trusted signing keys? There’s no
> reason to reinvent the wheel. If a user wants to use a unsigned or untrusted
> packages, they have to accept the risk.
>
As an alternative to a blockchain? No i
On Thu, 6 Jul 2023 at 04:02, Dom Grigonis wrote:
> What I would alternatively propose is to introduce a couple of (meaningless
> operators), so that library developers can make use of them as they wish.
> What characters aren't used? “$, ?, `” (or are they?).
>
What should their precedences be?
On Thu, 6 Jul 2023 at 03:57, James Addison via Python-ideas
wrote:
> I also agree with a later reply about avoiding the murkier side of
> blockchains / etc. That said, it seems to me (again, sample size one
> anecdata) that creating a more levelled playing field for package publication
> could
From perspective of calculation time of matrix multiplications Infix operators
is a reasonable solution to define a subset of your own.
https://doc.sagemath.org/html/en/reference/misc/sage/misc/decorators.html#sage.misc.decorators.infix_operator
The problem is that if one implements it, there ha
On Wed, Jul 5, 2023, 01:24 Christopher Barker wrote:
> Stating a new thread with a correct title.
>
> On 2 Jul 2023, at 10:12, Paul Moore wrote:
>
> Unfortunately, too much of this discussion is framed as “someone should”,
>> or “it would be good if”. No-one is saying “I will”. Naming groups, li
Chris Angelico writes:
> Part of the desired protection is the prevention of typosquatting.
> That means there has to be something that you can point pip to and
> say "install this package", and it's unable to install any
> non-curated package.
I think that the goalposts are walking though.
None of the other repeated infix operators follow the same "repeated
application" relation that * and ** have, i.e.
// isn't repeated division,
<< and >> aren't repeated inequality comparisons (whathever that may be),
and == isn't repeated assignment.
__
On Wed, 5 Jul 2023 at 11:18, wrote:
>
>
> Python has the "star" ("*") operator for multiplication. In the context of
> collections it is supposed to mean element-wise multiplication. Its
> associated operator is __mul__. It also has the double star ("**") operator
> for exponentiation, which is
On Wed, 5 Jul 2023 at 17:12, Stephen J. Turnbull
wrote:
> > 4) A self contained repository of packages that you could point
> > pip to -- it would contain only the packages that had met some
> > sort of "vetting" criteria. In theory, anyone could run it, but
> > a stamp of approva
On Wed, 5 Jul 2023 at 17:00, Christopher Barker wrote:
> I'm noting this, because I think it's part of the problem to be solved, but
> maybe not the mainone (to me anyway). I've been focused more on "these
> packages are worthwhile, by some definition of worthwhile). While I think
> Chris A is
I would go a bit further: DAOs are absolutely terrible for EVERYTHING, and
anything that remotely mentions the acronym is a scam.
Let's please, please, please not go down some cryptoscam, blockchain,
rabbit hole here. Drop it, burn the remains, try to forget it ever
happened.
On Wed, Jul 5, 2023
Every Python idea that has ever been proposed "for the sake of
completeness" has been rejected... at least in the 24 years I've been
following such closely.
Do you have an actual compelling use case? An abstract symmetry isn't going
to do it.
On Wed, Jul 5, 2023 at 6:17 AM wrote:
>
> Python has
Python has the "star" ("*") operator for multiplication. In the context of
collections it is supposed to mean element-wise multiplication. Its associated
operator is __mul__. It also has the double star ("**") operator for
exponentiation, which is repeated multiplication. Its associated operator
Christopher Barker writes:
> Yes, it needs to be funded somehow, but some sort of donation / non
> profit / etc funding mechanism would be best -- but I don't think
> peer reviewers should be paid. Peer review in academic journals
> isn't cash compensated either.
It's been done. The most com
Christopher Barker writes:
> So the odds that there's a package that does what you need are
> good, but it can be pretty hard to find them sometimes -- and can
> be a fair bit of work to sift through to find the good ones -- and
> many folks don't feel qualified to do so.
"Fair bit of work si
On Tue, Jul 4, 2023 at 5:49 PM Chris Angelico wrote:
> On Wed, 5 Jul 2023 at 10:26, Christopher Barker
> wrote:
> > The :problem", as I see it.
> >
> > - The Python standard library is not, and will never be fully
> comprehensive -- most projects require *some* third party packages.
> > - Ther
22 matches
Mail list logo
