Can you please stop manufacturing consent?
Em dom., 24 de set. de 2023 às 21:06, Dom Grigonis
escreveu:
> What is your position on this?
>
> Do you think that such thing is worth having?
>
> If yes, do any of the 3 final options seem sensible to you?
>
> > On 25 Sep 2023, at 02:39, Chris Angelic
On Mon, 25 Sept 2023 at 10:05, Dom Grigonis wrote:
>
> What is your position on this?
>
> Do you think that such thing is worth having?
>
> If yes, do any of the 3 final options seem sensible to you?
>
My position is that so far, you haven't shown it to be of much value.
Which might be because th
datetime.datetime has microsecond precision, and if you want to reconstruct
a datetime from microseconds since the Unix epoch in a provided timezone,
you can do:
(datetime(1970, 1, 1, tzinfo=timezone.utc) +
timedelta(microseconds=timestamp_us)).astimezone(tz)
This is a general solution, but it co
What is your position on this?
Do you think that such thing is worth having?
If yes, do any of the 3 final options seem sensible to you?
> On 25 Sep 2023, at 02:39, Chris Angelico wrote:
>
> On Mon, 25 Sept 2023 at 07:05, Dom Grigonis wrote:
>> What I meant is that functions in __builtins__ a
On Mon, 25 Sept 2023 at 07:05, Dom Grigonis wrote:
> What I meant is that functions in __builtins__ are low level, with
> functionality which is hidden from the user.
>
What does that even mean?
ChrisA
___
Python-ideas mailing list -- python-ideas@pyt
> 'Esoteric' means something hidden, it is the exact opposite of 'we all know
> about'
What I meant is that functions in __builtins__ are low level, with
functionality which is hidden from the user. So my point is that it seems like
an appropriate place for nameof(). After all, f’{v!}’ applies
Appling my specific advice elsewhere is at most cute, in this case it was
offensive, and I doubt it was only to me.
The `'f{name!id}'` syntax is what *I* prefer, but *I* think that
subclassing typing.LiteralString is less disruptive.
'Esoteric' means something hidden, it is the exact opposite of
> On 24 Sep 2023, at 19:27, Tiago Illipronti Girardi
> wrote:
>
> There definitely is a miscommunication:
>
> The 2 first options was me spitballing an alternative against the third.
>
> The not reinventing the wheel remark was me saying that the particular
> example that you gave *on that
There definitely is a miscommunication:
The 2 first options was me spitballing an alternative against the third.
The not reinventing the wheel remark was me saying that the particular
example that you gave *on that particular message* can already be done.
Also the case 2 f'{name!i}', I suggested
I think the separation is needed between the 2:
a) identifier name
b) expression text
I think there is a mix-up between these 2 which causes some confusion (at least
to me). Wanting both made me cling to f-strings as they currently do b) in
‘postfix=' and a) can be extracted from it.
—
I
> On 24 Sep 2023, at 17:23, Chris Angelico wrote:
>
> On Mon, 25 Sept 2023 at 00:15, Dom Grigonis wrote:
>> I see what you mean, but this property is arguably intrinsic to what it is.
>> And is part of f-strings vs explicit formatting property too:
>>
>> variable = 1
>> print(f'{variable=} a
or
print('{a=} and b={a}')
This already exists. Kindly stop reinventing the wheel.
the thing that does not exist now is:
print('In this context, variable', 'name', 'means an esoteric thing
that we all know about')
where `'name'` can be substituted easily (the 'nameof' case) but it could
be,
On Mon, 25 Sept 2023 at 00:15, Dom Grigonis wrote:
> I see what you mean, but this property is arguably intrinsic to what it is.
> And is part of f-strings vs explicit formatting property too:
>
> variable = 1
> print(f'{variable=} and b={variable}')
> # VS
> msg = 'variable={v} and b={v}'
> prin
> On 24 Sep 2023, at 16:42, Stephen J. Turnbull
> wrote:
>
> Dom Grigonis writes:
>
>>> But it's far from concise
>> What could be more concise?
>
> A notation where you don't have to repeat a possibly long expression.
> For example, numerical positions like regular expressions. Consider
>
The problem is that `f'{exp,format}'` is the current 'status
quo'/'zeitgeist'
You are trying to invert it. It looks wrong. (That's taste, not technical,
if you don't think it is a problem, it isn't a problem for *you*)
The technical: `f'{=name}'` doesn't tell what you're trying to do if you
don't
Dom Grigonis writes:
> > But it's far from concise
> What could be more concise?
A notation where you don't have to repeat a possibly long expression.
For example, numerical positions like regular expressions. Consider
this possible notation:
f'There are {count} expression{pluralize(count
> But it's far from concise
What could be more concise?
> and
> violates DRY -- it doesn't solve the problem of the first draft typo.
And how is “postfix =“ different?
> I don't see it as elegant the way "postfix =" is.
Agreed.
DG
___
Python-ideas mai
Dom Grigonis writes:
> By “elegant", I wasn’t talking about the syntax.
Neither was I, except in the comment about "mnemonic". I use "postfix
=" and "prefix =" because I don't know of better names that indicate
the semantics of the feature.
Semantically, "prefix =" is a reasonable solution to
18 matches
Mail list logo
