On 10/25/2016 5:13 PM, Paul Moore wrote:
The
natural unit of interaction at the command line is the single line. To
the extent that (for example) fixing a mistake in a multi-line
construct at the command line is a real pain.
Try IDLE. The unit of interaction is the statement. One writes, edi
On Thu, Oct 27, 2016 at 10:35:32AM +0100, Paul Moore wrote:
> The Windows default command line editing experience is a lot better
> (IMO) than the (non-readline) Unix default, and it's common throughout
> all interactive prompts (Python's REPL included). As a result, when
> readline is installed (
On 27 October 2016 at 01:49, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
>> (a bit like readline,
>> but I dislike the way you can't switch off readline integration if
>> it's installed)?
>
> This comment surprises me. To me, that's like saying "I dislike the way
> you can't switch off breathing" -- readline is almost
On Wed, Oct 26, 2016 at 10:16 PM, Cody Piersall wrote:
> Isn't that check really just an isatty() check? Or is that not
> reliable enough for some reason?
It's not reliable in Windows. There are no tty devices, so the C
runtime's implementation of isatty() instead returns true for
character devi
On Tue, Oct 25, 2016 at 10:13:54PM +0100, Paul Moore wrote:
> I've seen a lot of syntax proposals recently that are based around
> providing better ways of writing "one liner" styles of code.
[...]
> However, looking at them from the point of view of someone working at
> the interactive prompt, the
On Wed, Oct 26, 2016 at 02:40:36PM -0700, Nikolaus Rath wrote:
> It also imposes a significant burden on scripting.
"It" being a configurable REPL.
> I often have elements like this in shell scripts:
>
> output=$(python < import h5py
> with h5py.File('foo', 'r') as fh:
> print((fh['bla']
Mark,
Windows folk do not type
pip install ipython
On windows it's much easier:
1) install pycharm (because it has UI for installing packages)
2) Go to settings > project interpreter
3) select the python interpeter you want to use
4) click the + button
5) search through the entire pypi listing f
On 26/10/2016 20:24, Paul Moore wrote:
On 26 October 2016 at 18:25, Nick Coghlan wrote:
The built-in REPL serves two quite divergent use cases, and I think
we're well past the point where we can't readily support both use
cases with a single implementation:
- a minimalist interactive environme
On Wed, Oct 26, 2016 at 3:16 PM, Cody Piersall wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 26, 2016 at 4:48 PM, Paul Moore wrote:
>> Good point. We could, of course, detect when stdin is non-interactive,
>> but at that point the code is starting to get unreasonably complex, as
>> well as having way too many special cas
On Wed, Oct 26, 2016 at 4:48 PM, Paul Moore wrote:
> Good point. We could, of course, detect when stdin is non-interactive,
> but at that point the code is starting to get unreasonably complex, as
> well as having way too many special cases. So I agree, that probably
> kills the proposal.
Isn't t
On 26 October 2016 at 22:40, Nikolaus Rath wrote:
> It also imposes a significant burden on scripting. I often have elements
> like this in shell scripts:
>
> output=$(python < import h5py
> with h5py.File('foo', 'r') as fh:
> print((fh['bla'] * fh['com']).sum())
> EOF
> )
>
> If this now sta
On Oct 26 2016, Paul Moore
wrote:
> Thinking a little further about this, I think the reason I don't use
> IPython more, is because my muscle memory types "python" (or more
> often, "py") when I want an interactive prompt. And I do that for the
> reason you mention - it's always there.
>
> The do
On 26 October 2016 at 22:11, Todd wrote:
> Isn't this what aliases are for? Just set "python" to be an alias for
> "ipython" for your interactive shell.
I hadn't thought of that option. I might give it a try. Although I'm
not sure how I'd set up a Powershell function (I'm on Windows) that
would
On Wed, Oct 26, 2016 at 3:24 PM, Paul Moore wrote:
> On 26 October 2016 at 18:25, Nick Coghlan wrote:
> > The built-in REPL serves two quite divergent use cases, and I think
> > we're well past the point where we can't readily support both use
> > cases with a single implementation:
> >
> > - a
On 26 October 2016 at 21:43, Nikolaus Rath wrote:
>> So I think that it would be really useful to be able to plug in a new
>> REPL, when it's available. This has a number of benefits:
>>
>> 1. We don't need to worry about incorporating any complex REPL code
>> into Python. The default REPL can rem
On Oct 26 2016, Paul Moore
wrote:
> On 26 October 2016 at 18:25, Nick Coghlan
> wrote:
>> The built-in REPL serves two quite divergent use cases, and I think
>> we're well past the point where we can't readily support both use
>> cases with a single implementation:
>>
>> - a minimalist interact
On 26 October 2016 at 18:25, Nick Coghlan wrote:
> The built-in REPL serves two quite divergent use cases, and I think
> we're well past the point where we can't readily support both use
> cases with a single implementation:
>
> - a minimalist interactive environment, that is *always* present, eve
On 26 October 2016 at 09:15, Nathaniel Smith wrote:
> Incidentally, PyPy's built-in REPL handles multi-line constructs like
> IPython does, rather than like how the CPython built-in REPL does.
>
> There are a lot of logistic issues that would need to be dealt with
> before CPython could consider m
On Tue, Oct 25, 2016 at 2:55 PM, Chris Barker wrote:
>
>
>> But that's something of a solved problem. IPython offers a rich
>> interactive environment, for people who find the limitations of the
>> standard interactive prompt frustrating. Would it be worth the
>> standard Python documentation prom
Would recommend bpython, it is lighter-weight and accessible to newbies, in the
sense that a manual is not needed. It just starts helping out as you type.
http://bpython-interpreter.org/
___
Python-ideas mailing list
Python-ideas@python.org
https://m
But that's something of a solved problem. IPython offers a rich
> interactive environment, for people who find the limitations of the
> standard interactive prompt frustrating. Would it be worth the
> standard Python documentation promoting IPython for that role?
+1 iPython really makes it easier
I've seen a lot of syntax proposals recently that are based around
providing better ways of writing "one liner" styles of code.
Typically, the proposals seem to get into trouble because:
1. They duplicate things that can already be done, just not in a
single expression/statement.
2. They are seen
22 matches
Mail list logo
