On 26 March 2018 at 18:35, Roberto Martínez wrote:
> @contextmanager
> def calling(fn, *args, **kwargs):
> try:
> yield
> finally:
> fn(*args, **kwargs)
I'd be more amenable to a proposal along these lines (rather than
adding a parameter to closing), as it more closely res
Le 02/04/2018 à 07:09, Mike Miller a écrit :
>
> On 2018-04-01 05:36, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
>> You are right that many of the prefixes can be handled by the same code:
>>
>> rfd rfD rFd rFD rdf rdF rDf rDF
>> Rfd RfD RFd RFD Rdf RdF RDf RDF
>> frd frD fRd fRD fdr fdR fDr fDR
>>
Thanks for writing such hard PEP.
At first glance, it new type hierarchy seems OK.
But I can't understand rational for new flags.
And it's very difficult to estimate runtime and maintenance cost of
the PEP, without draft implementation.
FASTCALL is introduced in recently version, and it make imp
On 01/04/2018 02:48, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 01, 2018 at 02:20:16AM +0100, Rob Cliffe via Python-ideas wrote:
>
>>> New unordered 'd' and 'D' prefixes, for 'dedent', applied to multiline
>>> strings only, would multiply the number of alternatives by about 5 and
>>> would require ano
On Mon, Apr 02, 2018 at 12:08:47PM +, Steve Barnes wrote:
> This would reflect that, typically, a specific developer tends to want
> either all or no multi-line text strings dedented.
I don't know how you come to that conclusion.
I certainly would not want "All or Nothing" when it comes to
On 2 April 2018 at 23:06, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 02, 2018 at 12:08:47PM +, Steve Barnes wrote:
>
>> This would reflect that, typically, a specific developer tends to want
>> either all or no multi-line text strings dedented.
>
> I don't know how you come to that conclusion.
>
> I
On 2018-04-02 12:39, INADA Naoki wrote:
Thanks for writing such hard PEP.
At first glance, it new type hierarchy seems OK.
But I can't understand rational for new flags.
Which flags in particular do you mean? I just pushed an update
explaining the rationale of METH_ARG0_FUNCTION:
https://gi
On Tue, Apr 3, 2018 at 12:46 AM, Jeroen Demeyer wrote:
> On 2018-04-02 12:39, INADA Naoki wrote:
>>
>> Thanks for writing such hard PEP.
>>
>> At first glance, it new type hierarchy seems OK.
>> But I can't understand rational for new flags.
>
>
> Which flags in particular do you mean? I just push
31.03.18 17:48, Jeroen Demeyer пише:
I have prepared a PEP draft for unifying function/method classes. You
can find it at
https://github.com/jdemeyer/PEP-functions
This has not officially been submitted as PEP yet, I want to hear your
comments first.
I once tried to move in this direction (
I want to support this work. I can't promise your PEP will be accepted, but
it looks like you've done your homework, and you're getting feedback from
core devs who care about this area. (One of them may end up BDFL-delegate.)
It will be a long road to success, but I recommend that you start with a
On 2018-04-02 10:53, Michel Desmoulin wrote:
Le 02/04/2018 à 07:09, Mike Miller a écrit :
On 2018-04-01 05:36, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
You are right that many of the prefixes can be handled by the same code:
rfd rfD rFd rFD rdf rdF rDf rDF
Rfd RfD RFd RFD Rdf RdF RDf RDF
frd fr
Yes, I first came across := when learning (Turbo) Pascal in the early 90's.
However golang managed to screw it up—it only works there as a "short
declaration AND assignment" operator. You can't use it twice on the same
variable! Boggles the mind how experienced designers came up with that one
On 2018-04-02 11:40, MRAB wrote:
OTOH, it's not like it's causing a problem.
Well, not a big one, but there are arguments for keeping a language as simple as
possible.
Also every time an idea comes up for a string prefix, the combinatorial issue
comes up again. If we could factor out an
IIRC Algol-68 (the lesser-known, more complicated version) used 'int x =
0;' to declare a constant and 'int x := 0;' to declare a variable. And
there was a lot more to it; see
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ALGOL_68#mode:_Declarations. I'm guessing Go
reversed this because they want '=' to be the co
Interesting, thanks.
On 2018-04-02 15:03, Guido van Rossum wrote:
___
Python-ideas mailing list
[email protected]
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-ideas
Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
15 matches
Mail list logo
