Mikhail V has suggested "while:" as a shorthand for "while True:".
He's also provided a helpful list of URLs for related discussion. I'd
like to suggest another approach.
My suggestion is to improved documentation and help. For me a search for
python "while True"
produces as the top result ht
On 02/10/18 12:31, Jonathan Fine wrote:
Mikhail V has suggested "while:" as a shorthand for "while True:".
He's also provided a helpful list of URLs for related discussion. I'd
like to suggest another approach.
Before we hare off into the middle distance, could you show that there
is a problem
I'm getting confused: is this still about an idea for Python, or
development of a third-party library?
--Ned.
On 10/2/18 1:14 AM, Marko Ristin-Kaufmann wrote:
Hi James,
I had another take at it. I wrote it down in the github issue
(https://github.com/Parquery/icontract/issues/48#issuecommen
Hello everyone,
You all have probably noted that there have been some contentious threads
recently, ultimately ending in a few people being given a time-out from
posting on these lists.
I don't normally get into things on this list, but it has been generally
discouraging to see a bunch of general
Hi Ned,
The idea is to polish a proof-of-concept library and then try to introduce
it into the standard libs eventually.
On Tue, 2 Oct 2018 at 16:57, Ned Batchelder wrote:
> I'm getting confused: is this still about an idea for Python, or
> development of a third-party library?
>
> --Ned.
>
> O
On 10/2/2018 11:05 AM, Marko Ristin-Kaufmann wrote:
Hi Ned,
The idea is to polish a proof-of-concept library and then try to
introduce it into the standard libs eventually.
I'd suggest taking this off-list until such a library is developed,
then. But, if the library needs some hook provided
Hi, I implement my own design-by-contract module. You can see it here:
https://github.com/AlanCristhian/eiffel
I did this as an experiment, I have no real life experience with the design
by contract approach.
El mar., 2 oct. 2018 a las 2:28, Marko Ristin-Kaufmann (<
[email protected]>) escri
This idea was proposed to me at the core sprints last month by Larry
Hastings. I've discussed it with a few people, who seem generally
positive about it, and we've tweaked it a little bit. I've spent some
time implementing it, and I think it's doable. I thought I'd post it
here for any addition
print(f'{value!d}') is a lot of symbols and boilerplate to type out just
for a debugging statement that will be deleted later. Especially now that
breakpoint() exists, I can't really see myself using this.
I also don't see the use case of it being within an f-string, because I've
never had to inte
On Wed, Oct 3, 2018 at 1:45 PM David Teresi wrote:
>
> print(f'{value!d}') is a lot of symbols and boilerplate to type out just for
> a debugging statement that will be deleted later. Especially now that
> breakpoint() exists, I can't really see myself using this.
>
What about when you want to
> This would be used in debugging print statements, that currently end up
> looking like:
>
> print(f'value={value!r}')
>
> and would now be:
>
> print(f'{value!d}')
It seems to me that a short form for keyword arguments would improve this
situation too. So instead of your suggestion one cou
On Wed, Oct 3, 2018 at 2:11 PM Anders Hovmöller wrote:
>
>
> > This would be used in debugging print statements, that currently end up
> > looking like:
> >
> > print(f'value={value!r}')
> >
> > and would now be:
> >
> > print(f'{value!d}')
>
> It seems to me that a short form for keyword argumen
[Eric V. Smith ]
> Here’s the idea: for f-strings, we add a !d conversion operator, which
> is superficially similar to !s, !r, and !a. The meaning of !d is:
> produce the text of the expression (not its value!), followed by an
> equal sign, followed by the repr of the value of the expression.
..
>> debug(=value, =another)
>
> What if it's not a simple name, though? The OP gave this (somewhat
> simplistic, but indicative) example:
>
> print(f'next: {value+1!d}')
debug(next=value+1)
Still shorter than the proposed syntax and much more readable. If you do this a
lot you’d probably call
On Tue, Oct 2, 2018 at 8:44 PM, David Teresi wrote:
> print(f'{value!d}') is a lot of symbols and boilerplate to type out just
for
> a debugging statement that will be deleted later. Especially now that
> breakpoint() exists, I can't really see myself using this.
>
> I also don't see the use case
15 matches
Mail list logo
