If a function that tends to return a context manager returns None, that should
not mean an error occurred. If an error or unexpected condition occurred, an
exception should be thrown. Errors and exceptions should result in the code
within the with statement not executing.
We could add a new con
On Mon, Jun 24, 2019 at 4:03 AM James Lu wrote:
>
> If a function that tends to return a context manager returns None, that
> should not mean an error occurred. If an error or unexpected condition
> occurred, an exception should be thrown. Errors and exceptions should result
> in the code withi
Make $ a valid identifier and a singleton.
$ is a useful placeholder in [].
Possible function partial syntax:
def foo(x, y):
print(x, y)
partialized = foo[$, 10]
partialized(5)
# => 5 10
___
Python-ideas mailing list -- [email protected]
Apologies for the inactive post.
> Why the double condition? The existing definition of "condition1 and
> not condition2" already guarantees the short-circuiting, and what
> you're effectively creating is two pieces of a single condition.
Just for clarity sir. I wanted to make clear the desired be
I used "..." in my lib to do that :
from funcoperators import bracket
@bracket
def foo(x, y):
print(x, y)
partialized = foo[..., 10]
partialized(5)
https://pypi.org/project/funcoperators/
Le dim. 23 juin 2019 à 21:34, James Lu a écrit :
>
> Make $ a valid identifier and a singleton.
>
>
>
On 2019-06-23 19:49, James Lu wrote:
Apologies for the inactive post.
> Why the double condition? The existing definition of "condition1 and
> not condition2" already guarantees the short-circuiting, and what
> you're effectively creating is two pieces of a single condition.
Just for clarity
On Sun, Jun 23, 2019 at 03:22:37PM -0400, James Lu wrote:
> Make $ a valid identifier and a singleton.
>
> $ is a useful placeholder in [].
>
> Possible function partial syntax:
>
> def foo(x, y):
> print(x, y)
>
> partialized = foo[$, 10]
I don't think that creating partial functions is i
On Jun 23, 2019, at 13:33, MRAB wrote:
> Finally, under "For consideration: alternative syntaxes", my offering would
> be:
>
> expr if condition1 and not condition2 else pass
This seems a lot more tenable than the original proposal. The “unless” seems
both unnecessary and overly restrictive.
On Sat, Jun 22, 2019 at 12:14:02PM -0400, James Lu wrote:
> If a function that tends to return a context manager returns None,
> that should not mean an error occurred.
I suppose that *technically* this is true. It might be designed to
return a context manager or None. But:
1. Because of the w
On Jun 23, 2019, at 17:01, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
>
>> On Sun, Jun 23, 2019 at 03:22:37PM -0400, James Lu wrote:
>> Make $ a valid identifier and a singleton.
>>
>> $ is a useful placeholder in [].
>>
>> Possible function partial syntax:
>>
>> def foo(x, y):
>>print(x, y)
>>
>> partializ
On 2019-06-24 02:43, Andrew Barnert wrote:
On Jun 23, 2019, at 13:33, MRAB wrote:
> Finally, under "For consideration: alternative syntaxes", my offering would
be:
>
> expr if condition1 and not condition2 else pass
This seems a lot more tenable than the original proposal. The “unless” seem
On Jun 23, 2019, at 19:57, MRAB wrote:
>
>> On 2019-06-24 02:43, Andrew Barnert wrote:
>> On Jun 23, 2019, at 13:33, MRAB wrote:
>>
>> > Finally, under "For consideration: alternative syntaxes", my offering
>> > would be:
>> > > expr if condition1 and not condition2 else pass
>>
>> This seems
On Mon, Jun 24, 2019 at 2:44 PM Andrew Barnert via Python-ideas
wrote:
> But dict displays, that could be confusing. Do you have to pass-value the
> key, or the value, or either of the two, or both consistently? If the key,
> does that short-circuit the value expression? So I think you’re right,
13 matches
Mail list logo
