17.06.21 06:03, David Mertz пише:
> I'm sympathetic to raising an exception on `sum(list_of_lists)` similar
> to `sum(list_of_strings)`. But what exactly is the recommended
> substitute? We have this:
>
> list(chain.from_iterable(list_of_lists))
>
> Which is pretty nice, and what I'd probably d
On Wed, Jun 16, 2021 at 04:01:24PM -0700, Christopher Barker wrote:
> I’m pretty sure that using sum with strings was a real issue in real code
> before it was disallowed.
But not with the sum() function, which has prohibited strings from
it's introduction in 2.3 :-)
https://docs.python.org/rel
On Wed, Jun 16, 2021 at 10:13:40PM -0700, Christopher Barker wrote:
> If, as suggested, flattening a list of lists is a common operation, a nice
> clean and efficient built in way to do it would be reasonable. Heck, you
> could make it a list method :-)
People have been talking about a flatten bu
Arbitrary and complex nested structures do seem like they would require a
complex solution. OTOH `more_itertools.flatten` seems ergonomic - and it is
very simple, just a wrapper around `itertools.chain.from_iterable` with a
memorable name.
If that's the preferred solution, nudging users in the di
On Mon, May 24, 2021 at 5:43 PM Chris Angelico wrote:
>
> Requiring that a name not be rebound is well-defined and testable.
> Requiring that an object not change is either trivial (in the case of,
> say, an integer) or virtually impossible (in the case of most
> objects).
> What would be the a
On Fri, Jun 18, 2021 at 12:43 AM Wes Turner wrote:
>
> > What would be the advantage of such a declaration?
>
> Constants don't need to be locked or unlocked; which is advantageous for
> parallelism and reasoning about program correctness.
> True consts (wherein everything referred to in that obj
On Thu, Jun 17, 2021 at 10:50 AM Chris Angelico wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 18, 2021 at 12:43 AM Wes Turner wrote:
> >
> > > What would be the advantage of such a declaration?
> >
> > Constants don't need to be locked or unlocked; which is advantageous for
> parallelism and reasoning about program corr
tabeb qena writes:
> Great Idea, I have joined the mailing list to write the same idea.
>
> As I can't find the great difference between Final and Constant,
> So, I will use the name Final.
>
> I suggest one the following syntax:
The syntaxes proposed already are fine. The problem is mo
Chris Angelico writes:
> Insufficiently trolly - lacks walrus operator. :)
>
> >>> l = [[1,2],[3,4],[5,6],[7,8],[9]]
> >>> any(map((x:=[]).extend, l)) or x
> [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9]
>
> ChrisA
This you?
https://mobile.twitter.com/Tr0llyTr0llFace/photo
:-)
Chris Angelico writes:
> But logically, there is a significant difference between putting code
> inside the except block, and having "except X: pass" and then putting
> code after. Code should be written the way it's meant to be, not the
> way that happens to work.
Technical point: doesn't th
On Fri, Jun 18, 2021 at 3:42 AM Stephen J. Turnbull
wrote:
>
> Chris Angelico writes:
>
> > But logically, there is a significant difference between putting code
> > inside the except block, and having "except X: pass" and then putting
> > code after. Code should be written the way it's meant t
On Fri, Jun 18, 2021 at 3:43 AM Stephen J. Turnbull
wrote:
>
> Chris Angelico writes:
>
> > Insufficiently trolly - lacks walrus operator. :)
> >
> > >>> l = [[1,2],[3,4],[5,6],[7,8],[9]]
> > >>> any(map((x:=[]).extend, l)) or x
> > [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9]
> >
> > ChrisA
>
> This you?
>
On Wed, Jun 16, 2021 at 10:24 PM David Mertz wrote:
>
> If you read the BPO the OP linked, that was a suggested patch to optimize
>> sum(list_of_lists) -- I'm not sure that's such a bad idea after all.
>>
>
> The proposal was to drop in .__iadd__() for .__add__(), wasn't it? As a
> heavy NumPy us
On Thu, Jun 17, 2021 at 12:37 AM Serhiy Storchaka
wrote:
> And it is equivalent to pure Python code
>
> [x for chunk in list_of_lists for x in chunk]
>
Okay, slightly off-topic, but can we *please* allow
[*chunk for chunk in list_of_lists]
some day. I think it was left out because some
On Thu, Jun 17, 2021, 5:24 PM Ben Rudiak-Gould
> Okay, slightly off-topic, but can we *please* allow
>
> [*chunk for chunk in list_of_lists]
>
It is completely non-obvious to me what that would even MEAN. I cannot
derive anything obvious from other uses of *.
If I had to guess, I'd think tha
El jue, 17 jun 2021 a las 14:45, David Mertz () escribió:
> On Thu, Jun 17, 2021, 5:24 PM Ben Rudiak-Gould
>
>> Okay, slightly off-topic, but can we *please* allow
>>
>> [*chunk for chunk in list_of_lists]
>>
>
> It is completely non-obvious to me what that would even MEAN. I cannot
> derive a
On Thu, Jun 17, 2021 at 5:52 PM Jelle Zijlstra
wrote:
> El jue, 17 jun 2021 a las 14:45, David Mertz () escribió:
>
>> On Thu, Jun 17, 2021, 5:24 PM Ben Rudiak-Gould
>>
>>> Okay, slightly off-topic, but can we *please* allow
>>>
>>> [*chunk for chunk in list_of_lists]
>>>
>>
> It is complete
On Thu, Jun 17, 2021 at 02:22:29PM -0700, Ben Rudiak-Gould wrote:
> Okay, slightly off-topic, but can we *please* allow
>
> [*chunk for chunk in list_of_lists]
What would that do? The only thing I can guess it would do is the
equivalent of:
result = []
for chunk in list_of_lists:
On Thu, Jun 17, 2021 at 02:51:44PM -0700, Jelle Zijlstra wrote:
> El jue, 17 jun 2021 a las 14:45, David Mertz () escribió:
>
> > On Thu, Jun 17, 2021, 5:24 PM Ben Rudiak-Gould
> >
> >> Okay, slightly off-topic, but can we *please* allow
> >>
> >> [*chunk for chunk in list_of_lists]
> My read
El jue, 17 jun 2021 a las 15:26, Steven D'Aprano ()
escribió:
> On Thu, Jun 17, 2021 at 02:51:44PM -0700, Jelle Zijlstra wrote:
> > El jue, 17 jun 2021 a las 14:45, David Mertz ()
> escribió:
> >
> > > On Thu, Jun 17, 2021, 5:24 PM Ben Rudiak-Gould
> > >
> > >> Okay, slightly off-topic, but can we
On Thu, Jun 17, 2021 at 3:09 PM Steven D'Aprano wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 17, 2021 at 02:22:29PM -0700, Ben Rudiak-Gould wrote:
> > [*chunk for chunk in list_of_lists]
>
> What would that do?
The difference between chunk and *chunk in the expression of a list
comprehension would be the same as t
Wow, strong language. Not really helping people see it your way.
On Thu, Jun 17, 2021 at 14:26 Ben Rudiak-Gould wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 17, 2021 at 12:37 AM Serhiy Storchaka
> wrote:
>
>> And it is equivalent to pure Python code
>>
>> [x for chunk in list_of_lists for x in chunk]
>>
>
> Okay,
22 matches
Mail list logo
