Syntax for one-line "nonymous" functions in "declaration style"

[Alexey Muranov]

Whey you need a simple function in Python, there is a choice between a 
normal function declaration and an assignment of a anonymous function 
(defined by a lambda-expression) to a variable:


   def f(x): return x*x

or

   f = lambda x: x*x

It would be however more convenient to be able to write instead just

   f(x) = x*x

(like in Haskell and such).

Have this idea been discussed before?

I do not see any conflicts with the existing syntax.   The following 
would also work:


   incrementer(m)(n) = n + m

instead of

   incrementer = lambda m: lambda n: n + m

Alexey.


--
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list

Re: Your IDE's?

[Anssi Saari]

Ben Finney  writes:

> Emacs and a shell multiplexer (today, that's GNU Screen, but others
> swear that I should try TMux).

I've actually been using tmux for a while. The only reason and the only
thing I can think of that it does and screen doesn't is that tmux can
display italic text and screen apparently can't. So I went with tmux for
Usenet.

Well, there were some claims from tmux about it being a better terminal
but I can't really see a difference.

-- 
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list

Re: Syntax for one-line "nonymous" functions in "declaration style"

[Paul Moore]

On Wed, 27 Mar 2019 at 08:25, Alexey Muranov  wrote:
>
> Whey you need a simple function in Python, there is a choice between a
> normal function declaration and an assignment of a anonymous function
> (defined by a lambda-expression) to a variable:
>
> def f(x): return x*x
>
> or
>
> f = lambda x: x*x
>
> It would be however more convenient to be able to write instead just
>
> f(x) = x*x

Why? Is saving a few characters really that helpful? So much so that
it's worth adding a *third* method of defining functions, which would
need documenting, adding to training materials, etc, etc?

-1 on this.

Paul
-- 
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list

Re: Search and Replace of string in a yaml file

[Test Bot]

Assuming you are asking about the logic at the uber level.

You can try handling yaml file with pyyaml. It is a 3rd party package which
has a good support for I/O related to yaml files.

After you are able to read the data from the file, you need to apply your
business logic to it. And log all the erroneous matches.

For example

import yaml

with open(path/to/yaml/file, "r") as fp:
yaml_data = yaml.safe_load(fp)


On Sat, Mar 23, 2019, 5:33 PM Pradeep Patra 
wrote:

> Hi all,
>
> I have several yaml files in a directory around 100s. I have some values
> and my script should search a string(reading from the JSON file)  from the
> series of yaml files and run some validation like the key of the file that
> is updated  in the yaml file and run some basic validation tests like data
> integrity of the replaced string with the source string read from JSON. Can
> anyone suggest some reliable and efficient method to achieve this and
> appreciate some examples for the same?
>
> Regards
> Pradeep
> --
> https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
>
-- 
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list

Re: Syntax for one-line "nonymous" functions in "declaration style"

[Alexey Muranov]

On mer., mars 27, 2019 at 10:10 AM, Paul Moore  
wrote:
On Wed, 27 Mar 2019 at 08:25, Alexey Muranov 
 wrote:


 Whey you need a simple function in Python, there is a choice 
between a
 normal function declaration and an assignment of a anonymous 
function

 (defined by a lambda-expression) to a variable:

 def f(x): return x*x

 or

 f = lambda x: x*x

 It would be however more convenient to be able to write instead just

 f(x) = x*x


Why? Is saving a few characters really that helpful? So much so that
it's worth adding a *third* method of defining functions, which would
need documenting, adding to training materials, etc, etc?



Because i think i would prefer to write it this way.

(Almost no new documentation or tutorials would be needed IMHO.)

Alexey.


--
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list

PyDev 7.2.0 Released

[Fabio Zadrozny]

PyDev 7.2.0 Release Highlights
---

* Debugger improvements (updated to pydevd 1.6.0).

* Fixed issue quoting/unquoting parameters for subprocess.
* Fixed exception breakpoints for Django and Jinja2.
* Console hook import compatibility with matplotlib and pylab fixed.

* Fixed issue where pipenv executable search was being executed over and
over when it was not found.

About PyDev
---

PyDev is an open-source Python IDE on top of Eclipse for Python, Jython and
IronPython development, now also available for Python on Visual Studio Code.

It comes with goodies such as code completion, syntax highlighting, syntax
analysis, code analysis, refactor, debug, interactive console, etc.

It is also available as a standalone through LiClipse with goodies such as
multiple cursors, theming and support for many other languages, such as
Django Templates, Jinja2, Html, JavaScript, etc.

Links:

PyDev: http://pydev.org
PyDev Blog: http://pydev.blogspot.com
PyDev on VSCode: http://pydev.org/vscode
LiClipse: http://www.liclipse.com
PyVmMonitor - Python Profiler: http://www.pyvmmonitor.com/

Cheers,

Fabio Zadrozny
-- 
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list

Re: Your IDE's?

[Grant Edwards]

On 2019-03-25, John Doe  wrote:

> What is your favorite Python IDE?

Unix+Emacs

I sometimes wish that Emacs had a better code folding mode when
browsing other people's code, but the editors I've tried that do have
nice code-folding fall down at too many other tasks.

-- 
Grant Edwards   grant.b.edwardsYow! Was my SOY LOAF left
  at   out in th'RAIN?  It tastes
  gmail.comREAL GOOD!!

-- 
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list

Re: Syntax for one-line "nonymous" functions in "declaration style"

[Paul Moore]

On Wed, 27 Mar 2019 at 12:27, Alexey Muranov  wrote:
>
> On mer., mars 27, 2019 at 10:10 AM, Paul Moore 
> wrote:
> > On Wed, 27 Mar 2019 at 08:25, Alexey Muranov
> >  wrote:
> >>
> >>  Whey you need a simple function in Python, there is a choice
> >> between a
> >>  normal function declaration and an assignment of a anonymous
> >> function
> >>  (defined by a lambda-expression) to a variable:
> >>
> >>  def f(x): return x*x
> >>
> >>  or
> >>
> >>  f = lambda x: x*x
> >>
> >>  It would be however more convenient to be able to write instead just
> >>
> >>  f(x) = x*x
> >
> > Why? Is saving a few characters really that helpful? So much so that
> > it's worth adding a *third* method of defining functions, which would
> > need documenting, adding to training materials, etc, etc?
>
> Because i think i would prefer to write it this way.

That's not likely to be sufficient reason for changing a language
that's used by literally millions of people.

> (Almost no new documentation or tutorials would be needed IMHO.)

Documentation would be needed to explain how the new construct worked,
for people who either wanted to use it or encountered it in other
people's code. While it may be obvious to you how it works, it likely
won't be to others, and there will probably be edge cases you haven't
considered that others will find and ask about.

Your interest in improving the language is great, but there are a
great many practical considerations in any change, and if you actually
want your idea to progress, you'll need to be prepared to address
those.

Paul
-- 
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list

Re: Syntax for one-line "nonymous" functions in "declaration style"

[Antoon Pardon]

On 27/03/19 09:21, Alexey Muranov wrote:
> Whey you need a simple function in Python, there is a choice between a
> normal function declaration and an assignment of a anonymous function
> (defined by a lambda-expression) to a variable:
>
>    def f(x): return x*x
>
> or
>
>    f = lambda x: x*x
>
> It would be however more convenient to be able to write instead just
>
>    f(x) = x*x
>
> (like in Haskell and such).
>
> Have this idea been discussed before?
>
> I do not see any conflicts with the existing syntax.   The following
> would also work:

I don't know. Something like the following is already legal:

f(x)[n] = x * n

And it does something completly different.

-- 
Antoon Pardon.

-- 
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list

Re: Syntax for one-line "nonymous" functions in "declaration style"

[Bev in TX]

> On Mar 27, 2019, at 10:41 AM, Antoon Pardon  wrote:
> 
> I don't know. Something like the following is already legal:
> 
> f(x)[n] = x * n
> 
> And it does something completly different.

Where would I find information on what this does in the documentation?
Bev in TX




-- 
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list

Re: Syntax for one-line "nonymous" functions in "declaration style"

[Rhodri James]

On 27/03/2019 16:15, Bev in TX wrote:



On Mar 27, 2019, at 10:41 AM, Antoon Pardon  wrote:

I don't know. Something like the following is already legal:

f(x)[n] = x * n

And it does something completly different.


Where would I find information on what this does in the documentation?


Nowhere in particular, it's a consequence of putting things together. 
The part that Antoon isn't mentioning is that he's presuming the 
function f(x) returns a list or something similar that we can then 
index.  You're more likely to see that sort of code written as:


a = f(x)
a[n] = x *n

which makes it look a lot less magical.

--
Rhodri James *-* Kynesim Ltd
--
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list

Re: Syntax for one-line "nonymous" functions in "declaration style"

[Alexandre Brault]

On 2019-03-27 10:42 a.m., Paul Moore wrote:
> On Wed, 27 Mar 2019 at 12:27, Alexey Muranov  wrote:
>> On mer., mars 27, 2019 at 10:10 AM, Paul Moore 
>> wrote:
>>> On Wed, 27 Mar 2019 at 08:25, Alexey Muranov
>>>  wrote:
  Whey you need a simple function in Python, there is a choice
 between a
  normal function declaration and an assignment of a anonymous
 function
  (defined by a lambda-expression) to a variable:

  def f(x): return x*x

  or

  f = lambda x: x*x

  It would be however more convenient to be able to write instead just

  f(x) = x*x
>>> Why? Is saving a few characters really that helpful? So much so that
>>> it's worth adding a *third* method of defining functions, which would
>>> need documenting, adding to training materials, etc, etc?
>> Because i think i would prefer to write it this way.
> That's not likely to be sufficient reason for changing a language
> that's used by literally millions of people.
>
>> (Almost no new documentation or tutorials would be needed IMHO.)
> Documentation would be needed to explain how the new construct worked,
> for people who either wanted to use it or encountered it in other
> people's code. While it may be obvious to you how it works, it likely
> won't be to others, and there will probably be edge cases you haven't
> considered that others will find and ask about.

For what it's worth, if I encountered "f(x) = x * x" in code, my first
thought would be that Python somehow added a way to return an assignable
reference from a function, rather than this being an anonymous function
declaration.

So documentation of that syntax would 100% be required

Alex

-- 
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list

asyncio KeyboardInterrupt in select

[Thomas Grainger]

It seems quite easy to cause asyncio to deadlock:

  File "/usr/lib/python3.6/asyncio/base_events.py", line 1404, in _run_once
event_list = self._selector.select(timeout)
  File "/usr/lib/python3.6/selectors.py", line 445, in select
fd_event_list = self._epoll.poll(timeout, max_ev)
KeyboardInterrupt
^CError in atexit._run_exitfuncs:
Traceback (most recent call last):
  File "/usr/lib/python3.6/concurrent/futures/thread.py", line 40, in
_python_exit
t.join()
  File "/usr/lib/python3.6/threading.py", line 1056, in join
self._wait_for_tstate_lock()
  File "/usr/lib/python3.6/threading.py", line 1072, in
_wait_for_tstate_lock
elif lock.acquire(block, timeout):

and you get a lot of hits for this exception on google:
https://www.google.com/search?q=File+
"/usr/lib/python3.6/selectors.py",+line+445,+in+select+fd_event_list+%3D+self._epoll.poll(timeout,+max_ev)+KeyboardInterrupt&filter=0

Thomas Grainger
-- 
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list

Library for parsing binary structures

[Paul Moore]

I'm looking for a library that lets me parse binary data structures.
The stdlib struct module is fine for simple structures, but when it
gets to more complicated cases, you end up doing a lot of the work by
hand (which isn't that hard, and is generally perfectly viable, but
I'm feeling lazy ;-))

I know of Construct, which is a nice declarative language, but it's
either weak, or very badly documented, when it comes to recursive
structures. (I really like Construct, and if I could only understand
the docs better I may well not need to look any further, but as it is,
I can't see anything showing how to do recursive structures...) I am
specifically trying to parse a structure that looks something like the
following:

Multiple instances of:
  - a type byte
  - a chunk of data structured based on the type
types include primitives like byte, integer, etc, as well as
(type byte, count, data) - data is "count" occurrences of data of
the given type.

That last one is a list, and yes, you can have lists of lists, so the
structure is recursive.

Does anyone know of any other binary data parsing libraries, that can
handle recursive structures reasonably cleanly?

I'm already *way* past the point where it would have been quicker for
me to write the parsing code by hand rather than trying to find a
"quick way", so the questions, honestly mostly about finding out what
people recommend for jobs like this rather than actually needing
something specific to this problem. But I do keep hitting the need to
parse binary structures, and having something in my toolbox for the
future would be really nice.

Paul
-- 
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list

Re: Syntax for one-line "nonymous" functions in "declaration style"

[Alexey Muranov]

On mer., Mar 27, 2019 at 5:00 PM, python-list-requ...@python.org wrote:

On 27/03/19 09:21, Alexey Muranov wrote:
 Whey you need a simple function in Python, there is a choice 
between a
 normal function declaration and an assignment of a anonymous 
function

 (defined by a lambda-expression) to a variable:

def f(x): return x*x

 or

f = lambda x: x*x

 It would be however more convenient to be able to write instead just

f(x) = x*x

 (like in Haskell and such).

 Have this idea been discussed before?

 I do not see any conflicts with the existing syntax.   The following
 would also work:


I don't know. Something like the following is already legal:

f(x)[n] = x * n

And it does something completly different.



Thanks for pointing out this example, but so far i do not see any issue 
with this.


Of course assignment (to an identifier) is a completely different type 
of operation than in-place mutation (of an object) with __setitem__, 
etc.


In

   <...> [<...>] = <...>

the part to the left of "[<...>]=" is an expression that is to be 
evaluated, and only its value matters.  Here "[]=" can be viewed as a 
method call, which is distinguished by the context from "[]" method 
call (__getitem__).


In

= <...>

the  is not evaluated.

I still think that

   ()...() = <...>

is unambiguous.  The following seems possible too:

   a[m][n](x)(y) = m*x + n*y

It would be the same as

   a[m][n] = lambda x: lambda y: m*x + n*y

Here a[m] is evaluated, and on the result the method "[]=" 
(__setitem__) is called.


Basically, "()...()=" seems to technically fit all contexts where "=" 
fits...


Alexey.


--
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list

Re: Your IDE's?

[Mr Zaug]

On Monday, March 25, 2019 at 5:38:41 PM UTC-4, John Doe wrote:
> What is your favorite Python IDE?

"Your IDE's?" is not a question, nor is any word in English made plural with an 
apostrophe  s.
-- 
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list

Re: Syntax for one-line "nonymous" functions in "declaration style"

[Terry Reedy]

On 3/27/2019 4:21 AM, Alexey Muranov wrote:
Whey you need a simple function in Python, there is a choice between a 
normal function declaration and an assignment of a anonymous function 
(defined by a lambda-expression) to a variable:


    def f(x): return x*x

or

    f = lambda x: x*x


PEP 8 properly recommends against this the latter as functionally it has 
no advantage and the disadvantage that f.__name__ becomes the generic 
'' instead of the specific 'f'.  This is not useful for code 
that expects specific names.  Tracebacks are one example.  Here is 
another intended to list callable objects and their types.


def call_clas(container):
for item in vars(container).values():
if hasattr(item, '__call__'):
yield item.__name__, item.__class__

def print_cc(container):
for name, clas in call_clas(container):
print(f'{name:30s}{clas}')

# Examples.
print_cc(int)
from idlelib import pyshell
print_cc(pyshell)

Multiple output lines of '   function' defeat the 
purpose.


So my opinion is that lambda expressions should only be used within 
larger expressions and never directly bound.



It would be however more convenient to be able to write instead just

    f(x) = x*x


Given my view above, this is, standing alone, strictly an abbreviation 
of the equivalent def statement.  I am presuming that a proper 
implementation would result in f.__name__ == 'f'.


Is the convenience and (very low) frequency of applicability worth the 
inconvenience of confusing the meaning of '=' and complicating the 
implementation?



I do not see any conflicts with the existing syntax.


It heavily conflicts with existing syntax.  The current meaning of
  target_expression = object_expression
is
1. Evaluate object_expression in the existing namespace to an object, 
prior to any new bindings and independent of the target_expression.
2. Evaluate target_expression in the existing namespace to one or more 
targets.

3. Bind object to target or iterate target to bind to multiple targets.

Part of step 2 is making calls, because calls cannot be targets.  This 
is why 'f(a+b)[c] = d' can work.  Note that 'a+b' makes calls to 
a.__add__ or b.__radd__ or both.


In the proposal, the treatment of the object expression would depend on 
the target expression and the alternative would be to quote it as code; 
compile the code in a manner that depends on the target expression to 
mark local names versus global names; and finally make a function 
instance, presumably taking __name__ from the target.


This would have the advantage over lambda assignment of getting the name 
right, but I don't think one should be doing lambda assignment anyway. 
There is a good reason to have a separate syntax.


Before 3.8, I would stop here and say no to the proposal.  But we now 
have assignment expressions in addition to assignment statements.


>>> int(s:='42'+'742')
42742
>>> s
'42742'

To me, function assignment expressions, as a enhanced replacement for 
lambda expressions, is more inviting than function assignment statements 
as an abbreviation for function definition statements.


In other words, replace

  map(lambda x: x*x, range(10))

with

  map(square(x):=x*x, range(10))

or, if one does not want a specific name,

  map(_(x):=x*x, range(10))

Many people dislike lambda expressions, to the point that Guido 
considered leaving them out of 3.x.  So this replacement might get more 
traction.  It would make assignment expressions much more useful.


--
Terry Jan Reedy


--
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list

Getting file extensions [linux fs]

[Paulo da Silva]

Hi!

I don't know if this is the right group to ask ... sorry if it isn't.

Is there a way to get the file extensions of a file in linux, the same
way as "filefrag -e " does?

The purpose is to see if two files are the same file, namely those
copied with the --reflink option in btrfs.

A solution for C is also welcome - I can write a small python extension
to handle that.

BTW, executing filefrag from python is not a solution, because I have
lots of files and that would be too slow.

Thanks for any help. Anyway, as last resource, I can always look at
filefrag source. I am just trying to avoid that.

-- 
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list

Create GUI with Python using Tkinter | Youtube Playlist

[Attreya Bhatt]

In this series of 30 videos we learn how to create a Music Player from scratch 
using Python.

Youtube Playlist - 
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLhTjy8cBISEp6lNKUO3iwbB1DKAkRwutl
-- 
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list

Re: Your IDE's?

[Cameron Simpson]

On 27Mar2019 10:55, Anssi Saari  wrote:

Ben Finney  writes:

Emacs and a shell multiplexer (today, that's GNU Screen, but others
swear that I should try TMux).


I've actually been using tmux for a while. The only reason and the only
thing I can think of that it does and screen doesn't is that tmux can
display italic text and screen apparently can't. So I went with tmux for
Usenet.

Well, there were some claims from tmux about it being a better terminal
but I can't really see a difference.


I find the tmux command line far more regular and flexible. Screen's 
option set is ... weird and complex and has clearly just grown over 
time. Tmux is far better there.


It also has more features: panes within windows, etc. I rarely use that 
(I use panes in my terminal emulator heavily though), although my mutt 
composition mode uses a tmux pane for the composition so I still have 
access to the main index above it.


Cheers,
Cameron Simpson 
--
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list

Re: Getting file extensions [linux fs]

[Cameron Simpson]

On 27Mar2019 21:49, Paulo da Silva  wrote:

I don't know if this is the right group to ask ... sorry if it isn't.

Is there a way to get the file extensions of a file in linux, the same
way as "filefrag -e " does?

The purpose is to see if two files are the same file, namely those
copied with the --reflink option in btrfs.

A solution for C is also welcome - I can write a small python extension
to handle that.

BTW, executing filefrag from python is not a solution, because I have
lots of files and that would be too slow.


The filefrag manual entry says it works by calling one of 2 ioctls. You 
can do that from Python with the ioctl() function in the standard fcntl 
module. I haven't tried to do this, but the results should be basicly as 
fast as filefrag itself.


You'll need to decode the result the ioctl returns of course.

Cheers,
Cameron Simpson 
--
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list

Re: Your IDE's?

[Ben Finney]

Mr Zaug  writes:

> On Monday, March 25, 2019 at 5:38:41 PM UTC-4, John Doe wrote:
> > What is your favorite Python IDE?
>
> "Your IDE's?" is not a question

It is a topic for discussion though. Hence, appropriate for the Subject
field. Especially because he then wrote a full sentence question in the
message body.

> nor is any word in English made plural with an apostrophe  s.

Bob the Angry Flower agrees http://www.angryflower.com/247.html>.

-- 
 \  “The history of Western science confirms the aphorism that the |
  `\ great menace to progress is not ignorance but the illusion of |
_o__)knowledge.” —Daniel J. Boorstin, historian, 1914–2004 |
Ben Finney

-- 
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list

Re: configparser - which one?

[Ben Finney]

DL Neil  writes:

> After striking this problem, I was encouraged to take a look at JSON,
> and thence YAML. Once there, as they say, didn't look back!
> - multi-dimensional possibilities, cf .ini
> - similarity/correspondence with Python data structures
> - convenient PSL
> - easily adopted by (power-)users, cf Python code

Those are all true.

Drawbacks for YAML as a configuration format:

* Not implemented in Python standard library.

* Not a single, unambiguous standard which all implementations support
  (this may be one reason for no Python standard library implementation).

Despite those, yes I would very much prefer to use YAML as a
configuration format. (ConfigParser INI format is acceptable. JSON is
definitely not, because it has no simple way to put comments in the
file.)

-- 
 \  “In the long run, the utility of all non-Free software |
  `\  approaches zero. All non-Free software is a dead end.” —Mark |
_o__)Pilgrim, 2006 |
Ben Finney

-- 
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list

Re: Syntax for one-line "nonymous" functions in "declaration style"

[Ben Finney]

Alexey Muranov  writes:

> It would be however more convenient to be able to write instead just
>
>f(x) = x*x

That's not an anonymous function then, is it? You want to assign a name
to that function, and (to be useful in development tools, such as a
stack trace) the function needs to know its own name.

The way to do that is, as you point out, the ‘def’ statement:

def f(x):
return (x * x)

What does that prevent you from doing? It will need to be pretty
significant improvement to be considered as a change to language syntax.

> Have this idea been discussed before?

Too many times to count :-)

-- 
 \   “Theology is the effort to explain the unknowable in terms of |
  `\ the not worth knowing.” —Henry L. Mencken |
_o__)  |
Ben Finney

-- 
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list

Re: Getting file extensions [linux fs]

[Paulo da Silva]

Às 23:09 de 27/03/19, Cameron Simpson escreveu:
> On 27Mar2019 21:49, Paulo da Silva  wrote:
...
> The filefrag manual entry says it works by calling one of 2 ioctls. You
> can do that from Python with the ioctl() function in the standard fcntl
> module. I haven't tried to do this, but the results should be basicly as
> fast as filefrag itself.
> 
> You'll need to decode the result the ioctl returns of course.
> 
Thanks Cameron, I'll take a look at that.
-- 
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list

Re: The Mailing List Digest Project

[Jason Friedman]

On Mon, Mar 25, 2019 at 11:03 PM Abdur-Rahmaan Janhangeer <
arj.pyt...@gmail.com> wrote:

> As proposed on python-ideas, i setup a repo to turn mail threads into
> articles.
>
> i included a script to build .md to .html (with syntax highlighting) here
> is the index
>
> https://abdur-rahmaanj.github.io/py-mailing-list-summary/
>
>  Pretty cool.  FYI, the index page (now containing 4 articles) with Google
Chrome 72.0.3626.x prompts me to translate to French.  The articles
themselves do not.
-- 
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list

Re: The Mailing List Digest Project

[Abdur-Rahmaan Janhangeer]

hum maybe beacuse i speak french some settings got configured but i don't
see how. btw we are moving to a better repo with sphinx


Garanti
sans virus. www.avast.com

<#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2>

On Thu, Mar 28, 2019 at 5:48 AM Jason Friedman  wrote:

> On Mon, Mar 25, 2019 at 11:03 PM Abdur-Rahmaan Janhangeer <
> arj.pyt...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > As proposed on python-ideas, i setup a repo to turn mail threads into
> > articles.
> >
> > i included a script to build .md to .html (with syntax highlighting) here
> > is the index
> >
> > https://abdur-rahmaanj.github.io/py-mailing-list-summary/
> >
> >  Pretty cool.  FYI, the index page (now containing 4 articles) with
> Google
> Chrome 72.0.3626.x prompts me to translate to French.  The articles
> themselves do not.
> --
> https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
>


-- 
Abdur-Rahmaan Janhangeer
http://www.pythonmembers.club | https://github.com/Abdur-rahmaanJ
Mauritius
-- 
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list

Re: The Mailing List Digest Project

[Abdur-Rahmaan Janhangeer]

continuing a better effort here:
https://github.com/PythonCHB/PythonListsSummaries
moving to an impersonal repo later!


Garanti
sans virus. www.avast.com

<#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2>
-- 
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list