Danilo J. S. Bellini writes:
> I'm not talking about "simple cases", but about quite general
> cases, general in the sense that it allows modeling time varying
> models (and the proposal is about recursion, whose computational
> power should be obvious).
I think I admitted that in the text yo
On Wed, Nov 02, 2016 at 10:22:56PM -0400, Kyle Lahnakoski wrote:
>
> On 11/2/2016 2:30 PM, Zero Piraeus wrote:
> >
> >If I write something like obj.attr, the failure mode I care about is that
> >obj has no attribute attr, rather than that obj is specifically None (or
> >one of a defined group of s
On 3 November 2016 at 11:38, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
> Looking at those examples of code, I don't think it is likely that the
> majority (or even a large minority) are the result of getattr.
>
> But even if they are, what difference does it make?
It may have mattered, if a getattr(obj, attr, coale
On 03.11.2016 02:06, MRAB wrote:
On 2016-11-02 21:57, Greg Ewing wrote:
MRAB wrote:
target = expr1 || expr2 || expr3
target = expr1 && expr2 && expr3
except that only None would be considered falsey?
Or would that be confusing?
Yes, I think that borrowing an operator from C but givi
Thanks Steven, this is great!
so -- when all this started, I think one of the use cases was to clean up
this really common idiom:
self.an_arg = the_default if an_arg is None else an_arg
so would that be:
self.an_arg = the_default ?? an_arg
That would be nice.
Though the fact that I'm still no
On 2016-11-03 18:36, Chris Barker wrote:
Thanks Steven, this is great!
so -- when all this started, I think one of the use cases was to clean
up this really common idiom:
self.an_arg = the_default if an_arg is None else an_arg
so would that be:
self.an_arg = the_default ?? an_arg
That would
On Thu, Nov 3, 2016 at 12:00 PM, MRAB wrote:
> self.an_arg = the_default if an_arg is None else an_arg
>
>
> No, ?? is a bit like 'or', except that only None is falsey, so it would be:
>>
>
> self.an_arg = an_arg ?? the_default
thanks! and actually, that reads much better to me.
-CHB
--
On Wed, 2 Nov 2016 at 17:34 Mikhail V wrote:
> On 2 November 2016 at 21:50, David Mertz wrote:
> > Even though I really don't want new null-coalescing operators, I really
> > appreciate the ternary operator in Python (or in C).
> >
> > On Wed, Nov 2, 2016 at 12:38 PM, Mikhail V wrote:
> >>
> >>
On Thu, Nov 03, 2016 at 12:35:07PM -0700, Chris Barker wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 3, 2016 at 12:00 PM, MRAB wrote:
>
> > self.an_arg = the_default if an_arg is None else an_arg
>
> > No, ?? is a bit like 'or', except that only None is falsey, so it would be:
> >
> > self.an_arg = an_arg ?? the_def
On Thu, Nov 3, 2016 at 4:06 PM, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
> > > No, ?? is a bit like 'or', except that only None is falsey, so it
> would be:
> > >
> > > self.an_arg = an_arg ?? the_default
> >
> >
> > thanks! and actually, that reads much better to me.
>
> That suggests a possible different col
10 matches
Mail list logo
