Op vr 7 sep. 2018 om 04:49 schreef Anders Hovmöller :
>
> Maybe something like this would be better:
>>
>> f(=a, =b, =c)
>>
>
> Haha. Look at my PEP, it's under "rejected alternative syntax", because of
> the super angry replies I got on this very mailing list when I suggested
> this syntax a
> I must say I like the idea of being able to write it the way you propose.
> Sometimes we make a function only to be called once at a specific location,
> more because of factoring out some functions for clarity. Been doing that
> myself lately for scripting, and I think it'd increase clarity
Many features on this list propose different syntax to python, producing
different python "dialects" that can statically be transformed to python :
- a,b += f(x) → _t = f(x); a += _t; b += _t; (augmented assignement unpacking)
- a = 2x + 1 → a = 2*x + 1 (juxtaposition is product)
- f(*, x, y) →
Many features on this list propose different syntax to python, producing
> different python "dialects" that can statically be transformed to python :
>
> - a,b += f(x) → _t = f(x); a += _t; b += _t; (augmented assignement
> unpacking)
> - a = 2x + 1 → a = 2*x + 1 (juxtaposition is product)
>
On 07/09/18 03:38, Anders Hovmöller wrote:
For comparison, my reaction did indeed involve awe. It was full of it,
in fact :-p Sorry, but that syntax looks at best highly misleading --
how many parameters are we passing? I don't like it at all.
(nitpick: we're passing arguments, not parameter
>
> I counted commas. I came up with the wrong number. Simple.
>
> For what it's worth, I don't like the keyword-only marker or the
> proposed positional-only marker for exactly the same reason.
>
There's also potentially trailing commas to confuse you further :P
I'm not a big fan of the key
On 07/09/18 14:59, Anders Hovmöller wrote:
I disagree. Keyword arguments are a fine and good thing, but they are
best used for optional arguments IMHO. Verbosity for the sake of
verbosity is not a good thing.
Hmm.. it seems to me like there are some other caveats to your position
here. Like
On Fri, Sep 7, 2018, 12:00 AM Jacco van Dorp wrote:
> Sometimes we make a function only to be called once at a specific
> location, more because of factoring out some functions for clarity.
>
I've found myself making the opposite refactoring recently, improving
clarity by eliminating unnecessary
>
>
> I disagree. Keyword arguments are a fine and good thing, but they are
> best used for optional arguments IMHO. Verbosity for the sake of
> verbosity is not a good thing.
I disagree, when you have more than one parameter it's sometimes
complicated to remember the order. Therefore, when you
Here's a function found online (I'm too lazy to write my own, but it would
be mostly the same). Tell me how keyword arguments could help this... Or
WHAT names you'd give.
1. def quad(a,b,c):
2. """solves quadratic equations of the form
3. aX^2+bX+c, inputs a,b,c,
4. works for all root
If you want to force using pos args, go ahead and use Python docstring
notation we'd write def quad(a,b,c, /)
The names should not be renamed because they already have a normal ordering
x ** n.
This notation is standard, so it would be a shame to use something people
don't use.
However, I recent
Do you want to change my PEP suggestion to be about forcing stuff? Because
otherwise I don’t see why you keep being that up. We’ve explained to you two
times (three counting the original mail) that no one is saying anything about
forcing anything. ___
Top posting for once, since no one is quoting well in this thread:
Does this in any way answer David's question? I'm serious; you've spent
a lot of words that, as best I can tell, say exactly nothing about how
keyword arguments would help that quadratic function. If I'm missing
something, pl
What if * and ** forwarded all unnamed arguments to a function? Example:
import traceback
def print_http_response(request, color=True):
...
def print_invalid_api_response(error, *, show_traceback=False, **):
print_http_response(*, **)
if show_traceback:
traceback.print_last()
On 09/07/2018 12:09 PM, James Lu wrote:
[stuff]
James, the digest you replied to had four different topics, and I have no idea how many individual messages. You didn't
change the subject line, and you didn't trim the text you were not replying to.
Which thread/message were you replying to?
On Fri, Sep 7, 2018 at 2:22 PM Rhodri James wrote:
>
> Top posting for once, since no one is quoting well in this thread:
>
> Does this in any way answer David's question? I'm serious; you've spent
> a lot of words that, as best I can tell, say exactly nothing about how
> keyword arguments would
On Fri, Sep 07, 2018 at 11:57:50AM +, Robert Vanden Eynde wrote:
> Many features on this list propose different syntax to python,
> producing different python "dialects" that can statically be
> transformed to python :
[...]
> Using a modified version of ast, it is relatively easy to modifi
On 09/07/2018 04:57 AM, Robert Vanden Eynde wrote:
Actually, I might start to write this lib, that looks fun.
You should also check out MacroPy:
https://pypi.org/project/MacroPy/
Although I freely admit I don't know if does what you are talking about.
--
~Ethan~
__
18 matches
Mail list logo
