On Apr 23, 5:23 pm, Terry Reedy wrote:
> Jeremy Banks wrote:
> > Hi. I'm sure there've been debates about this before, but I can't seem
> > to figure out what to search for to pull them up, so I'm asking here.
>
> > It seems to me that a lot of thing
On Thu, Apr 23, 2009 at 13:03, John Krukoff wrote:
> You probably want to be searching for multi-line lambda to find the past
> decade or so of this argument, as that's where most people who argued
> for this came from. But, if you'd just like a bit of discouragement,
> here's GvR arguing that the
> Things like your suggestion are called "syntactic-sugar" -- syntax that
> adds a convenience, but *no* new functionality. Python has plenty of
> "syntactic-sugar"s, and more will be added in the future. To make an
> argument for such an addition, one would have to describe some compelling
> (a
Thanks for your comments.
On Thu, Apr 23, 2009 at 11:52, Gary Herron wrote:
> > [...]
>
> There's no need for a specific addition to the syntax to do this.
>
> Try this:
>
> def foo_bar():
> return(...)
> foo.bar = foo_bar
>
>> [...]
>
> and this:
>
> def foo_bar():
> return(...
Hi. I'm sure there've been debates about this before, but I can't seem
to figure out what to search for to pull them up, so I'm asking here.
It seems to me that a lot of things could be made much easier if you
could use primaries other than basic identifiers for the target of
function definitions.
Hi. I wondered if anyone knew the rationale behind the naming of the
Popen class in the subprocess module. Popen sounds like the a suitable
name for a function that created a subprocess, but the object itself is
a subprocess, not a "popen". It seems that it would be more accurate to
just name t
