Hello,
Please note that this is not a kind of support service rather than a
community where people help each other on voluntary base.
In order to get help from here, you should provide enough information about
your issue with Python 3.9 that others can figure out what happened.
BR,
Roland
ke 10
ke 10. helmik. 2021 klo 5.07 Terry Reedy (tjre...@udel.edu) kirjoitti:
> On 2/9/2021 9:55 AM, Philipp Daher via Python-list wrote:
> > Hello,
> >
> > I’ve just typed „pip install selenium“ into my command prompt on windows
> 10. Although my computer told me that the requirement was already
> satis
On 2021-02-09 22:34, Terry Reedy wrote:
On 2/9/2021 3:39 PM, dn via Python-list wrote:
On 09/02/2021 15.13, Juan Jose Reyna Figuera wrote:
[ Translation:
matplotlib (and seaborn) not playing-nicely with Python 3.9 64-bit
edition on MS-Win 10. Solved by down-grading to Python 3.8 32-bit.
]
Y
On 2021-02-10, Python wrote:
> Hi,
>
> If you had to train engineers who are used to write
> Python scripts for image processing, data format conversion,
> etc. (so they know most the basics of Python types and
> programming structures except advanced OOP techniques)
> who now are about to devel
On 2/9/21 4:23 PM, Martin Lopez wrote:
Hello,
My name is Martin Lopez. I just downloaded Python 3.9.1 (64 bit) Setup.
After I install the program then try to run it, with no success.
I've uninstalled all previous versions and reinstalled them, but it does
not seem to help.
Can you please assi
I installed Python and jupyter via pip, but when I run jupyter notebook I
keep getting the following error.
Requirement already satisfied: pyparsing>=2.0.2 in
c:\users\mitzi\appdata\roaming\python\python39\site-packages (from
packaging->bleach->nbconvert->jupyter) (2.4.7)
Requirement already sati
def closset_match(check, arr, itr):
id_min = []
for ii in range(itr):
id_min_tmp = np.argmin( abs(arr - check) )
id_min.append(id_min_tmp)
arr[id_min_tmp] = float('-inf')
id_min = np.array(id_min)
return id_min
def get_match(arr1, arr2, tol, itr):
tt
Hello!
> The very strange thing which is happening here is you see variable
> arr2 at ID id_ttt before changing the variable tt at the same ID (i.e.
> id_ttt]) is showing some value but once I am printing its value after
> assigning tt[id_ttt] = 0.0, arr2[id_ttt] is also showing 0 value
> howe
Hi,
Have you tried this?
python -m notebook
On Wed, Feb 10, 2021 at 11:28 PM Rafael Llera wrote:
> I installed Python and jupyter via pip, but when I run jupyter notebook I
> keep getting the following error.
>
> Requirement already satisfied: pyparsing>=2.0.2 in
> c:\users\mitzi\appdata\ro
On Tue, Feb 09, 2021 at 03:23:56PM -0800, Martin Lopez wrote:
> Hello,
>
> My name is Martin Lopez. I just downloaded Python 3.9.1 (64 bit) Setup.
>
> After I install the program then try to run it, with no success.
>
> I've uninstalled all previous versions and reinstalled them, but it does
> n
On 2/10/2021 9:26 AM, Rafael Llera wrote:
I installed Python and jupyter via pip, but when I run jupyter notebook I
keep getting the following error.
Requirement already satisfied: pyparsing>=2.0.2 in
c:\users\mitzi\appdata\roaming\python\python39\site-packages (from
packaging->bleach->nbconve
> Most of us know of the perils of mutable default values.
And those who don't pay the price.
I wonder what would be the harm in removing them, or doing copy on call by
default.
--
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
On Thu, Feb 11, 2021 at 10:17 AM J. Pic wrote:
>
> > Most of us know of the perils of mutable default values.
>
> And those who don't pay the price.
>
> I wonder what would be the harm in removing them
Define "removing". Most objects in Python are mutable; would that mean
you can no longer use an
Also -1 on changing the existing default behavior. +1 to an opt-in
late-bound solution.
On Thu, 2021-02-11 at 10:29 +1100, Chris Angelico wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 11, 2021 at 10:17 AM J. Pic wrote:
> >
> > > Most of us know of the perils of mutable default values.
> >
> > And those who don't pay th
I just meant removing the whole "default value mutating" story, not
removing mutable variables. Really, I was wondering if there was a use case
where this actually turns to an advantage, in which case it would be a
designed feature rather than an undesirable side effect, which it seems to
be.
Now
On Thu, Feb 11, 2021 at 12:56 PM J. Pic wrote:
>
> I just meant removing the whole "default value mutating" story, not removing
> mutable variables. Really, I was wondering if there was a use case where this
> actually turns to an advantage, in which case it would be a designed feature
> rather
Directly removing the Global Interpreter Lock (GIL) would break a lot
of libraries that implicitly assume it is there. What if Python had
"realms" that each had separate GILs?
The "realms" (not sure if "subinterpreter" is the correct term here)
could share objects.
--
https://mail.python.org/mail
Adding decorators with some inspect sauce could certainly work with the
syntax we already have:
@default(x=lambda: copy([]), y=lambda x: len(x))
def foo(x=None, y=None):
I think this PoC is doable. But the lambda copy is a boring so, two
decorators:
@default.copy(x=[])
@default.call(y=lamba x: l
Silly me, we don't even need copy but just execution
@lazy(x=lambda: [], y=lamba x: len(x))
def foo(x=None, y=None):
So only one operator is needed, the walrus is still fine:
def foo(x:=[], y:=len(x)):
Not copy, just evaluate.
Le jeu. 11 févr. 2021 à 03:54, J. Pic a écrit :
> Adding decorato
On Thu, Feb 11, 2021 at 1:55 PM J. Pic wrote:
>
> Adding decorators with some inspect sauce could certainly work with the
> syntax we already have:
>
> @default(x=lambda: copy([]), y=lambda x: len(x))
> def foo(x=None, y=None):
This would work, although the copy is unnecessary here. But you're
a
Ok, maybe:
def foo(x=:[], y=:len(x)):
As a shorthand for:
@default(x=lambda: [], y=lambda x: len(x))
def foo(x=None, y=None):
=: Is the contraction for =lambda:
At the same time, this new syntax avoid breaking def foo(x=lamba: []) which
is completely different as we know.
Le jeu. 11 févr. 202
On 10Feb2021 21:51, James Lu wrote:
>Directly removing the Global Interpreter Lock (GIL) would break a lot
>of libraries that implicitly assume it is there. What if Python had
>"realms" that each had separate GILs?
>
>The "realms" (not sure if "subinterpreter" is the correct term here)
>could shar
On 11/02/2021 03.51, James Lu wrote:
> Directly removing the Global Interpreter Lock (GIL) would break a lot
> of libraries that implicitly assume it is there. What if Python had
> "realms" that each had separate GILs?
>
> The "realms" (not sure if "subinterpreter" is the correct term here)
> coul
I’m using Python 3.7.0
so I have multiple environments all on the same architecture with the same
python release using anonconda.
What I discovered was that if I install the cryptography module in my dev / uat
and then tried to synchronize to production server using rsync I ended up with
error
Just reinstalling cryptography with pip install seems to have fixed my issue.
Any pointers on why?
> On Feb 10, 2021, at 3:21 PM, Robert Nicholson
> wrote:
>
> I’m using Python 3.7.0
>
> so I have multiple environments all on the same architecture with the same
> python release using anoncon
Ok this was due to an install of miniconda then choosing to unconditionally
install an older version of cryptography.
> On Feb 10, 2021, at 3:40 PM, Robert Nicholson
> wrote:
>
> Just reinstalling cryptography with pip install seems to have fixed my issue.
>
> Any pointers on why?
>
>> On Fe
On 2021-02-11, J. Pic wrote:
> I just meant removing the whole "default value mutating" story, not
> removing mutable variables. Really, I was wondering if there was a use case
> where this actually turns to an advantage,
I've seen people show how it can be used to provide function-scope
persist
On Thu, 11 Feb 2564 BE at 12:52 Grant Edwards
wrote:
> On 2021-02-11, J. Pic wrote:
>
> > I just meant removing the whole "default value mutating" story, not
> > removing mutable variables. Really, I was wondering if there was a use
> case
> > where this actually turns to an advantage,
>
> I've
On Thu, Feb 11, 2021 at 6:03 PM Ross Wilson wrote:
>
> On Thu, 11 Feb 2564 BE at 12:52 Grant Edwards
> wrote:
>
> > On 2021-02-11, J. Pic wrote:
> >
> > > I just meant removing the whole "default value mutating" story, not
> > > removing mutable variables. Really, I was wondering if there was a
29 matches
Mail list logo
