On 13 March 2014 07:49, Chris Angelico wrote:
>
> Umm, yeah, that one. Why did I think hasattr was the only way around
> that? Anyway, that just means I picked a bad example. There are others
> where you have to go for the full try/except.
You may have been thinking of item lookup on sequences. A
On Thu, Mar 13, 2014 at 8:37 AM, Tres Seaver wrote:
> On 03/12/2014 04:49 PM, Chris Angelico wrote:
>> You can use hasattr() in place of AttributeError
>
> I use:
>
> getattr(subject, attrname, default)?
>
> *all the time*.
Umm, yeah, that one. Why did I think hasattr was the only way around
tha
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 03/12/2014 04:49 PM, Chris Angelico wrote:
> You can use hasattr() in place of AttributeError
I use:
getattr(subject, attrname, default)?
*all the time*.
Tres.
- --
===
Tres Sea
On 3/12/2014 1:44 PM, Chris Angelico wrote:
unless someone's going to employ me to champion PEPs full time :)
(Hmm. That would be an interesting job title on the resume.)
It's available now -- www.pepboys.com :)
Emile
___
Python-Dev mailing list
P
On Thu, Mar 13, 2014 at 7:26 AM, "Martin v. Löwis" wrote:
> I think you (or someone) first needs to find a BDFL delegate.
> Traditionally, with syntax changes, there is a good chance that Guido
> doesn't want to delegate at all, so ask him whether he wants to delegate
> or not.
He beat you to it;
On Thu, Mar 13, 2014 at 7:14 AM, Barry Warsaw wrote:
> Interestingly enough, where ternaries are most useful are in the same
> situations where I think exception expressions would be most useful, in the
> setting of a variable or attribute to one of two different values. In both
> branches of the
On Thu, Mar 13, 2014 at 4:09 AM, Guido van Rossum wrote:
> But the thing I can't get behind are the motivation and rationale. I don't
> think that e.g. dict.get() would be unnecessary once we have except
> expressions, and I disagree with the position that EAFP is better than LBYL,
> or "generally
Am 12.03.14 04:58, schrieb Chris Angelico:
> On Wed, Mar 12, 2014 at 2:20 PM, Ethan Furman wrote:
>> I sure hope this is accepted. I could have used it at least a half-dozen
>> times in the last week -- which is more often than I would have used the
>> ternary-if! :)
>
> Where do we go from her
On Mar 12, 2014, at 10:40 AM, Ethan Furman wrote:
>Does this mean a better motivation and rationale may cause you to change your
>mind?
>
>My motivation is for simpler, easier to read code: instead of a full-blown
>try/except block or a double-lookup into an indexable object I would much
>rather d
On 03/12/2014 10:09 AM, Guido van Rossum wrote:
I want to reject this PEP. [...]
But the thing I can't get behind are the motivation and rationale. I don't
think that e.g. dict.get() would be
unnecessary once we have except expressions, and I disagree with the position
that EAFP is better th
On Mon, 10 Mar 2014 14:26:14 +1100, Chris Angelico wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 10, 2014 at 1:16 PM, Jim J. Jewett wrote:
> > I don't claim that syntax is perfect. I do think it is less flawed
> > than the no-parentheses (or external parentheses) versions:
> >
> > (expr1 except expr3 if expr2)
> >
On Tue, Mar 11, 2014 at 9:10 PM, Chris Angelico wrote:
> PEP 463, Exception-catching expressions, is stable and I believe ready
> for pronouncement. Drumroll please...
>
> http://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0463/
>
> PEP: 463
> Title: Exception-catching expressions
> Version: $Revision$
> Last-Mo
On 12 March 2014 15:21, Brett Cannon wrote:
>
>
>
> On Wed, Mar 12, 2014 at 11:16 AM, Chris Angelico wrote:
>
>> On Thu, Mar 13, 2014 at 2:14 AM, Brett Cannon wrote:
>> > While I'm +0 on the idea, I'm -1 on the syntax;
>>
>
> I just don't like having a
>> > colon in an expression.
>>
>
lambda:
[resending to list]
-- Forwarded message --
From: Jeremy Kloth
Date: Wed, Mar 12, 2014 at 10:27 AM
Subject: Re: [Python-Dev] Requesting pronouncement on PEP 463:
Exception-catching expressions
To: Chris Angelico
On Wed, Mar 12, 2014 at 10:05 AM, Chris Angelico wrote:
> Tooling
On 12 March 2014 16:05, Chris Angelico wrote:
> Tooling issues should already have been solved for lambda, but if you
> don't like the colon, go with one of the other options - Brett
> expressed support for 'then', which makes very good sense (it does
> require creating a new keyword, but it's a f
On Thu, Mar 13, 2014 at 2:44 AM, Barry Warsaw wrote:
> That being said, the colon really bothers me, despite what is written in
> "Common objections". True, colons are used in places other than suite
> introduction, but with exception handling, colons *do* introduce a new suite,
> so its use here
On Mar 12, 2014, at 11:14 AM, Brett Cannon wrote:
>While I'm +0 on the idea, I'm -1 on the syntax; I just don't like having a
>colon in an expression.
I'm -0 on the idea, mostly be cause it's never occurred to me to even need
something like this, and because I don't personally think the existing
On Wed, Mar 12, 2014 at 11:16 AM, Chris Angelico wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 13, 2014 at 2:14 AM, Brett Cannon wrote:
> > While I'm +0 on the idea, I'm -1 on the syntax; I just don't like having
> a
> > colon in an expression.
>
> Which is why there are alternatives listed, and the best four of them
>
On Thu, Mar 13, 2014 at 2:14 AM, Brett Cannon wrote:
> While I'm +0 on the idea, I'm -1 on the syntax; I just don't like having a
> colon in an expression.
Which is why there are alternatives listed, and the best four of them
(including the proposed one) ranked.
ChrisA
__
On Wed, Mar 12, 2014 at 12:10 AM, Chris Angelico wrote:
> PEP 463, Exception-catching expressions, is stable and I believe ready
> for pronouncement. Drumroll please...
>
> http://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0463/
>
> PEP: 463
> Title: Exception-catching expressions
> Version: $Revision$
> Last-M
On Tue Mar 11 2014 at 11:59:23 PM, Chris Angelico wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 12, 2014 at 2:20 PM, Ethan Furman wrote:
> > I sure hope this is accepted. I could have used it at least a half-dozen
> > times in the last week -- which is more often than I would have used the
> > ternary-if! :)
>
> Where
21 matches
Mail list logo
