On 26 April 2015 at 06:18, Yury Selivanov wrote:
> Option #3. Create a new terminal for await expression between
> 'atom' and 'power'.
>
> Required grammar changes:
> https://gist.github.com/1st1/cb0bd257b04adb87e167#file-option-3-patch
>
> Repo to play with (parser module is broken atm):
> https:
+1 for option 3.
On Sat, Apr 25, 2015 at 1:18 PM, Yury Selivanov
wrote:
> Hi Guido,
>
> On 2015-04-24 1:03 PM, Guido van Rossum wrote:
>
>> *3. syntactic priority of `await`*
>>
>> Yury, could you tweak the syntax for `await` so that we can write the most
>> common usages without parentheses? In
On Sun, Apr 26, 2015 at 2:01 AM, Ronan Lamy wrote:
>>> * PEP484 hints are too high-level. Replacing an 'int' object with a
>>> single machine word would be useful, but an 'int' annotation gives no
>>> guarantee that it's correct (because Python 3 ints can have arbitrary
>>> size and because subcla
Hi Arnaud,
On 2015-04-25 4:47 PM, Arnaud Delobelle wrote:
On Tue, 21 Apr 2015 at 18:27 Yury Selivanov wrote:
Hi python-dev,
I'm moving the discussion from python-ideas to here.
The updated version of the PEP should be available shortly
at https://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0492
and is also
On Tue, 21 Apr 2015 at 18:27 Yury Selivanov wrote:
>
> Hi python-dev,
>
> I'm moving the discussion from python-ideas to here.
>
> The updated version of the PEP should be available shortly
> at https://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0492
> and is also pasted in this email.
>
Hi Yury,
Having read t
Hi Guido,
On 2015-04-24 1:03 PM, Guido van Rossum wrote:
*3. syntactic priority of `await`*
Yury, could you tweak the syntax for `await` so that we can write the most
common usages without parentheses? In particular I'd like to be able to
write
```
return await foo()
with await foo() as bar: ..
Le 25/04/15 04:07, Steven D'Aprano a écrit :
On Sat, Apr 25, 2015 at 02:05:15AM +0100, Ronan Lamy wrote:
* Hints have no run-time effect. The interpreter cannot assume that they
are obeyed.
I know what you mean, but just for the record, annotations are runtime
inspectable, so people can (and
Victor Stinner wrote:
It's now time to focus our
good energy on discussing remaining questions on the PEP 492 to make
it the best PEP ever!
That's what I'm trying to do. I just think it would
be even better if it could be made to address that
issue somehow. I haven't thought of a way to do that
I used to think in the same way but found the result looks like Perl
(or Haskell), not Python.
On Sat, Apr 25, 2015 at 7:47 AM, Greg Ewing wrote:
> Wild idea:
>
> Let "@" mean "async" when it's directly in front
> of a keyword.
>
> Then we would have:
>
> @def f():
> ...
>
> @for x in it
2015-04-25 8:23 GMT+02:00 Greg Ewing :
> But how is an awaitable supposed to raise StopIteration
> if it's implemented by a generator or async def[*] function?
> Those things use StopIteration to wrap return values.
>
> I like the idea of allowing StopIteration to be raised
> in an async def functi
Hi Greg,
2015-04-25 7:02 GMT+02:00 Greg Ewing :
>> I accept the compromise of creating a coroutine object without wait
>> for it (obvious and common bug when learning asyncio). Hopefully, we
>> keep the coroutine wrapper feature (ok, maybe I suggested this idea to
>> Yury because I suffered so muc
On 25 April 2015 at 17:58, Larry Hastings wrote:
>
> On 04/24/2015 09:45 PM, Nick Coghlan wrote:
>
> Ah, I misread Tal's suggestion. Using unary + is an even neater approach.
>
>
> Not exactly. The way I figure it, the best way to achieve this with unary
> plus is to ast.parse it (as we currently
On Sat, Apr 25, 2015 at 10:58 AM, Larry Hastings wrote:
>
> On 04/24/2015 09:45 PM, Nick Coghlan wrote:
>
> Ah, I misread Tal's suggestion. Using unary + is an even neater approach.
>
>
> Not exactly. The way I figure it, the best way to achieve this with unary
> plus is to ast.parse it (as we c
On 04/24/2015 09:45 PM, Nick Coghlan wrote:
Ah, I misread Tal's suggestion. Using unary + is an even neater approach.
Not exactly. The way I figure it, the best way to achieve this with
unary plus is to ast.parse it (as we currently do) and then modify the
parse tree. That works but it's
14 matches
Mail list logo
