>
>
> You can now use `{*()}` as a syntax for empty set.
>
> I saw that in the ast module and think it's clever, mainly in a good way.
I don't think it is the same as having dedicated syntax for the empty set
partly because I think it needs to be taught. I don't think a new
pythonista would turn to
> If there was some way to make
>@syms x, y
> translate to x, y = syms('x, y') or something like that then that
> would be great. Maybe that doesn't have broad enough use for Python
> the language but I would certainly add something like that if I was
> providing a SymPy UI based on a modified
Variable decorators have been suggested here before, as have new statements
that could also achieve the same level of access to the binding name.
However
I propose a much more restricted syntax that would make for less edge cases
where what is actually passed to the decorator callable may be ambigu
On Tue, May 25, 2021 at 12:30 AM Steven D'Aprano
wrote:
>
> Your proposal appears to be:
>
> @decorator(expression) targetname
>
> # transformed into:
>
> targetname = decorator("targetname", expression)
>
Correct
> But in class and function decorator contexts, the equivalent synta
While I am not at this point dropping the idea of @decorator(expression)
targetname
a thought occurred to me yesterday after discussing targetname as a string
in
assignments (and I appreciate the continued discussion in a new thread but
this is a new counter proposal so keeping it here).
There is a
On Thu, May 27, 2021 at 9:34 AM Ricky Teachey wrote:
> On Thu, May 27, 2021 at 10:25 AM Steven D'Aprano
> wrote:
>
> No, I understood the OP's proposal perfectly. I was agreeing with you
> implicitly when you previously said the inconsistency between the OP's
> proposal and current decorator is
On Thu, May 27, 2021 at 10:40 AM Matt del Valle
wrote:
> Bikesheddable, but I don't know why having these two be equivalent:
>>
>> @decorator var
>> @decorator var = None
>>
>> ..would be a problem. Having an implied default of None for var above
>> makes sense to my brain. Do you have an example
On Thu, May 27, 2021 at 12:39 PM Ricky Teachey wrote:
> On Thu, May 27, 2021 at 2:32 PM micro codery wrote:
>
>>
>> But what is actually valid to follow a decorator in this proposal?
>> Any simple expression, any expression? Is it limited to assignment
>> espres
On Fri, May 28, 2021 at 5:07 PM Rob Cliffe Co
wrote:
>
>
> On 29/05/2021 00:51, micro codery wrote:
>
>
> I also don't know what should happen for complicated assignments, and I
> think this
> has been the death of such variable decorator discussions in the past,
Ah, I think you might be missing the context of the original proposal? I do
mean bare unbound identifiers - at lease as they occur in this new syntax.
# currently works
spam = “eggs”
spam: eggs
# currently a NameError
spam
# proposed to work, currently illegal
@spam
eggs
@spam(“eggs”)
cheese
10 matches
Mail list logo
