I just spent a few minutes staring at a bug caused by a missing comma
-- I got a mysterious argument count error because instead of foo('a',
'b') I had written foo('a' 'b').
This is a fairly common mistake, and IIRC at Google we even had a lint
rule against this (there was also a Python dialect used for some
specific purpose where this was explicitly forbidden).
Now, with modern compiler technology, we can (and in fact do) evaluate
compile-time string literal concatenation with the '+' operator, so
there's really no reason to support 'a' 'b' any more. (The reason was
always rather flimsy; I copied it from C but the reason why it's
needed there doesn't really apply to Python, as it is mostly useful
inside macros.)
Would it be reasonable to start deprecating this and eventually remove
it from the language?
--
--Guido van Rossum (python.org/~guido)
o/
The french translation of the Python Documentation [1][2] has translated
20% of the pageviews of docs.python.org. I think it's the right moment
to push it do docs.python.org. So there's some questions ! And I'd like
feedback.
TL;DR (with my personal choices):
- URL may be "http://docs.python.org/fr/"
- For localized variations of languages we should use dash and
lowercase like "docs.python.org/pt-br/"
- po files may be hosted on the python's github
- existing script to build doc may be patched to build translations
- each translations may crosslink to others
- untranslated strings may be visually marked as so
I also opened: http://bugs.python.org/issue26546.
# Chronology, dependencies
The only blocking decision here is the URL, (also reviewing my patch
...), with those two, translated docs can be pushed to production, and
the other steps can be discussed and applied one by one.
# The URL
## CCTLD vs path vs subdomain
I think we should use a variation of "docs.python.org/fr/" for
simplicity and clarity.
I think we should avoid using CCTLDs as they're sometime hard or near
impossible to obtain (may cost a lot of time), also some are expensive,
so it's time and money we clearly don't need to loose.
Last possibility I see is to use a subdomain, like fr.docs.python.org or
docs.fr.python.org but I don't think it's the role / responsibility of
the sub-domain to do it.
So I'm for docs.python.org/LANGUAGE_TAG/ (without moving current
documentation inside a /en/).
## Language tag in path
### Dropping the default locale of a language
I personally think we should not show the region in case it's redundant:
so to use "fr" instead of "fr-FR", "de" instead of "de-DE", but keeping
the possibility to use a locale code when it's not redundant like for
"pt-br" or "de-AT" (German ('de') as used in Austria ('AT')).
I think so because I don't think we'll have a lot of locale variations
(like de-AT, fr-CH, fr-CA, ...) so it will be most of the time redundant
(visually heavy, longer to type, longer to read) but we'll still need
some locale (pt-BR typically).
### gettext VS IETF language tag format
gettext goes by using an underscore between language and locale [3] and
IETF goes by using a dash [4][5].
As sphinx is using gettext, and gettext uses underscore we may choose
underscore too. But URLs are not here to leak the underlying
implementation, and the IETF looks like to be the standard way to
represent language tags. Also I visually prefer the dash over the
underscore, so I'm for the dash here.
### Lower case vs upper case local tag
RFC 5646 section-2.1 tells us language tags are not case sensitive, yet
ISO3166-1 recommends that country codes (part of the language tag) be
capitalized. I personally prefer the all-lowercase one as paths in URLs
typically are lowercase. I searched for `inurl:"pt-br"` to see if I'm
not too far away from the usage here and usage seems to agree with me,
although there's some "pt-BR" in urls.
# Where to host the translated files
Currently we're hosting the *po* files in the afpy's (Francophone
association for python) [6] github [1] but it may make sense to use (in
the generation scripts) a more controlled / restricted clone in the
python github, at least to have a better view of who can push on the
documentation.
We may want to choose between aggregating all translations under the
same git repository but I don't feel it's useful.
# How to
Currently, a python script [7] is used to generate `docs.python.org`, I
proposed a patch in [8] to make this script clone and build the french
translation too, it's a simple and effective way, I don't think we need
more ? Any idea welcome.
In our side, we have a Makefile [12] to build the translated doc which
is only a thin layer on top of the Sphinx Makefile. So my proposed patch
to build scripts "just" delegate the build to our Makefile which itself
delegate the hard work to the Sphinx Makefile.
# Next ?
## Document how to translate Python
I think I can (should) write a documentation on "how to start a Python
doc translation project" and "how to migrate existing [9][10][11] python
doc translation projects to docs.python.org" if french does goes
docs.python.org because it may hopefully motivate people to do the same,
and I think our structure is a nice way to do it (A Makefile to generate
the doc, all versions translated, people mainly working on latest
version, scripts to propagating translations to older version, etc...).
## Crosslinking between existing translations
Once the translations are on `docs.python.org`, crosslinks may be
established so people on a version can be aware of other version, and
easily switch to them. I'm not a UI/UX man but I think we may have a
select box right before the existing select box about version, on the
top-left corner. Right before because it'll reflect the path: /fr/3.5/
-> [select box fr][select box 3.5].
## Marking as "untranslated, you can help" the untranslated paragraphs
The translations will always need work to follow upstream modifications:
marking untranslated paragraphs as so may transform the "Oh they suck,
this paragraph is not even translated :-(" to "Hey, nice I can help
translating that !". There's an opened sphinx-doc ticket to do so [13]
but I have not worked on it yet. As previously said I'm real bad at
designing user interfaces, so I don't even visualize how I'd like it to be.
[1] http://www.afpy.org/doc/python/3.5/
[2] https://github.com/afpy/python_doc_fr
[3] https://www.gnu.org/software/gettext/manual/html_node/Locale-Names.html
[4] http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5646
[5] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IETF_language_tag
[6] http://www.afpy.org/
[7] https://github.com/python/docsbuild-scripts/
[8] http://bugs.python.org/issue26546
[9] http://docs.python.jp/3/
[10] https://github.com/python-doc-ja/python-doc-ja
[11] http://docs.python.org.ar/tutorial/3/index.html
[12] https://github.com/AFPy/python_doc_fr/blob/master/Makefile
[13] https://github.com/sphinx-doc/sphinx/issues/1246
--
Julien Palard
Hello all,
This is a writeup of a proposal I floated here:
https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-list/2015-August/694905.html
last Sunday. If the response is positive I wish to write a PEP.
Briefly, it is a natural expectation in users that the command:
python -m module_name ...
used to invoke modules in "main program" mode on the command line imported the
module as "module_name". It does not, it imports it as "__main__". An import
within the program of "module_name" makes a new instance of the module, which
causes cognitive dissonance and has the side effect that now the program has
two instances of the module.
What I propose is that the above command line _should_ bind
sys.modules['module_name'] as well as binding '__main__' as it does currently.
I'm proposing that the python -m option have this effect (python pseudocode):
% python -m module.name ...
runs:
# pseudocode, with values hardwired for clarity
import sys
M = new_empty_module(name='__main__', qualname='module.name')
sys.modules['__main__'] = M
sys.modules['module.name'] = M
# load the module code from wherever (not necessarily a file - CPython
# already must do this phase)
M.execfile('/path/to/module/name.py')
Specificly, this would have the following two changes to current practice:
1) the module is imported _once_, and bound to both its canonical name and
also to __main__.
2) imported modules acquire a new attribute __qualname__ (analogous to the
recent __qualname__ on functions). This is always the conanoical name of the
module as resolved by the importer. For most modules __name__ will be the same
as __qualname__, but for the "main" module __name__ will be '__main__'.
This change has the following advantages:
The current standard boilerplate:
if __name__ == '__main__':
... invoke "main program" here ...
continues to work unchanged.
Importantly, if the program then issues "import module_name", it is already
there and the existing instance is found and used.
The thread referenced above outlines my most recent encounter with this and the
trouble it caused me. Followup messages include some support for this proposed
change, and some criticism.
The critiquing article included some workarounds for this multiple module
situation, but they were (1) somewhat dependent on modules coming from a file
pathname and (2) cumbersome and require every end user to adopt these changes
if affected by the situation. I'd like to avoid that.
Cheers,
Cameron Simpson <cs(a)zip.com.au>
The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists
in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends
on the unreasonable man. - George Bernard Shaw
Has anyone else found this to be too syntactically noisy?
from module import Foo as _Foo, bar as _bar
That is horrifically noisy IMO. The problem is, how do we
remove the noise without sacrificing intuitiveness? My first
idea was to do this:
from module import_private Foo, bar
And while it's self explanatory, it's also too long. So i
thought...
from module _import Foo, bar
I'm leaning more towards the latter, but i'm not loving it
either. Any ideas?
OK, thanks for the comments, everyone. I'm glad to hear that people
generally think this is a useful idea.
Some specific replies:
On Tue, Feb 16, 2016 at 4:22 AM, Chris Angelico <rosuav(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> For what it's worth, I read your post with interest, but didn't have
> anything substantive to reply - mainly because I don't use regexes
> much. But it would be rather cool to be able to decompile a regex.
> Imagine a regex pretty-printer: compile an arbitrary string, and if
> it's a valid regex, decompile it to a valid source code form, using
> re.VERBOSE. That could help _hugely_ with debugging, if the trick can
> be pulled off.
>
> ChrisA
That's exactly the type of tools I envision being made available by
third parties. Depending on how much I get invested into this project,
I may even write such a tool myself (though that's not guaranteed).
On Tue, Feb 16, 2016 at 4:55 AM, Paul Moore <p.f.moore(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> Sorry. I don't personally have any issue with the proposal, and it
> sounds like a reasonable idea. I don't think it's likely to be
> *hugely* controversial - although it will likely need a little care in
> documenting the feature to ensure that we are clear that there's no
> guarantees of backward compatibility that we don't want to commit to
> on the newly - exposed data. And we should also ensure that by
> exposing this information, we don't preclude changes such as the
> incorporation of the regex module (I don't know if the regex module
> has a bytecode implementation like the re module does).
The regex implementation is indeed something I would need to
investigate here, and will do so before I go too far.
> The next step is probably simply to raise a tracker issue for this. I
> know you said you have little C experience, but the big problem is
> that it's unlikely that any of the core devs with C experience will
> have the time or motivation to code up your idea. So without a working
> patch, and someone willing and able to respond to comments on the
> patch, it's not likely to progress.
Tracker issue is already filed: http://bugs.python.org/issue26336 I
actually filed the issue before I realized that the mailing lists were
a better place to discuss it.
> But if you are willing to dig into Python's C API yourself (and it
> sounds like you are) there are definitely people who will help you.
> You might want to join the core mentorship list (see
> http://pythonmentors.com/) where you should get plenty of assistance.
> This proposal sounds like a great "beginner" task, as well - so even
> if you don't want to implement it yourself, still put it on the
> tracker, and mark it as an "easy" change, and maybe some other
> newcomer who wants a task to help them learn the C API will pick it
> up.
I'll look into the mentorship list; thanks for the link. As for
marking it "easy", I don't seem to have the necessary permissions to
change the Keywords field; perhaps you or someone else can set that
flag for me? If so, I'd appreciate it. :-)
> Hope that helps - thanks for the suggestion and sorry if it seems like
> no-one was interested at first. It's an unfortunate fact of life
> around here that things *do* take time to get people's interest. You
> mention patience in one of your messages - that's definitely something
> you'll need to cultivate, I'm afraid... :-)
Patience is something I've been working on since I was a little kid.
I'm 29 years old now, and it still eludes me from time to time. But
yes, it's something I'll have to work on. :-P
Also, I received a small patch off-list from Petr Viktorin
implementing a getter for the code list (thanks, Petr). I'll need to
test it, but from the little I know of the C API it looks like it will
get me started in the right direction. Assuming that works, what's
left is a public constructor for the regex type (to enable
optimizers), a dis-like module, and docs and tests. I don't think this
would be major enough to require a PEP, but of course being new here,
I'm open to being told I'm wrong. :-)
tl;dr Let's exploit multiple cores by fixing up subinterpreters,
exposing them in Python, and adding a mechanism to safely share
objects between them.
This proposal is meant to be a shot over the bow, so to speak. I plan
on putting together a more complete PEP some time in the future, with
content that is more refined along with references to the appropriate
online resources.
Feedback appreciated! Offers to help even more so! :)
-eric
--------
Python's multi-core story is murky at best. Not only can we be more
clear on the matter, we can improve Python's support. The result of
any effort must make multi-core (i.e. parallelism) support in Python
obvious, unmistakable, and undeniable (and keep it Pythonic).
Currently we have several concurrency models represented via
threading, multiprocessing, asyncio, concurrent.futures (plus others
in the cheeseshop). However, in CPython the GIL means that we don't
have parallelism, except through multiprocessing which requires
trade-offs. (See Dave Beazley's talk at PyCon US 2015.)
This is a situation I'd like us to solve once and for all for a couple
of reasons. Firstly, it is a technical roadblock for some Python
developers, though I don't see that as a huge factor. Regardless,
secondly, it is especially a turnoff to folks looking into Python and
ultimately a PR issue. The solution boils down to natively supporting
multiple cores in Python code.
This is not a new topic. For a long time many have clamored for death
to the GIL. Several attempts have been made over the years and failed
to do it without sacrificing single-threaded performance.
Furthermore, removing the GIL is perhaps an obvious solution but not
the only one. Others include Trent Nelson's PyParallels, STM, and
other Python implementations..
Proposal
=======
In some personal correspondence Nick Coghlan, he summarized my
preferred approach as "the data storage separation of multiprocessing,
with the low message passing overhead of threading".
For Python 3.6:
* expose subinterpreters to Python in a new stdlib module: "subinterpreters"
* add a new SubinterpreterExecutor to concurrent.futures
* add a queue.Queue-like type that will be used to explicitly share
objects between subinterpreters
This is less simple than it might sound, but presents what I consider
the best option for getting a meaningful improvement into Python 3.6.
Also, I'm not convinced that the word "subinterpreter" properly
conveys the intent, for which subinterpreters is only part of the
picture. So I'm open to a better name.
Influences
========
Note that I'm drawing quite a bit of inspiration from elsewhere. The
idea of using subinterpreters to get this (more) efficient isolated
execution is not my own (I heard it from Nick). I have also spent
quite a bit of time and effort researching for this proposal. As part
of that, a number of people have provided invaluable insight and
encouragement as I've prepared, including Guido, Nick, Brett Cannon,
Barry Warsaw, and Larry Hastings.
Additionally, Hoare's "Communicating Sequential Processes" (CSP) has
been a big influence on this proposal. FYI, CSP is also the
inspiration for Go's concurrency model (e.g. goroutines, channels,
select). Dr. Sarah Mount, who has expertise in this area, has been
kind enough to agree to collaborate and even co-author the PEP that I
hope comes out of this proposal.
My interest in this improvement has been building for several years.
Recent events, including this year's language summit, have driven me
to push for something concrete in Python 3.6.
The subinterpreter Module
=====================
The subinterpreters module would look something like this (a la
threading/multiprocessing):
settrace()
setprofile()
stack_size()
active_count()
enumerate()
get_ident()
current_subinterpreter()
Subinterpreter(...)
id
is_alive()
running() -> Task or None
run(...) -> Task # wrapper around PyRun_*, auto-calls Task.start()
destroy()
Task(...) # analogous to a CSP process
id
exception()
# other stuff?
# for compatibility with threading.Thread:
name
ident
is_alive()
start()
run()
join()
Channel(...) # shared by passing as an arg to the subinterpreter-running func
# this API is a bit uncooked still...
pop()
push()
poison() # maybe
select() # maybe
Note that Channel objects will necessarily be shared in common between
subinterpreters (where bound). This sharing will happen when the one
or more of the parameters to the function passed to Task() is a
Channel. Thus the channel would be open to the (sub)interpreter
calling Task() (or Subinterpreter.run()) and to the new
subinterpreter. Also, other channels could be fed into such a shared
channel, whereby those channels would then likewise be shared between
the interpreters.
I don't know yet if this module should include *all* the essential
pieces to implement a complete CSP library. Given the inspiration
that CSP is providing, it may make sense to support it fully. It
would be interesting then if the implementation here allowed the
(complete?) formalisms provided by CSP (thus, e.g. rigorous proofs of
concurrent system models).
I expect there will also be a _subinterpreters module with low-level
implementation-specific details.
Related Ideas and Details Under Consideration
====================================
Some of these are details that need to be sorted out. Some are
secondary ideas that may be appropriate to address in this proposal or
may need to be tabled. I have some others but these should be
sufficient to demonstrate the range of points to consider.
* further coalesce the (concurrency/parallelism) abstractions between
threading, multiprocessing, asyncio, and this proposal
* only allow one running Task at a time per subinterpreter
* disallow threading within subinterpreters (with legacy support in C)
+ ignore/remove the GIL within subinterpreters (since they would be
single-threaded)
* use the GIL only in the main interpreter and for interaction between
subinterpreters (and a "Local Interpreter Lock" for within a
subinterpreter)
* disallow forking within subinterpreters
* only allow passing plain functions to Task() and
Subinterpreter.run() (exclude closures, other callables)
* object ownership model
+ read-only in all but 1 subinterpreter
+ RW in all subinterpreters
+ only allow 1 subinterpreter to have any refcounts to an object
(except for channels)
* only allow immutable objects to be shared between subinterpreters
* for better immutability, move object ref counts into a separate table
* freeze (new machinery or memcopy or something) objects to make them
(at least temporarily) immutable
* expose a more complete CSP implementation in the stdlib (or make the
subinterpreters module more compliant)
* treat the main interpreter differently than subinterpreters (or
treat it exactly the same)
* add subinterpreter support to asyncio (the interplay between them
could be interesting)
Key Dependencies
================
There are a few related tasks/projects that will likely need to be
resolved before subinterpreters in CPython can be used in the proposed
manner. The proposal could implemented either way, but it will help
the multi-core effort if these are addressed first.
* fixes to subinterpreter support (there are a couple individuals who
should be able to provide the necessary insight)
* PEP 432 (will simplify several key implementation details)
* improvements to isolation between subinterpreters (file descriptors,
env vars, others)
Beyond those, the scale and technical scope of this project means that
I am unlikely to be able to do all the work myself to land this in
Python 3.6 (though I'd still give it my best shot). That will require
the involvement of various experts. I expect that the project is
divisible into multiple mostly independent pieces, so that will help.
Python Implementations
===================
They can correct me if I'm wrong, but from what I understand both
Jython and IronPython already have subinterpreter support. I'll be
soliciting feedback from the different Python implementors about
subinterpreter support.
C Extension Modules
=================
Subinterpreters already isolate extension modules (and built-in
modules, including sys). PEP 384 provides some help too. However,
global state in C can easily leak data between subinterpreters,
breaking the desired data isolation. This is something that will need
to be addressed as part of the effort.
The biggest pain with dealing with the peephole optimizer is that it happens after all the complicated flattening and fixup[^1] the compiler does, which means you have to hack up the jump targets as you go along. The future bytecode optimizers that PEP 511 enables will have the same headache.
But this isn't actually necessary. The optimizer could work on a flat array of instructions[^2] instead of an array of bytes, with relocatable jump targets instead of fixed byte offsets, and then the compiler could do the fixup _after_ the optimization.[^3]
It would break the optimizer APIs, but `PyCode_Optimize` isn't public, and the API proposed by PEP 511 is public, but that PEP isn't even finalized, much less accepted yet.
I don't think we need to expose the intermediate representation any farther along than the `PyCode_Optimize` step.[^4] Just moving the optimize one step earlier in the chain solves more than enough to be worth it.
[^1]: If you think numbering the offsets and emitting the jump targets is easy: Every time you fix up a jump, that may require adding an `EXTENDED_ARG`, which means you have to redo any fixups that cross the the current instruction. The compiler does this by just looping until it hasn't added any more `EXTENDED_ARG`s.
[^2]: In case anyone's thinking that wordcode would solve this problem, it doesn't. The `EXTENDED_ARG` jump targets are a much bigger hassle than the 1-or-3-byte-ops, and wordcode not only can't eliminate those, but makes `EXTENDED_ARG` more common.
[^3]: The compiler doesn't actually have exactly what the optimizers would want, but it's pretty close: it has a linked list of block objects, each of which has an array of instruction objects, with jump targets being pointers to blocks. That's actually even better to work with, but too complicated to expose to optimizers. Flattening it would be trivial. Or, if that's too expensive, we could do something almost as simple and much cheaper: convert it in-line to a deque-like linked list of arrays, with jump targets being indices or pointers into that. Or we could just expose the list of blocks as-is, as an opaque thing with a mutable-deque-of-instructions API around it.
[^4]: Later stages--import hooks, optimizing decorators, etc.--have the same pain as the peephole optimizer, but they also have code objects that contain other code objects, and they can be written in Python, and so on, so the same solution isn't feasible there. Of course we could add a function to convert bytecode back to a list of instructions, in some format that can be exposed to Python (in fact, `dis` already does 90% of that), and then another one to convert that back to bytecode and redo the fixup (which is basically the third-party `byteplay` module). But that's almost certainly overkill. (If we wanted that, I'd rather add `byteplay` to the stdlib, port it and `dis` to C, and expose a C API for them. And then we could use that for everything, including the peephole optimizer and PEP 511 optimizers. Which would all be really cool, but I think it's more work than we want to do, and I don't know if we'd actually want something like `byteplay` builtin even if it were easy...)
Hi,
Python 3 becomes more and more popular and is close to a dangerous point
where it can become popular that Python 2. The PSF decided that it's
time to elaborate a new secret plan to ensure that Python users suffer
again with a new major release breaking all their legacy code.
The PSF is happy to announce that the new Python release will be
Python 8!
Why the version 8? It's just to be greater than Perl 6 and PHP 7, but
it's also a mnemonic for PEP 8. By the way, each minor release will now
multiply the version by 2. With Python 8 released in 2016 and one
release every two years, we will beat Firefox 44 in 2022 (Python 64) and
Windows 2003 in 2032 (Python 2048).
A major release requires a major change to justify a version bump: the
new killer feature is that it's no longer possible to import a module
which does not respect the PEP 8. It ensures that all your code is pure.
Example:
$ python8 -c 'import keyword'
Lib/keyword.py:16:1: E122 continuation line missing indentation or outdented
Lib/keyword.py:16:1: E265 block comment should start with '# '
Lib/keyword.py:50:1: E122 continuation line missing indentation or outdented
(...)
ImportError: no pep8, no glory
Good news: since *no* module of the current standard library of Python 3
respect the PEP 8, the standard library will be simplified to one
unique module, which is new in Python 8: pep8. The standard library will
move to the Python Cheeseshop (PyPI), to reply to an old and popular
request.
DON'T PANIC! You are still able to import your legacy code into
Python 8, you just have to rename all your modules to add a "_noqa" suffix
to the filename. For example, rename utils.py to utils_noqa.py. A side
effect is that you have to update all imports. For example, replace
"import django" with "import django_noqa". After a study of the PSF,
it's a best option to split again the Python community and make sure
that all users are angry.
The plan is that in 10 years, at least 50% of the 77,000 packages on the
Python cheeseshop will be updated to get the "_noqa" tag. After 2020,
the PSF will start to sponsor trolls to harass users of the legacy
Python 3 to force them to migrate to Python 8.
Python 8 is a work-in-progress (it's still an alpha version), the
standard library was not removed yet. Hopefully, trying to import any
module of the standard library fails.
Don't hesitate to propose more ideas to make Python 8 more incompatible
with Python 3!
Note: The change is already effective in the default branch of Python:
https://hg.python.org/cpython/rev/9aedec2dbc01
Have fun,
Victor
Hi Python-ideas,
this is a follow up from an thread of Python-List:
https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-list/2016-March/705205.html
What do you think about the following proposal?
*Abstract*
Control structures such as "for", "while" and "try" feature some various
additional clauses being executed under certain conditions. This
proposal adds another extra clause to "for" and "while" in order to
provide an easy way to discover whether the body of a loop as never been
executed at all.
*Motivation**
*Coming from the Web application development, we periodically can see a
benefit of a hypothetical "empty" clause of Python's for loop like this:
for item in my_iterator:
# do per item
empty:
# do something else
The same goes for "while" although there the choice of the name "empty"
might be questionable. "empty" refers to the involved iterable which is
not really existing in case of "while". However, there is not need of
introducing inconsistencies among the loop constructs as both feature
the "else" clause as well. Better suggestions are welcome; also see the
keyword section.
*Keyword*
Keywords under consideration have been in (an attempt of dispassionate)
order of preference:
1) empty -> most obvious, most people responded with a solution to solve
the intended problem
2) else -> already taken but to some would be the preferred one
3) or -> as alternative if a new keyword is too much
4) except -> as alternative if a new keyword is too much
5) instead -> less obvious and new keyword
*Use-Cases*
1) As humans mostly have a hard time to discover the difference between
*nothing**as error* and *nothing**as really empty*, GUI/Web interfaces
display an explicit notice in case of empty lists to signify the correct
execution of a process/action/search or the other case.
2) Single way and no boilerplate of handling empty loops. As the
discussion on Python-List showed are there quite some number of
different ways of achieving this kind of functionality.
3) Less errors in development and maintenance. Some of the proposed
solutions would not work in some circumstances (either during
development or depending on the type of the items) which can hide errors.
*Implementation*
To be done.
*Maintainer*
Me.
*Issues**
*People I talked to suggested "else" as an alternative to "empty"
because "empty is not quite clear". Unfortunately, "else" is already
taken and is itself not quite clear. "then" has been proposed as an
alternative for "else" in an attempt for proper understanding of "else".
If that would be an accepted proposal, it would make room for "else" to
be used for the usage of the "empty keyword proposed here.
*Related Work**
*This proposal is partly inspired by template engines like Django or
jinja2 which both already provide such facility.
Django:
{% for item in my_iterator %}
...
{% empty %}
...
{% endfor %}
jinja2:
{% for item in my_iterator %}
...
{% else %}
...
{% endfor %}
Best,
Sven
As a social scientists trying to help other social scientists move from
language like R, Stata, and Matlab into Python, one of the behaviors I've
found unnecessarily difficult to explain is the "file.open()/file.close()"
idiom (or, alternatively, context managers). In normal operating systems,
and many high level languages, saving is a one-step operation.
I understand there are situations where an open file handle is useful, but
it seems a simple `to_file` method on strings (essentially wrapping a
context-manager) would be really nice, as it would save users from learning
this idiom.
Apparently there's something like this in the Path library (
https://docs.python.org/dev/library/pathlib.html#pathlib.Path.write_text) ,
but I suspect most people have no idea about that method (I've been doing
python for years and this has always been a personal frustration, and I've
asked several others for better options and no one had one to offer), and
it seems like it would make much more sense as a string method. If someone
has a string they want to save to disk, I can't imagine anyone looking in
the Path library.
I respect the desire to avoid bloat -- the context manager or open/close
idiom has just felt unnecessarily complicated (dare I say unpythonic?) for
a common task.
Thanks!
Nick
