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
Would it be reasonable to start deprecating this and eventually remove
it from the language?
--Guido van Rossum (python.org/~guido)
On 28 January 2017 at 02:11, C Anthony Risinger <anthony(a)xtfx.me> wrote:
> I can't articulate it we'll, or even fully isolate the reasons for it. All I
> really know is how I feel when peers ask me about Python or the reading I
> get when others speak about their experience using it. Python is absolutely
> one of my favorite languages to write, yet I find myself recommending
> against it, and watching others do the same. Python comes with caveats and
> detailed explanations out the gate and people simply perceive higher
> barriers and more chores.
Picking up on this and the comment you made in the original post
> With a still difficult distribution/compatibility story, I've watched dozens of instances
> where people choose something else, usually Node or Golang.
Can you explain why you recommend against Python, in a bit more
detail? If you are an enthusiastic Python user, but you are steering
people away from Python, then it would be worth understanding why.
As you mention end user applications and distribution, one of my first
questions would be what platform you work on. Following on from that,
what sort of end user applications are you looking at? If we're
talking here about games for iOS, then that's a much different
situation than GUI apps for Windows or command line tools for Linux.
My personal feeling is that Python happily works in the "Command line
tools for Linux" area (except possibly with regard to C extensions
where the plethora of Linux ABIs makes things hard). But other areas
less so. I've been having good experiences making standalone
applications with the new Windows "embedded" distributions, but that
is relatively new, and still has a lot of rough edges. I'm working on
a project to bundle a working zipapp with the embedded distribution to
make a standalone exe - would having something like that make any
difference in your environment?
So I think it would be good to understand precisely where and why you
feel that you need to recommend Go or Node over Python. It's possible
that we have to accept that your situation is simply not a use case
that Python is well suited for, but equally it may be that there's
something we can do.
The download button of https://www.python.org/ currently gives the
choice between Python 2.7 and 3.6. I read more and more articles
saying that we reached a point where Python 3 became more popular than
Python 2, Python 3 has now enough new features to convince developers,
Is it time to "hide" Python 2.7 from the default choice and only show
Python 3.6 *by default*?
For example, I expect a single big [DOWNLOAD] button which would start
the download of Python 3.6 for my platform.
If we cannot agree on hiding Python 2 by default, maybe we can at
least replace the big [DOWNLOAD] button of Python 2 with a smaller
button or replace it with a link to a different download page?
Latest news: Django 2.0 and Pyramid 2.0 will simply drop Python 2 support.
OS related file operations (copy, move, delete, rename...) should be placed
into one module...
As it quite confusing that they are in two moduls (os and shutil).
I have read that one is higher level than other, but actually to use them I
have to think which function can be found in which module.
It is confuse for beginners, and makes the usage more complex instead of
make it more simple (as Zen of Python says ;-) )
An alias could good, not to cause incompatibility.
The french translation of the Python Documentation  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
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  and
IETF goes by using a dash .
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)  github  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
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  is used to generate `docs.python.org`, I
proposed a patch in  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  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  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 
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.
I find this type of code quite often:
def mymethod(self, foo, **kwargs):
# Do something
What about creating a decorator to call super() after/before the overrided
method? Something like that:
def mymethod(self, foo):
# Do something
Sorry if this has already been proposed, I have not found anything similar
in the list.
I’m relatively new to the world of python but in my short time here I’ve fallen in love with how readable this language is. One issue that I’ve seen in a lot of languages struggle with is nested function calls. Parenthesis when nested inherently create readability issues. I stumbled upon what I believe is an elegant solution within the elm platform in their use of the backward pipe operator <|.
This aligns with the Zen of Python in the following ways
Simple is better than complex
Flat is better than nested
Sparse is better than dense
Practicality beats purity
Ways it may conflict
Explicit is better than implicit
Special cases aren't special enough to break the rules
Just curious to see what the rest of the community thinks 😊
It's an apples/oranges comparison.
.NET is a library that can be used from many languages, including Python.
(Not just IronPython, but also Python for .NET (pythonnet.sourceforge*.*net
Python is a language that can use many libraries, including .NET
The set of libraries that can be used from all the languages that can also
use .NET (out of the box, that is) is smaller.
Resending because Google Groups handling of mailing lists is broken
:-( Sorry to anyone who gets double posts.
On 27 January 2017 at 08:39, Paul Moore <p.f.moore(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> On 27 January 2017 at 06:22, Denis Akhiyarov <denis.akhiyarov(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>> The problem is not in Python packages, but when gluing Python with other Windows apps or libraries.
> I would argue that anyone doing that is capable of looking for the
> version they need. The proposal is simply to make the 64-bit version
> what we offer by default, not to remove the 32-bit versions or even to
> make them less prominent anywhere other than on the front page.
I would like to suggest that globals should follow the existing rule
(followed by the import statement, the if statement and in other places)
for extending beyond 1 line using parentheses.
globals (var_1, var_2,
instead of what must be done now, which is:
globals var_1, var_2 \