Good day all,
as a continuation of thread "OS related file operations (copy, move,
delete, rename...) should be placed into one module"
https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-ideas/2017-January/044217.html
please consider making pathlib to a central file system module with putting
file operations (copy, move, delete, rmtree etc) into pathlib.
BR,
George
> On Friday, April 6, 2018 at 8:14:30 AM UTC-7, Guido van Rossum wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 6, 2018 at 7:47 AM, Peter O'Connor <peter.ed...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>> So some more humble proposals would be:
>>
>> 1) An initializer to itertools.accumulate
>> functools.reduce already has an initializer, I can't see any controversy to adding an initializer to itertools.accumulate
>
> See if that's accepted in the bug tracker.
It did come-up once but was closed for a number reasons including lack of use cases. However, Peter's signal processing example does sound interesting, so we could re-open the discussion.
For those who want to think through the pluses and minuses, I've put together a Q&A as food for thought (see below). Everybody's design instincts are different -- I'm curious what you all think think about the proposal.
Raymond
---------------------------------------------
Q. Can it be done?
A. Yes, it wouldn't be hard.
_sentinel = object()
def accumulate(iterable, func=operator.add, start=_sentinel):
it = iter(iterable)
if start is _sentinel:
try:
total = next(it)
except StopIteration:
return
else:
total = start
yield total
for element in it:
total = func(total, element)
yield total
Q. Do other languages do it?
A. Numpy, no. R, no. APL, no. Mathematica, no. Haskell, yes.
* http://docs.scipy.org/doc/numpy/reference/generated/numpy.ufunc.accumulat...
* https://stat.ethz.ch/R-manual/R-devel/library/base/html/cumsum.html
* http://microapl.com/apl/apl_concepts_chapter5.html
\+ 1 2 3 4 5
1 3 6 10 15
* https://reference.wolfram.com/language/ref/Accumulate.html
* https://www.haskell.org/hoogle/?hoogle=mapAccumL
Q. How much work for a person to do it currently?
A. Almost zero effort to write a simple helper function:
myaccum = lambda it, func, start: accumulate(chain([start], it), func)
Q. How common is the need?
A. Rare.
Q. Which would be better, a simple for-loop or a customized itertool?
A. The itertool is shorter but more opaque (especially with respect
to the argument order for the function call):
result = [start]
for x in iterable:
y = func(result[-1], x)
result.append(y)
versus:
result = list(accumulate(iterable, func, start=start))
Q. How readable is the proposed code?
A. Look at the following code and ask yourself what it does:
accumulate(range(4, 6), operator.mul, start=6)
Now test your understanding:
How many values are emitted?
What is the first value emitted?
Are the two sixes related?
What is this code trying to accomplish?
Q. Are there potential surprises or oddities?
A. Is it readily apparent which of assertions will succeed?
a1 = sum(range(10))
a2 = sum(range(10), 0)
assert a1 == a2
a3 = functools.reduce(operator.add, range(10))
a4 = functools.reduce(operator.add, range(10), 0)
assert a3 == a4
a4 = list(accumulate(range(10), operator.add))
a5 = list(accumulate(range(10), operator.add, start=0))
assert a5 == a6
Q. What did the Python 3.0 Whatsnew document have to say about reduce()?
A. "Removed reduce(). Use functools.reduce() if you really need it; however, 99 percent of the time an explicit for loop is more readable."
Q. What would this look like in real code?
A. We have almost no real-world examples, but here is one from a StackExchange post:
def wsieve(): # wheel-sieve, by Will Ness. ideone.com/mqO25A->0hIE89
wh11 = [ 2,4,2,4,6,2,6,4,2,4,6,6, 2,6,4,2,6,4,6,8,4,2,4,2,
4,8,6,4,6,2,4,6,2,6,6,4, 2,4,6,2,6,4,2,4,2,10,2,10]
cs = accumulate(cycle(wh11), start=11)
yield( next( cs)) # cf. ideone.com/WFv4f
ps = wsieve() # codereview.stackexchange.com/q/92365/9064
p = next(ps) # 11
psq = p*p # 121
D = dict( zip( accumulate(wh11, start=0), count(0))) # start from
sieve = {}
for c in cs:
if c in sieve:
wheel = sieve.pop(c)
for m in wheel:
if not m in sieve:
break
sieve[m] = wheel # sieve[143] = wheel@187
elif c < psq:
yield c
else: # (c==psq)
# map (p*) (roll wh from p) = roll (wh*p) from (p*p)
x = [p*d for d in wh11]
i = D[ (p-11) % 210]
wheel = accumulate(cycle(x[i:] + x[:i]), start=psq)
p = next(ps) ; psq = p*p
next(wheel) ; m = next(wheel)
sieve[m] = wheel
Hey List,
this is my very first approach to suggest a Python improvement I'd think
worth discussing.
At some point, maybe with Dart 2.0 or a little earlier, Dart is now
supporting multiline strings with "proper" identation (tried, but I can't
find the according docs at the moment. probably due to the rather large
changes related to dart 2.0 and outdated docs.)
What I have in mind is probably best described with an Example:
print("""
I am a
multiline
String.
""")
the closing quote defines the "margin indentation" - so in this example all
lines would get reduces by their leading 4 spaces, resulting in a "clean"
and unintended string.
anyways, if dart or not, doesn't matter - I like the Idea and I think
python3.x could benefit from it. If that's possible at all :)
I could also imagine that this "indentation cleanup" only is applied if the
last quotes are on their own line? Might be too complicated though, I can't
estimated or understand this...
thx for reading,
Marius
I am sure this has been discussed before, and this might not even be the
best place for this discussion, but I just wanted to make sure this has
been thought about.
What if pypi.org supported private repos at a cost, similar to npm?
This would be able to help support the cost of pypi, and hopefully make it
better/more reliable, thus in turn improving the python community.
If this discussion should happen somewhere else, let me know.
Nick
On 5 April 2018 at 07:58, Jannis Gebauer <ja.geb(a)me.com> wrote:
> What if there was some kind of “blessed” entity that runs these services and puts the majority of the revenue into a fund that funds development on PyPi (maybe trough the PSF)?
Having a wholly owned for-profit subsidiary that provides commercial
services as a revenue raising mechanism is certainly one way to
approach something like this without alienating sponsors or tax
authorities (although it may still alienate the vendors of now
competing services). It would require a big time commitment on the PSF
side to get everything set up though, as well as interest from key
folks in joining what would essentially be a single-language-focused
start up in an already crowded cross-language developer tools
marketplace. When the PSF as a whole is still operating with only a
handful of full or part time employees, it's far from clear that
setting something like that up would be the most effective possible
use of their time and energy.
At a more basic level, that kind of arrangement technically doesn't
require anyone's blessing, it could be as straightforward as
downstream tooling vendors signing up as PSF sponsors and saying
"please allocate our sponsorship contribution to the Packaging WG's
budget so that PyPI keeps operating well and the PyPA tooling keeps
improving, increasing the level of demand for our commercial Python
repository management services".
Historically that wouldn't have helped much, since the PSF itself has
struggled with effective project management (for a variety of
reasons), but one of the things I think the success of the MOSS grant
has shown is the significant strides that the PSF has made in budget
management in recent years, such that if funding is made available, it
can and will be spent effectively.
Cheers,
Nick.
P.S. PyPA contributors are also free agents in their own right, so
folks offering Python-centric developer workflow management tools or
features may decide that it's worth their while to invest more
directly in smoothing out some of the rough edges that currently still
exist. It's a mercenary way of looking at things, but in many cases,
it is *absolutely* possible to pay for the time and attention of
existing contributors, and if you can persuade them that your
proposals are reasonable, they'll often have an easier time than most
convincing other community contributors that it's a good way to go :)
--
Nick Coghlan | ncoghlan(a)gmail.com | Brisbane, Australia
Hi folks,
I normally wouldn't bring something like this up here, except I think
that there is possibility of something to be done--a language
documentation clarification if nothing else, though possibly an actual
code change as well.
I've been having an argument with a colleague over the last couple
days over the proper way order of statements when setting up a
try/finally to perform cleanup of some action. On some level we're
both being stubborn I think, and I'm not looking for resolution as to
who's right/wrong or I wouldn't bring it to this list in the first
place. The original argument was over setting and later restoring
os.environ, but we ended up arguing over
threading.Lock.acquire/release which I think is a more interesting
example of the problem, and he did raise a good point that I do want
to bring up.
</prologue>
My colleague's contention is that given
lock = threading.Lock()
this is simply *wrong*:
lock.acquire()
try:
do_something()
finally:
lock.release()
whereas this is okay:
with lock:
do_something()
Ignoring other details of how threading.Lock is actually implemented,
assuming that Lock.__enter__ calls acquire() and Lock.__exit__ calls
release() then as far as I've known ever since Python 2.5 first came
out these two examples are semantically *equivalent*, and I can't find
any way of reading PEP 343 or the Python language reference that would
suggest otherwise.
However, there *is* a difference, and has to do with how signals are
handled, particularly w.r.t. context managers implemented in C (hence
we are talking CPython specifically):
If Lock.__enter__ is a pure Python method (even if it maybe calls some
C methods), and a SIGINT is handled during execution of that method,
then in almost all cases a KeyboardInterrupt exception will be raised
from within Lock.__enter__--this means the suite under the with:
statement is never evaluated, and Lock.__exit__ is never called. You
can be fairly sure the KeyboardInterrupt will be raised from somewhere
within a pure Python Lock.__enter__ because there will usually be at
least one remaining opcode to be evaluated, such as RETURN_VALUE.
Because of how delayed execution of signal handlers is implemented in
the pyeval main loop, this means the signal handler for SIGINT will be
called *before* RETURN_VALUE, resulting in the KeyboardInterrupt
exception being raised. Standard stuff.
However, if Lock.__enter__ is a PyCFunction things are quite
different. If you look at how the SETUP_WITH opcode is implemented,
it first calls the __enter__ method with _PyObjet_CallNoArg. If this
returns NULL (i.e. an exception occurred in __enter__) then "goto
error" is executed and the exception is raised. However if it returns
non-NULL the finally block is set up with PyFrame_BlockSetup and
execution proceeds to the next opcode. At this point a potentially
waiting SIGINT is handled, resulting in KeyboardInterrupt being raised
while inside the with statement's suite, and finally block, and hence
Lock.__exit__ are entered.
Long story short, because Lock.__enter__ is a C function, assuming
that it succeeds normally then
with lock:
do_something()
always guarantees that Lock.__exit__ will be called if a SIGINT was
handled inside Lock.__enter__, whereas with
lock.acquire()
try:
...
finally:
lock.release()
there is at last a small possibility that the SIGINT handler is called
after the CALL_FUNCTION op but before the try/finally block is entered
(e.g. before executing POP_TOP or SETUP_FINALLY). So the end result
is that the lock is held and never released after the
KeyboardInterrupt (whether or not it's handled somehow).
Whereas, again, if Lock.__enter__ is a pure Python function there's
less likely to be any difference (though I don't think the possibility
can be ruled out entirely).
At the very least I think this quirk of CPython should be mentioned
somewhere (since in all other cases the semantic meaning of the
"with:" statement is clear). However, I think it might be possible to
gain more consistency between these cases if pending signals are
checked/handled after any direct call to PyCFunction from within the
ceval loop.
Sorry for the tl;dr; any thoughts?
Hi,
For technical reasons, many functions of the Python standard libraries
implemented in C have positional-only parameters. Example:
-------
$ ./python
Python 3.7.0a0 (default, Feb 25 2017, 04:30:32)
>>> help(str.replace)
replace(self, old, new, count=-1, /) # <== notice "/" at the end
...
>>> "a".replace("x", "y") # ok
'a'
>>> "a".replace(old="x", new="y") # ERR!
TypeError: replace() takes at least 2 arguments (0 given)
-------
When converting the methods of the builtin str type to the internal
"Argument Clinic" tool (tool to generate the function signature,
function docstring and the code to parse arguments in C), I asked if
we should add support for keyword arguments in str.replace(). The
answer was quick: no! It's a deliberate design choice.
Quote of Yury Selivanov's message:
"""
I think Guido explicitly stated that he doesn't like the idea to
always allow keyword arguments for all methods. I.e. `str.find('aaa')`
just reads better than `str.find(needle='aaa')`. Essentially, the idea
is that for most of the builtins that accept one or two arguments,
positional-only parameters are better.
"""
http://bugs.python.org/issue29286#msg285578
I just noticed a module on PyPI to implement this behaviour on Python functions:
https://pypi.python.org/pypi/positional
My question is: would it make sense to implement this feature in
Python directly? If yes, what should be the syntax? Use "/" marker?
Use the @positional() decorator?
Do you see concrete cases where it's a deliberate choice to deny
passing arguments as keywords?
Don't you like writing int(x="123") instead of int("123")? :-) (I know
that Serhiy Storshake hates the name of the "x" parameter of the int
constructor ;-))
By the way, I read that "/" marker is unknown by almost all Python
developers, and [...] syntax should be preferred, but
inspect.signature() doesn't support this syntax. Maybe we should fix
signature() and use [...] format instead?
Replace "replace(self, old, new, count=-1, /)" with "replace(self,
old, new[, count=-1])" (or maybe even not document the default
value?).
Python 3.5 help (docstring) uses "S.replace(old, new[, count])".
Victor
Dear all,
In Python, I often find myself building lists where each element depends on
the last. This generally means making a for-loop, create an initial list,
and appending to it in the loop, or creating a generator-function. Both of
these feel more verbose than necessary.
I was thinking it would be nice to be able to encapsulate this common type
of operation into a more compact comprehension.
I propose a new "Reduce-Map" comprehension that allows us to write:
signal = [math.sin(i*0.01) + random.normalvariate(0, 0.1) for i in range(1000)]
smooth_signal = [average = (1-decay)*average + decay*x for x in signal
from average=0.]
Instead of:
def exponential_moving_average(signal: Iterable[float], decay: float,
initial_value: float=0.):
average = initial_value
for xt in signal:
average = (1-decay)*average + decay*xt
yield average
signal = [math.sin(i*0.01) + random.normalvariate(0, 0.1) for i in range(1000)]
smooth_signal = list(exponential_moving_average(signal, decay=0.05))
I've created a complete proposal at:
https://github.com/petered/peps/blob/master/pep-9999.rst , (and a
pull-request <https://github.com/python/peps/pull/609>) and I'd be
interested to hear what people think of this idea.
Combined with the new "last" builtin discussed in the proposal, this would
allow u to replace "reduce" with a more Pythonic comprehension-style
syntax.
- Peter
I personally would like a feature where instead of doing `from ... import
...` (which imports the specified items into the current namespace), one
could use something along the lines of `import <lib>.{ <mod1>, <mod2>, ...
}` such that the imported modules/attributes could be accessed as
`<lib>.<mod1>`, etc.
--
Thanks,
Julian DeMille
CEO, demilleTech, LLC
This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended
solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed.
If you have received this email in error please notify the system manager.
This message contains confidential information and is intended only for the
individual named. If you are not the named addressee you should not
disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail. Please notify the sender
immediately by e-mail if you have received this e-mail by mistake and
delete this e-mail from your system. If you are not the intended recipient
you are notified that disclosing, copying, distributing or taking any
action in reliance on the contents of this information is strictly
prohibited.
Just for fun - no complaint, no suggestion, just sharing a bit of code
that tickled me.
The docs for `itertools.tee()` contain a Python work-alike, which is
easy to follow. It gives each derived generator its own deque, and
when a new value is obtained from the original iterator it pushes that
value onto each of those deques.
Of course it's possible for them to share a single deque, but the code
gets more complicated. Is it possible to make it simpler instead?
What it "really" needs is a shared singly-linked list of values,
pointing from oldest value to newest. Then each derived generator can
just follow the links, and yield its next result in time independent
of the number of derived generators. But how do you know when a new
value needs to be obtained from the original iterator, and how do you
know when space for an older value can be recycled (because all of the
derived generators have yielded it)?
I ended up with almost a full page of code to do that, storing with
each value and link a count of the number of derived generators that
had yet to yield the value, effectively coding my own reference-count
scheme by hand, along with "head" and "tail" pointers to the ends of
the linked list that proved remarkably tricky to keep correct in all
cases.
Then I thought "this is stupid! Python already does reference
counting." Voila! Vast swaths of tedious code vanished, giving this
remarkably simple implementation:
def mytee(xs, n):
last = [None, None]
def gen(it, mylast):
nonlocal last
while True:
mylast = mylast[1]
if not mylast:
mylast = last[1] = last = [next(it), None]
yield mylast[0]
it = iter(xs)
return tuple(gen(it, last) for _ in range(n))
There's no need to keep a pointer to the start of the shared list at
all - we only need a pointer to the end of the list ("last"), and each
derived generator only needs a pointer to its own current position in
the list ("mylast").
What I find kind of hilarious is that it's no help at all as a
prototype for a C implementation: Python recycles stale `[next(it),
None]` pairs all by itself, when their internal refcounts fall to 0.
That's the hardest part.
BTW, I certainly don't suggest adding this to the itertools docs
either. While it's short and elegant, it's too subtle to grasp easily
- if you think "it's obvious", you haven't yet thought hard enough
about the problem ;-)
