Python-ideas January 2019

python-ideas@python.org

67 participants
37 discussions

Make fnmatch.filter accept a tuple of patterns

by Andre Delfino

Frequently, while globbing, one needs to work with multiple extensions. I’d like to propose for fnmatch.filter to handle a tuple of patterns (while preserving the single str argument functionality, alas str.endswith), as a first step for glob.i?glob to accept multiple patterns as well. Here is the implementation I came up with: https://github.com/python/cpython/compare/master...andresdelfino:fnmatch-mu… If this is deemed reasonable, I’ll write tests and documentation updates. Any opinion?

3 weeks, 2 days

Dataclasses, keyword args, and inheritance

by George Leslie-Waksman

The proposed implementation of dataclasses prevents defining fields with defaults before fields without defaults. This can create limitations on logical grouping of fields and on inheritance. Take, for example, the case: @dataclass class Foo: some_default: dict = field(default_factory=dict) @dataclass class Bar(Foo): other_field: int this results in the error: 5 @dataclass ----> 6 class Bar(Foo): 7 other_field: int 8 ~/.pyenv/versions/3.6.2/envs/clover_pipeline/lib/python3.6/site-packages/dataclasses.py in dataclass(_cls, init, repr, eq, order, hash, frozen) 751 752 # We're called as @dataclass, with a class. --> 753 return wrap(_cls) 754 755 ~/.pyenv/versions/3.6.2/envs/clover_pipeline/lib/python3.6/site-packages/dataclasses.py in wrap(cls) 743 744 def wrap(cls): --> 745 return _process_class(cls, repr, eq, order, hash, init, frozen) 746 747 # See if we're being called as @dataclass or @dataclass(). ~/.pyenv/versions/3.6.2/envs/clover_pipeline/lib/python3.6/site-packages/dataclasses.py in _process_class(cls, repr, eq, order, hash, init, frozen) 675 # in __init__. Use "self" if possible. 676 '__dataclass_self__' if 'self' in fields --> 677 else 'self', 678 )) 679 if repr: ~/.pyenv/versions/3.6.2/envs/clover_pipeline/lib/python3.6/site-packages/dataclasses.py in _init_fn(fields, frozen, has_post_init, self_name) 422 seen_default = True 423 elif seen_default: --> 424 raise TypeError(f'non-default argument {f.name!r} ' 425 'follows default argument') 426 TypeError: non-default argument 'other_field' follows default argument I understand that this is a limitation of positional arguments because the effective __init__ signature is: def __init__(self, some_default: dict = <something>, other_field: int): However, keyword only arguments allow an entirely reasonable solution to this problem: def __init__(self, *, some_default: dict = <something>, other_field: int): And have the added benefit of making the fields in the __init__ call entirely explicit. So, I propose the addition of a keyword_only flag to the @dataclass decorator that renders the __init__ method using keyword only arguments: @dataclass(keyword_only=True) class Bar(Foo): other_field: int --George Leslie-Waksman

1 month, 1 week

@classproperty, @abc.abstractclasspropery, etc.

by K. Richard Pixley

There's a whole matrix of these and I'm wondering why the matrix is currently sparse rather than implementing them all. Or rather, why we can't stack them as: class foo(object): @classmethod @property def bar(cls, ...): ... Essentially the permutation are, I think: {'unadorned'|abc.abstract}{'normal'|static|class}{method|property|non-callable attribute}. concreteness implicit first arg type name comments {unadorned} {unadorned} method def foo(): exists now {unadorned} {unadorned} property @property exists now {unadorned} {unadorned} non-callable attribute x = 2 exists now {unadorned} static method @staticmethod exists now {unadorned} static property @staticproperty proposing {unadorned} static non-callable attribute {degenerate case - variables don't have arguments} unnecessary {unadorned} class method @classmethod exists now {unadorned} class property @classproperty or @classmethod;@property proposing {unadorned} class non-callable attribute {degenerate case - variables don't have arguments} unnecessary abc.abstract {unadorned} method @abc.abstractmethod exists now abc.abstract {unadorned} property @abc.abstractproperty exists now abc.abstract {unadorned} non-callable attribute @abc.abstractattribute or @abc.abstract;@attribute proposing abc.abstract static method @abc.abstractstaticmethod exists now abc.abstract static property @abc.staticproperty proposing abc.abstract static non-callable attribute {degenerate case - variables don't have arguments} unnecessary abc.abstract class method @abc.abstractclassmethod exists now abc.abstract class property @abc.abstractclassproperty proposing abc.abstract class non-callable attribute {degenerate case - variables don't have arguments} unnecessary I think the meanings of the new ones are pretty straightforward, but in case they are not... @staticproperty - like @property only without an implicit first argument. Allows the property to be called directly from the class without requiring a throw-away instance. @classproperty - like @property, only the implicit first argument to the method is the class. Allows the property to be called directly from the class without requiring a throw-away instance. @abc.abstractattribute - a simple, non-callable variable that must be overridden in subclasses @abc.abstractstaticproperty - like @abc.abstractproperty only for @staticproperty @abc.abstractclassproperty - like @abc.abstractproperty only for @classproperty --rich

4 months

Add the imath module

by Serhiy Storchaka

What are your thoughts about adding a new imath module for integer mathematics? It could contain the following functions: * factorial(n) Is just moved from the math module, but non-integer types are rejected. Currently math.factorial() accepts also integer floats like 3.0. It looks to me, the rationale was that at the time when math.factorial() was added, all function in the math module worked with floats. But now we can revise this decision. * gcd(n, m) Is just moved from the math module. * as_integer_ration(x) Equivalents to: def as_integer_ration(x): if hasattr(x, 'as_integer_ration'): return x.as_integer_ration() else: return (x.numerator, x.denominator) * binom(n, k) Returns factorial(n) // (factorial(k) * factorial(n-k)), but uses more efficient algorithm. * sqrt(n) Returns the largest integer r such that r**2 <= n and (r+1)**2 > n. * isprime(n) Tests if n is a prime number. * primes() Returns an iterator of prime numbers: 2, 3, 5, 7, 11, 13,... Are there more ideas?

1 year

Re: [Python-ideas] Allow star unpacking within an slice expression

by Neil Girdhar

I didn't think of this when we were discussing 448. I ran into this today, so I agree with you that it would be nice to have this. Best, Neil On Monday, December 4, 2017 at 1:02:09 AM UTC-5, Eric Wieser wrote: > > Hi, > > I've been thinking about the * unpacking operator while writing some numpy > code. PEP 448 allows the following: > > values = 1, *some_tuple, 2 > object[(1, *some_tuple, 2)] > > It seems reasonable to me that it should be extended to allow > > item = object[1, *some_tuple, 2] > item = object[1, *some_tuple, :] > > Was this overlooked in the original proposal, or deliberately rejected? > > Eric >

1 year, 1 month

Specify number of items to allocate for array.array() constructor

by Sven Rahmann

At the moment, the array module of the standard library allows to create arrays of different numeric types and to initialize them from an iterable (eg, another array). What's missing is the possiblity to specify the final size of the array (number of items), especially for large arrays. I'm thinking of suffix arrays (a text indexing data structure) for large texts, eg the human genome and its reverse complement (about 6 billion characters from the alphabet ACGT). The suffix array is a long int array of the same size (8 bytes per number, so it occupies about 48 GB memory). At the moment I am extending an array in chunks of several million items at a time at a time, which is slow and not elegant. The function below also initializes each item in the array to a given value (0 by default). Is there a reason why there the array.array constructor does not allow to simply specify the number of items that should be allocated? (I do not really care about the contents.) Would this be a worthwhile addition to / modification of the array module? My suggestions is to modify array generation in such a way that you could pass an iterator (as now) as second argument, but if you pass a single integer value, it should be treated as the number of items to allocate. Here is my current workaround (which is slow): def filled_array(typecode, n, value=0, bsize=(1<<22)): """returns a new array with given typecode (eg, "l" for long int, as in the array module) with n entries, initialized to the given value (default 0) """ a = array.array(typecode, [value]*bsize) x = array.array(typecode) r = n while r >= bsize: x.extend(a) r -= bsize x.extend([value]*r) return x

1 year, 1 month

Fixed point format for numbers with locale based separators

by Łukasz Stelmach

Hi, I would like to present two pull requests[1][2] implementing fixed point presentation of numbers and ask for comments. The first is mine. I learnt about the second after publishing mine. The only format using decimal separator from locale data for float/complex/decimal numbers at the moment is "n" which behaves like "g". The drawback of these formats, I would like to overcome, is the inability to print numbers ranging more than one order of magnitude with the same number of decimal digits without "manually" (with some additional custom code) adjusting precission. The other option is to "manually" replace "." as printed by "f" with a local decimal separator. Neither of these option is appealing to my. Formatting 1.23456789 * n (LC_ALL=3Dpl_PL.UTF-8) | n | ".2f" | ".3n" | |---+----------+----------| | 1 | 1.23 | 1,23 | | 2 | 12.35 | 12,3 | | 3 | 123.46 | 123 | | 4 | 1234.57 | 1,23e+03 | In the application I want to create I am going to present users numbers ranging up to 3 orders of magnitude and I (my users) want them to be presented consistently with regards to number of decimal digits AND I want to conform to rules of languages of my users. And I would like to avoid the exponent notation by all means. I can't say much about James Emerton's implementation or his intentions, but please take a look at our patches and give your comments so either of us or together we can implement this feature. PS. In theory both implementations could be merged because James chose to use "l" to use LC_MONETARY category and I chose "m" to use LC_NUMERIC. [1] https://github.com/python/cpython/pull/11405 [2] https://github.com/python/cpython/pull/8612 -- Miłego dnia, Łukasz Stelmach

1 year, 3 months

Please consider adding of functions file system operations to pathlib

by George Fischhof

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

1 year, 5 months

Start argument for itertools.accumulate() [Was: Proposal: A Reduce-Map Comprehension and a "last" builtin]

by Raymond Hettinger

> 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.accumulate.… * 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

1 year, 5 months

support toml for pyproject support

by Jimmy Girardet

Hi, I don't know if this was already debated but I don't know how to search in the whole archive of the list. For now the adoption of pyproject.toml file is more difficult because toml is not in the standard library. Each tool which wants to use pyproject.toml has to add a toml lib as a conditional or hard dependency. Since toml is now the standard configuration file format, it's strange the python does not support it in the stdlib lije it would have been strange to not have the configparser module. I know it's complicated to add more and more thing to the stdlib but I really think it is necessary for python packaging being more consistent. Maybe we could thought to a readonly lib to limit the added code. If it's conceivable, I'd be happy to help in it. Nice Day guys and girls. Jimmy

1 year, 8 months

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

Python-ideas January 2019