On 5/19/2020 4:53 PM, Rob Cliffe via Python-ideas wrote:
I have already replied to the OP and to the list, but there seems to be a problem with my posts getting through, so let me try again. Apologies if you see this twice:
To strip at most 1 character from the end: txt[:-1] + txt[-1:].rstrip(chars) To strip at most N characters: txt[:-N] + txt[-N:].rstrip(chars)
Assuming N==0 means "don't do anything", you'll to test for that case. Eric
Rob Cliffe
On 18/05/2020 19:32, Caleb Donovick wrote:
Certainly the way default arguments work with mutable types is not the most intuitive and I think your complaint has some merit.
However how would you define the following to work:
def foo(): cons = [set(), [], (),] funs = [] for ds in cons: def g(arg:=ds): return arg funs.append(g) return funs
How would you evaluate "ds" in the context of the call? If it were to have the same observable behavior as def g(arg=ds) except that you would get "fresh" reference on each invocation you would get the following:
assert [f() for f in foo()] == [set(), [], ()]
Note it cannot be a simple syntactic transform because:
class _MISSING: pass def foo(): cons = [set(), [], (),] funs = [] for ds in cons: def g(arg=_MISSING): if arg is _MISSING: arg = eval('ds') # equivalent to arg = ds so does not produce a fresh reference return arg funs.append(g) return funs
assert [f() for f in foo()] == [(), (), ()]
Granted the way closures work (especially in the context of loops) is also a pretty unintuitive, but stands as a barrier to easily implementing your desired behavior. And even if that wasn't the case we still have the issue that eval('ds') doesn't give you a fresh reference.
Wouldit implicitly deepcopy ds? e.g.:
class _MISSING: pass def build_g(default): def g(arg=_MISSING): if arg is _MISSING: arg = deepcopy(default) return arg return g
def foo(): cons = [set(), [], (),] funs = [] for ds in cons: g = build_g(ds) funs.append(g) return funs
What if ds doesn't implement __deepcopy__?
On Mon, May 18, 2020 at 7:11 AM Richard Damon
mailto:Richard@damon-family.org> wrote: On 5/18/20 9:06 AM, James Lu wrote: > "There should be one-- and preferably only one --obvious way to do it."
*obvious*
multiple ways are allowed as long as there is one clear preference.
-- Richard Damon _______________________________________________ Python-ideas mailing list -- python-ideas@python.org mailto:python-ideas@python.org To unsubscribe send an email to python-ideas-leave@python.org mailto:python-ideas-leave@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman3/lists/python-ideas.python.org/ Message archived at https://mail.python.org/archives/list/python-ideas@python.org/message/PCAVU6... Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
_______________________________________________ Python-ideas mailing list --python-ideas@python.org To unsubscribe send an email topython-ideas-leave@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman3/lists/python-ideas.python.org/ Message archived athttps://mail.python.org/archives/list/python-ideas@python.org/message/YE77WS... Code of Conduct:http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
_______________________________________________ Python-ideas mailing list -- python-ideas@python.org To unsubscribe send an email to python-ideas-leave@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman3/lists/python-ideas.python.org/ Message archived at https://mail.python.org/archives/list/python-ideas@python.org/message/QG6OFY... Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/