Differences between revisions 45 and 46
Revision 45 as of 2006-01-19 22:42:20
Size: 17592
Editor: 84
Comment: == New binary operator symbols ≤ ≥ ≠ ==
Revision 46 as of 2006-01-19 23:22:36
Size: 18929
Editor: IanBicking
Comment:
Deletions are marked like this. Additions are marked like this.
Line 96: Line 96:
Agreed, only comparison operators ({{{==}}}, {{{>}}}, {{{<}}}) should return True/False, leave and/or as is ''Unnecessary if:else: statements to take the place of the current "or" behavior make my soul hurt. I use "and" sometimes, typically like {{{bar = foo and foo.get('bar')}}} when {{{foo}}} might be None or a dictionary. -- IanBicking''

Agreed, only comparison operators ({{{==}}}, {{{>}}}, {{{<}}}) should return True/False, leave and/or as is ''(Note: the comparison operators do *not* return only True/False; they can return any value, as used by Numeric and SQLObject)''
Line 147: Line 149:
This could simply be implemented in {{{Exception.__str__}}} when {{{args}}} is empty.
Line 165: Line 169:

''I have never see {{{__slots__}}} misused, or used much at all, so maybe in typical real projects misuse isn't much of an issue? -- IanBicking''
Line 197: Line 203:
  ''Using exceptions in normal control flow is very typical in Python code, so not everyone agrees -- IanBicking''
Line 202: Line 210:

  ''Some people will argue that copy is hard, and deepcopy nearly impossible, to do "right" for a typical program, and so you shouldn't encourage these to be used generally. For specific data types -- like dictionaries and lists -- there are simple idioms for copies. -- IanBicking''
Line 236: Line 246:

  The default {{{__iter__}}} implementation could potentially check if {{{self.keys}}} is also the default implementation, and if not then it calls that method. {{{keys}}} in turn calls {{{list(self)}}} always. -- IanBicking
Line 354: Line 366:
  Would that disallow {{{a, b == func()}}} ? That would make me very sad. -- IanBicking

Other syntax ideas and feature ideas for ["Python3.0"] .

TableOfContents()

New binary operator symbols ≤ ≥ ≠

these operators ≤ ≥ ≠ should be added to the language having the following meaning:

  • <= >= !=

this should improve readibility (and make language more accessible to beginners).

This should be an evolution similar to the digraphe and trigraph (digramme et trigramme) from C and C++ languages. In C, "<%" or "??<" mean "{" such as.

gcc -trigraphs a.c

??=include <stdio.h>

int main(int argc, char *argv ??( ??) )
        ??<
        printf ("hello world\n");
        ??>

Optional Static Typing / Adaptation

Lambda / Anonymous Methods / Closures

".." Sequences, Custom Infix Operators

Improved default value logic for Dictionaries

  • The setdefault() method is badly named and poorly designed. In a typical call, d.setdefault.(k, []).append(v), the list may be unnecessarily instantiated and discarded on every call. At a minimum, default value should be a new empty list instead of None:  d.setdefault(k).append(v) .

  • A more versatile idea is to realize that defaults generalize to the whole dictionary instead of an individual lookup. A call to setdefault would then change the whole dictionary's behavior when a key is not found:

    counts = {}
    counts.setdefault(value=0)
    for elem in data:
        counts[elem] += 1

    index = {}
    index.setdefault(function=list)
    for pageno, page in enumerate(pages):
        for line in page:
            for word in line.split():
                 index[word].append(line)

Note that it's not really necessary that setdefault() take *args and **kwargs arguments to be passed to the function; PEP 309 allows a reasonable solution to this problem:

   1 from functional import partial
   2 d.setdefault(function=partial(list, [0]))
   3 d.setdefault(function=partial(dict, a=0, b=1))

Better boolean logic

The and/or operators should only return boolean values. This makes their use less error-prone, less prone to abuse, and more closely match other languages. Also, it will simplify the underlying bytecode which currently inserts many POP_TOP instructions to complete conditionals. The need to insert these instructions also results in extra code paths and jump instructions. Overall, the language will become more intuitive, more reliable, simpler, and faster.

  • While I agree with your points. I would find "Better boolean logic" counter-productive in many instances. I personally prefer the former of these examples as the latter slows me down and, in my case, invites errors. {{{return a() or 'b'

#---

temp = a() if temp:

  • return temp

else:

  • return 'b'

}}}The latter structure always makes me shudder. I've never encountered a good use for non-boolean output from "and" (in Python. Other languages are a different story.) but using "or" in the first example is both quicker and more intuitive for many people not to mention reducing code complexity.-- StephanSokolow

Unnecessary if:else: statements to take the place of the current "or" behavior make my soul hurt. I use "and" sometimes, typically like bar = foo and foo.get('bar') when foo might be None or a dictionary. -- IanBicking

Agreed, only comparison operators (==, >, <) should return True/False, leave and/or as is (Note: the comparison operators do *not* return only True/False; they can return any value, as used by Numeric and SQLObject)

::: some boolean operators should be added. {{{return a() b_or 'b'

a + b #should return a logic_or b for boolean a * b #should return a logic_and b for boolean

should return True or False

}}}

Disallow calling class methods from instances

Calling with a instance is almost never what you want. When it is done, the results are not especially readable, and the code suggests that it is doing something that it isn't:

{'a'=1}.fromkeys('poof') # what happened to 'a'? 

I disagree to this. Although calling class methods on the instance from the outside will usually be rubbish, it will very often be useful and intended behavour inside instances. For example:

class mydict(dict):
  def key_copy(self):
    return self.fromkeys(self)    

This will assert that whatever subclass of mydict is created and not some other class. One could argue though that this could be achieved by the more cluttersome self.__class__.fromkeys().

Simplify the syntax for raising exceptions

  • Eliminate string exceptions entirely.
  • Alway require instantation. IOW, prefer raise ValueError(dat) to raise ValueError, dat.

  • Require that all exceptions subclass from Exception.

  • Have Exception be a new-style class

Include docstrings when printing user-defined exceptions such as implemented by http://soiland.no/software/doc_exception.py:

>>> class IdiotError(Exception):
...    """Some idiot occured"""
...
>>> raise IdiotError
Traceback (most recent call last):
  File "<stdin>", line 1, in ?
__main__.IdiotError: Some idiot occured

This could simply be implemented in Exception.__str__ when args is empty.

Fix implementation of in-place operators

The current implementation will call __iadd__(), allowing it to do the in-place change, but then require that the method return the new value and then store it again. Ideally, all the responsibility for the update should lie with the __iadd__() method and it should return None. This simplifies the bytecode and eliminates some annoying behavior (such as a[0]+=1 succeeding and raising an error when a=([0],).

Remove the distinction between data and non-data decriptors

Having the distinction provides a tiny benefit but incurs a large cost in terms of implementation complexity and increasing the learning curve for descriptors. Using the presence or absence of a setter to distinquish the two is somewhat hackish and confuses the heck out of anyone first trying to master descriptors. Even after using descriptors for a while, that nuance remains an annoying distraction.

Note that descriptors are a somewhat advanced feature, not really expected to be used by beginners or on a day to day basis, so the extra flexibilty given by by the data/non-data descriptors distinction may still be worth the small extra complexity it adds to the protocol .

Reconsider the inclusion of __slots__ or re-evaluate its implementation

Guido has expressed that this is a highly popular, but badly misunderstood tool that is often used incorrectly.

  • If __slots__ is misspelled, there is no visible indication of failure.

  • The purpose of the tool is not to make it more difficult to assign attributes.

  • __slots__ do not inherit.

  • __slots__ complicates and slows the implementation of new-style classes.

I have never see __slots__ misused, or used much at all, so maybe in typical real projects misuse isn't much of an issue? -- IanBicking

Extra operators for strings and lists

Operators as - & | ^ should be used for strings and lists directly in place of first making a set data type (see [http://www.python.org/peps/pep-0218.html PEP 218 - Adding a Built-In Set Object Type]).

The operators /, * and % could also be used to split and stitch strings and lists:

   1 # split:
   2 'spameggsham' / 'a' == 'spameggsham'.split('a') == ['sp', 'meggsh', 'm']
   3 # remainder:
   4 'spameggsham' % 'a' == 'aa'
   5 # stitch:
   6 ['sp', 'meggsh', 'm'] * 'a' == 'spameggsham'
   7 
   8 # split list:
   9 [1, 2, 3, 4, 5] / [2, 3] == [[1], [4, 5]]
  • 'spameggsham' % 'a' == 'aa' is sort of unclear, and .count('a') works just as well. The others sound fine.-- ChrisRebert

Move rarely-used builtins to the library

pow() to the math module!

Don't remove callable()

Please don't. There are times where you want to know if an object is callable without calling it. For instance if you create a metaclass and need to wrap defined methods passed to __new__, and don't want to wrap class variables.

  • Why use callable() then? Isn't this what inspect.ismethod(), .isfunction() etc. are for? --StevenBethard

In addition, using exceptions for normal control flow is not good code style.

  • Using exceptions in normal control flow is very typical in Python code, so not everyone agrees -- IanBicking

Make API of set, list, dict more consistent

No need for copy function. A clear function for all of them.

Make copy and deepcopy built-ins, replace copy methods by __copy__

It would clarify how copy should be done.

  • Some people will argue that copy is hard, and deepcopy nearly impossible, to do "right" for a typical program, and so you shouldn't encourage these to be used generally. For specific data types -- like dictionaries and lists -- there are simple idioms for copies. -- IanBicking

Don't remove cmp() and __cmp__

Even if it looks TMTOWTDI, it makes implementing comparison so easy that it must be kept. It TOOWTDI is important, maybe only keep cmp?

   1    def __cmp__(self, other):
   2       return cmp(self.member1, other.member1) or cmp(self.member2, other.member2)

Are rich comparisons really that much more complex?

   1    def __lt__(self, other):
   2       return (self.member1, other.member1) < (self.member2, other.member2)

Builtin Literal for sets

Make a set literal:

   1    # Use "< >"
   2    s = <'a', 'b', 'c'>
   3    
   4    # Or use "| |"
   5    s = |'a', 'b', 'c'|

Make extended function call syntax more iterator friendly

Extended function call syntax currently does not play well with iterators because it produces a tuple to be passed in to the function. This means API developers face a tough choice - either accept an iterator and make the function clumsier for use with a short sequence of specific variables (as the user of the API has to create a throwaway list or tuple), or use positional arguments and make the API iterator unfriendly (as an iterator passed via extended function call syntax gets unraveled and stuffed into a tuple).

If the extended function call syntax was able to avoid forcing the creation of the tuple, then the choice would be easy - always use the positional argument support.

Require __iter__() for DictMixin instead of keys()

Currently, UserDict.DictMixin requires the methods __getitem__(), __setitem__(), __delitem__(), and keys() to supply the appropriate other methods of the dict interface. I would prefer that it require __iter__() instead of keys(). [http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-list/2005-January/258569.html As I understand it], the fact that it uses keys() instead of __iter__() is mainly due to the order of introduction of keys() and __iter__(). Since keys() can easily be defined in terms of __iter__(), in Python 3.0, I'd like to see __iter__() be the required method instead. -- StevenBethard

  • The default __iter__ implementation could potentially check if self.keys is also the default implementation, and if not then it calls that method. keys in turn calls list(self) always. -- IanBicking

Raise the level of os module functions

Many/most functions in the os module are thin wrappers around their underlying POSIX namesakes. This can lead to some surprises. For example, os.rename won't rename a file across partitions. It may not (I don't know for sure) work on Windows if another program has the file open. -- SkipMontanaro

Parameterize functions that hardcode stdout or stderr

Some modules assume that their output should necessarily to to stdout or stderr. One example is the dis module. The functions/methods in such modules should be updated to accept an optional stream argument. -- SkipMontanaro

Module interface

  • Modules should support cleaning up after themselves on unloading, just like objects do. This is especially interesting for extension modules.

Stronger Distinction between Tuples & Lists

Guido has often indicated he thinks of tuples as something more akin to Pascal records or C structs than to arrays or lists. Still, people continue to treat them as immutable lists. There has been a fair amount of talk recently about creating "frozen" versions of mutable objects. That would allow them to be used as dictionary keys and remove a significant reason to treat tuples and lists (nearly) the same. For example:

    d = {}
    d[freeze([1,2,3])] = "happy"

If you no longer need tuples to masquerade as frozen lists, why not consider making the two types more distinct? Get rid of the sequence API for tuples (len(some_tuple) would raise an exception, no index or slice notation) and give them attributes. How about:

    color = (red=255, blue=17, green=0xcc)
    print color.blue * 3                     # prints 51
    another_color = tuple(favorite_color, green=0)
    print another_color == color             # prints False
    bad = tuple([1,2,3])                     # raises TypeError exception

Storagewise they'd be much like current tuples (that is, cheaper than dicts) and they'd also be immutable. Field access would be via attribute.

What is the point? As long as you are calling it a structure, you might as well define it, so how is this different from

    class color(object):
        __slots__=("red", "blue", "green")
        def __init__(self, red=None, blue=None, green=None):
            self.red=red
            self.blue=blue
            self.green=green

And yes, I know that slots is not supposed to be used for limiting attributes, but it does work, and is still more flexible than using a tuple. And yes, I know that slots is awkward, but that is another issue. -- JimJJewett

Unifying generators

   1    # A generator:
   2    g = (x ** 2 for x in numbers)
   3    
   4    # A list:
   5    list(x ** 2 for x in numbers) == [x ** 2 for x in numbers]
   6    
   7    # A dict:
   8    dict((x, x ** 2) for x in numbers) == {x: x ** 2 for x in numbers}
   9    
  10    # A set:
  11    set(x ** 2 for x in numbers) == <x ** 2 for x in numbers>

Replace Integer Masks with Sets

(This idea was mentioned on c.l.py by Bryan Olson. I'm just recording it, though I agree it seems like a good idea. -- SkipMontanaro)

In places where Python usage currently uses a bitmask to specify a set of options it would be more Pythonic to instead use a set. For example, re.compile() accepts two args, a pattern and an optional set flags. Those flags are specified as integers bitwise-or-ed together:

    pat = re.compile("some pattern", re.I|re.S|re.X)

It seems it would be more Pythonic to use a set:

    pat = re.compile("some pattern", set(re.I, re.S, re.X))

The elements of the set wouldn't even need to be integers.

Replace abs() with | |

Use | | (like in mathematics) to get absolute value in place of the abs()-function:

   1    abs(-1) == |-1| == 1

Require Parens for Tuple Definition

This is a fairly common mistake:

   x = 1,

and results in x referring to a one-element tuple. I think Python 3.0 should require parens for all tuple literals. -- SkipMontanaro

  • Would that disallow a, b == func() ? That would make me very sad. -- IanBicking

Remove [<listcomp>] syntax in favor of list(<genexp>) syntax

Since Python 3.0 will retain generator expressions and therefore must support the list(...) syntax, I think the redundant [...] list comprehension syntax should be removed.

The main reasons to keep the [...] syntax:

  • it saves four characters of typing
  • it looks like list literals, so you'll know it's a list

The main reasons to remove it:

  • it does not provide any substantially different semantic support:
    • both expressions produce lists by iterating over some iterable(s)
  • it does not provide any substantially different syntactic support:
    • the allowed forms of <listcomp> and <genexp> expressions are identical

    • both the [...] and list(...) forms use parentheses/brackets, so the inner expression can be broken across lines in exactly the same ways

  • it doesn't look like other similar operations in Python, e.g. set(...), collections.deque(...), sorted(...), min(...), etc.

  • it looks like list literals, so you may not immediately realize the differences, e.g. that it's iterating over some iterable

I think the arguments for removing the redundant [...] form outweigh the arguments for retaining it. --StevenBethard

Python3.0Suggestions (last edited 2010-05-16 23:17:52 by modemcable054)

Unable to edit the page? See the FrontPage for instructions.