pfalcon

7 ms·

1.
by pfalcon 5y ago
> Check out the READMEs Ok. Tried https://github.com/RiftValleySoftware/RVS_Spinner . >> WHAT PROBLEM DOES THIS SOLVE? Looks like too many caps in titles to me, I'm mildly scared.
2.
by pfalcon 5y ago
If you really want to get paid for developing open source, nowadays you pretty easily can. But that likely won't be your own code.
3.
by pfalcon 5y ago
HTML parser is trivial. There's a huge difference between HTML parser and HTML rendering engine. "A minimal browser" which you allegedly wrote isn't something you or anyone else does, or would, use.
4.
by pfalcon 6y ago
> I'd also like to see how well RISC-V is supported by Cosmpolitan. Not at all. The whole idea is based on limiting your outlook to x86_64. So, Cosmopolitan is definitely cool, but a bit less cool than some people think.
5.
by pfalcon 6y ago
> for my own projects I have come to the point at avoiding python for new stuff. But who are you, do I know you? I know some guy who said that about Python and now develops his own Python-like language. Is that you? Because if you just c
6.
by pfalcon 6y ago
> you see that it makes perfect sense for a programming language like Python, too, to make only backwards-compatible changes That's exactly what Python does of course (except when purposely otherwise, like 2->3 transition). And o
7.
by pfalcon 6y ago
For as long as you're a human and belong to category of "people", you can answer that question as good as anyone else. And your answer is ...? (Just in case my answer is: https://github.com/pfalcon/python
8.
by pfalcon 6y ago
> My simple policy will be stand against any usage of this language feature in any code I write or contribute to. Dude, you're just like me! I have the same attitude towards f-strings ;-). Except I know that I will use them sooner o
9.
by pfalcon 6y ago
The fact that you weren't even aware that 3rd-party pattern matching solutions for Python existed before, makes me hard to believe that will put your actions where your words are. Mere searching on Github would gives 156 hits: https:&
10.
by pfalcon 6y ago
First of all, macro systems for Python exist for decades (just as long as pattern matching, and indeed, many patmatching implementations are done as macros). One well-know example of both is https://macropy3.readthedocs.io/e
11.
by pfalcon 6y ago
The Linux kernel has a document imaginatively called "stable API nonsense": https://www.kernel.org/doc/Documentation/process/stable-api-... But the talk was not about that, it was about the fact tha
12.
by pfalcon 6y ago
> What's wrong with multiple implementations? It's absolutely great, and I'm saying that as someone working 5+ years on an alternative Python dialect (exactly with a motto of "down with toxic lead-acid batteries"
13.
by pfalcon 6y ago
> I'm saying that 'case' is literally a function definition And I don't agree with saying it like that. I would agree with "a 'case' could be seen as a function definition". In other words, that&
14.
by pfalcon 6y ago
> It's still hosted there on the PEP site. On the PEP site, https://www.python.org/dev/peps/ , there're a lot of deadlocked PEPs, some of them a good and better would have been within, than without. &
15.
by pfalcon 6y ago
As said many times already, then you have the opposite problem - how to get value from "inner" to "outer" scope. If we talk about function scope, then it requires "nonlocal" declaration in the inner scope. From
16.
by pfalcon 6y ago
I mentioned that in other comments, and can repeat again, there were 2 choices: a) add initial pattern matching to reference Python implementation; b) throw all the work into /dev/null and get back to dark ages where pattern match
17.
by pfalcon 6y ago
Right. But the whole idea of Python scoping rules was to not burden people with the need to declare variables (instead, if you define one, it's accessible everywhere in the function). But yes, block-level scoping (as in C for example)
18.
by pfalcon 6y ago
> Python features after 3.8 and many others. Really, after 3.8? I thought 3.5 was a golden era? > Why not put up an effort on speeding things up, removing the GIL. That's exactly what requires corporate backing (removing is easy,
19.
by pfalcon 6y ago
The poll is from end of November, there was a lot of discussions since then.
20.
by pfalcon 6y ago
Interested in block-level scoping in Python? Please post on the python-ideas mailing list. Thanks.
21.
by pfalcon 6y ago
If you have automatic block-level scoping, then you have the opposite problem - you need to do extra leg-work to communicate a value to the surrounding scope. Anyway, anyone agrees that block-level scoping is useful. Interested in block-lev
22.
by pfalcon 6y ago
Interested in block-level scoping in Python? Please post on the python-ideas mailing list. Thanks.
23.
by pfalcon 6y ago
Interested in block-level scoping in Python? Please post on the python-ideas mailing list. Thanks.
24.
by pfalcon 6y ago
Thus, will be fixed sooner or later. (Sad it's not fixed right away, but neither me nor you proposed patches.)
25.
by pfalcon 6y ago
Exactly, Elixir is usually the only example given. So, how it makes sense to blame Python here is unclear. There's a proposal to add similar "sigils" to Python pattern matching, it just didn't make it yet.
26.
by pfalcon 6y ago
> I think they should have just gone the whole way and _not_ mutated outside variables. There seems to be little consistent with this addition to the language. Interested in block-level scoping in Python? Please post on the python-ideas
27.
by pfalcon 6y ago
No, we'll rather fix issues people see with it. Interested in block-level scoping in Python? Please post on the python-ideas mailing list. Thanks.
28.
by pfalcon 6y ago
Interested in block-level scoping in Python? Please post on the python-ideas mailing list. Thanks.
29.
by pfalcon 6y ago
> It would make even more sense for Python not to adopt language features that can't be made to behave consistently with the language's existing syntax and semantics Current match behavior is consistent with existing syntax and
30.
by pfalcon 6y ago
> EDIT: The lack of block scoped variable thing does seem like a wart right enough. This is not specific to "match" statement, but is a general issue in Python. And thus, needs to have a general solution, orthogonal to pattern

More ›