It’s not helping if some bitch on her menstrual cycle comes and spams her keyboard without any valid points

You’ve already previously been given warning for breaching our Code of Conduct section 3.5 (Hate Speech: Do not make remarks directed at sex, gender…). This is your third strike within 2 months and your account is now at risk of receiving a permanent ban if further breaches are made within 365 days.

Since this is strike 3, your account will be given a 14 days site-wide temporary ban.

- The programming.dev community team

If you don’t have anything positive or helpful to say, it would be better to just not reply. If you think the post shouldn’t be posted here, use the report function instead.

Please don’t stalk/harass our users, it can and will lead to a site wide ban if reported.

Looking at your instance handle, I hope/assume that your comment is supposed to be in lighthearted jest. However that would only be an assumption on my part and in general it’s not ok to say someone’s job/work tool is for [remarks directed at sex, gender, ethnicity, orientation, disabilities, etc…] per CoC 3.5.

Please take into consideration that members on this instance may be of different backgrounds than what you’re used to and interpets what you say differently. Further breaches of our Code of Conduct may lead to temporary or permament ban.

From the perspective of the admin team, as long as reports are consistently resolved in a timely manner we are happy.

If you have any questions or want help with finding extra moderators, feel free to ask it here or via DM, otherwise we also have a Discord server and a Matrix space where we can talk.

@jnovinger@programming.dev

Just a reminder that we sent you a DM some time ago, but have yet to receive an answer. Happy cake day :)

-The admin team

The person has previously been warned to stopped posting links to the site. They’ve now been given a temp ban, if that doesn’t deter them, they’ll be given a permanent ban and we might ban the site from our instance.

Please refrain from using personal insults in this community. You’re free to express your opinion, but personal insults does nothing but make the community more toxic. c/programming is a gathering ground for both inexperienced and experienced programmers, so this level of lashing out is uncalled for.

Personally I would recommend to use regex instead for parsing, which would also allow you to more easily test your expressions. You could then get the list as

import re
result = re.findall(r'[\w_]+|\S',  yourstring)  # This will preserve ULLONG_MAX as a single word if that's what you want

As for what’s wrong with your expressions:

First expression: Once you hit (, OneOrMore(Char(printables)) will take over and continue matching every printable char. Instead you should use OR (|) with the alphanumerical first for priority OneOrMore(word | Char(printables))

Second expression. You’re running into the same issue with your use of +. Once string.punctuation takes over, it will continue matching until it encounters a char that is not a punctuation and then stop the matching. Instead you can write:

parser = OneOrMore(Word(alphanums) | Word(string.punctuation))
result = parser.parseString(yourstring)

Do note that underscore is considered a punctutation so ULLONG_MAX will be split, not sure if that’s what you want or not.

I don’t have any experience with pipx and personally prefer to just skip the .toml and place the whole pyprojectsetup in setup.py.

With that method, I would write inside setup()

packages=find_packages()  # Include every python packages
package_data={  # Specify additional data files
    'yourpackagename': [
        'config/*'
        etc...
    ]
}

This would however require you to have a package folder which all your package files/folders are inside, meaning the top level repo folder should not have any files or other folders that you want to distribute. Your MANIFEST.in looks fine.

If you believe it’s an bug with our instance, try making a post over at !meta@programming.dev . Posting here is unlikely to grab the attention of an admin unless the post gets reported (which it did). Before that though, look up if isn’t just the more likely scenario of a general lemmy bug/quirk caused by mismatched lemmy versions, etc…

deleted by creator

deleted by creator

You can, but you may need to edit some registers to avoid windows reseting them.

match isn’t a protected keyword like if is.

match = 0
match match:
    case 0:
        print(0)
    case _:
        print(1)

Is legal and will give print out 0.

That’s interesting, thanks for the reply

Might as well start with a solid foundation from the start though. The extra work is minimal so there isn’t much of a time cost to it. I wouldn’t call it overengineering, it’s just a different way to write code, and the way many naturally default to without really thinking about it.

Those doesn’t break backwards compatibility though. Naturally you can’t use match with a python 3.7 interpreter, but what scripts written for python 3.7 wouldn’t work with a 3.11 interpreter?

I haven’t encountered that issue before, so I’m curious what those problems OP have encountered looks like.

That honestly makes me curious, what issues have you encountered when upgrading your python(3) version?

I get the point the author is coming from. When I was teaching first year engineering students programming, the one on the left is how everyone would write, it’s simply how human intuitively think about a process.

However, the one on the right feels more robust to me. For non trivial processes with multiple branches, it can ugly real quick if you haven’t isolated functionalities into smaller functions. The issue is never when you are first writing the function, but when you’re debugging or coming back to make changes.

What if you’re told the new Italian chef wants to have 15 different toppings, not just 2. He also got 3 new steps that must be done to prepare the dough before you can bake the pizza, and the heat of the oven will now depend on the different dough used. My first instinct if my code was the one on the left, would be to refactor it to make room for the new functionality. With the one on the right, the framework is already set and you can easily add new functions for preparing the dough and make a few changes to addToppings() and bake()

If I feel too lazy to write “proper” code and just make one big function for a process, I often end up regretting it and refactoring it into smaller, more manageable functions once I get back to the project the next day. It’s simply easier to wrap your head around

bakePizza() 
box()```
than reading the entire function and look for comments to mark each important step. The pizza got burned? Better take a look at `bakePizza()` then.