Відео

You could do that, but you would need to iterate over the iterable yourself. Using islice, that much is taken care of for you.

I talk about it in my video on descriptors. It's basically a type-safe, lazy-evaluated config class.

Pahaha, managed to miss that in recording AND editing 😅

Thanks for that explanation!

Very true, thanks for pointing that out! "Value just be greater than 0" is probably least ambiguous, rids the need for positive and negative completely.

Yeah same here! I only learned them in anger recently myself haha. A genetics video is planned!

@@khanra17 hey man, there are like, way more constructive ways to give this feedback. This is extremely rude

Also, I've seen you leave this same comment on multiple of his videos. That is, like, extremely weird lol

@@austinnar4494 You're more on the ball than I am lmao, I didn't even realise!

I find the way he explains concepts very clear compared to many other developer UA-camrs actually.

I mean, I did say that in the video. You would only want to use this for testing.

@@Carberra Its a really cool concept to see under the hood of Python, but I still think your doing something very wrong if you need to use this in production. If your function doesn't return anything and doesn't modify any outside state (an object passed in/global state) then what use does the function have? If your function modifies some global state that prevents you from testing normally then you're doing something wrong and need to refactor to pass in the objects you will modify. And finally if you are modifying an object passed in then you should be able to read the object's state from outside the function after it has run in the test. I really love your videos and the way you explain concepts, but I do think its a bit silly to say this has legitimate uses.

⁠@@carrotmanmatt ok, we get it. You don’t like it. Don’t use it. But for those of us who have a different viewpoint, this is a nice hacky thing to know about, if not to use. What if you have a function that has the signature you want, but it is not working? What if it is not your function and you want to observe its state? What if you keep your core simple and fix whatever weird bug is at hand, without introducing the permanent over-engineering you seem to prescribe, then yank it right back out? What if this technique rings a bell 2 years down when you are faced with a seemingly unrelated problem? Carberra only said not to use for real like 5 times.

@carrotmanmatt I only came up with this because I had an actual use case for it! At work, we have a function that sets up the Sentry SDK. This function takes in a number of configuration options, but calls sentry_sdk.init, then returns None. It also contains a closure function (enclosed function?) that is then passed to the init function. There's no sense in refactoring as the function never needs to return anything, and the enclosed function never needs to be run by anything else. This decorator allowed me to test the internal state and make sure all the internal configuration bits and pieces were functioning properly, and it also allowed me to rip the enclosed function out and test that to make sure it worked properly (thankfully, I confirmed it all already worked as expected). While you shouldn't use it in production code, using it to _test_ production code without making unnecessary modifications that affect UX is a valid use case for it. (Appreciate your kind words about the channel generally as well! 😄)

@@Carberra Still seems like a fairly odd use tbh. I feel like the cleaner solution would be to mock sentry_sdk.init.

Yeah that's what I was _trying_ to say and failed miserably lmao, thanks for that explanation!

@@Carberra haha np, and yeah I assumed you knew why, mostly just a hard thing to explain on the fly

Yeah it deffo can be haha. This is why I'm glad viewers leave comments like this, always good to have corrections/additional context! For myself as well as everyone else.

Yea, before the nonlocal keyword existed this was annoying. I typically did something like val = [None], then inside the function: val[0] = thing_I_want, and then outside refer to val[0] to get the value back. nonlocal makes this so much easier.

Fun fact: Eratosthenes was the first person to measure the size of the planet and got it to within 10% of the actual answer. Although we aren't totally certain on the length of the units he was using, the presumption is the Oympic Stade which is accurate. Regardless, the approach was sound. He put an upright stick in Alexandria at noon during solstice when the was no shadow and another in Syene at the same time where there was a shadow. Then by knowing the distance between the two spots and the angle of the shadow in Syene he could calculate the circumference of the planet with some basic trig. The dude rocked.

Absolute rip @ my pronunciation lmao. Pretty cool fact though! Guy seemed like he did quite a lot, amazed I'd never heard of him before now!

​@@Carberra Was a cool dude. Chief librarian to Great Library of Alexandria. Worked out the Earth's axial tilt. Made the first world map. He invented the field of chronology, estimating dates between events like the battles and whatnot. He found the distance to the sun and moon - I'm not sure off hand how accurate he got with those. Rather amusingly and famously, there's an ancient text from 190BC or thereabouts mocking him for always only being second best at everything.

Bloody hell, we have a lot to thank him for! I guess as far as that text is concerned at least, he also invented how to a jack of all trades, master at none 😅

@@Carberra Yeah, I'm filing his CV under "rubbish at python" and moving on. ;) Been a long time since I watched it but I'm pretty sure Carl Sagan covered him in Cosmos.