Ignore a new Flake8 whitespace error
Fixes#1157.
The new check is E305. Since we're now using the `--ignore` option, we have to list all the checks that are ignored by default, too.
I decided that ignoring E305 was better than changing the whitespace it was complaining about because, in at least some cases in our current codebase, single blank lines are used to indicate that several top-level definitions are associated with each other. Don't try to ignore the undocumented Flake8 error W504.
Per the straw poll in #908, as an alternative to #1147.
Now you must use `True`, `False`, and `None`, as in Python. Or just assign `true` to `True`, etc.; the old synonyms aren't reserved words anymore.
In Python 2.x (range 10) is mapped to xrange(10) in Python
terms. However, xrange doesn't support slicing, which caused tests to
fail. By forxing xrange into list, we have slicing available.
Give `require` the same features as `import`
You can now do (require foo), (require [foo [a b c]]), (require [foo [*]]), and (require [foo :as bar]). The first and last forms get you macros named foo.a, foo.b, etc. or bar.a, bar.b, etc., respectively. The second form only gets the macros in the list.
Implements #1118 and perhaps partly addresses #277.
N.B. The new meaning of (require foo) will cause all existing code that uses macros to break. Simply replace these forms with (require [foo [*]]) to get your code working again.
There's a bit of a hack involved in the forms (require foo) or (require [foo :as bar]). When you call (foo.a ...) or (bar.a ...), Hy doesn't actually look inside modules. Instead, these (require ...) forms give the macros names that have periods in them, which happens to work fine with the way Hy finds and interprets macro calls.
* Make `require` syntax stricter and add tests
* Update documentation for `require`
* Documentation wording improvements
* Allow :as in `require` name lists
This allows them to be used with numeric types that aren't built in, such as NumPy arrays. Because Python uses duck typing, there's generally no way to know in advance whether a given value will accept a given operator. Of course, things like `(inc "hello")` will still raise a `TypeError`, because so does `(+ "hello" 1)`.
