On 9/15/2010 8:55 PM, Jacob Kaplan-Moss wrote:
To try (again) to make things concrete here:
I didn't work to get Django running on Python 3.0 because it was just too slow.
Soon after 3.0 was released, it was discovered and acknowledged thay the
new I/O has some speed problems. (Why not
Why not? Since the I/O speed problem is fixed, I have no idea what you
are referring to. Please do be concrete.
There's still a performance issue with pickling, but if issue 3873 could
be resolved, Python 3 would actually be faster there.
- Hagen
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital
Hi All,
Following on from this question:
http://twistedmatrix.com/pipermail/twisted-python/2010-September/022877.html
...I'd thought that the correct names for distributions would have
been documented in one of:
http://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0345
http://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0376
On Wed, 15 Sep 2010 19:55:16 -0500
Jacob Kaplan-Moss ja...@jacobian.org wrote:
On Wed, Sep 15, 2010 at 6:31 PM, Jesse Noller jnol...@gmail.com wrote:
My goal (personally) is to make sure python 3.2 is perfectly good for use
in web applications, and is therefore a much more interesting
On Thu, Sep 16, 2010 at 8:26 AM, Antoine Pitrou solip...@pitrou.net wrote:
On Wed, 15 Sep 2010 19:55:16 -0500
Jacob Kaplan-Moss ja...@jacobian.org wrote:
On Wed, Sep 15, 2010 at 6:31 PM, Jesse Noller jnol...@gmail.com wrote:
My goal (personally) is to make sure python 3.2 is perfectly good
On Thu, Sep 16, 2010 at 10:26 PM, Antoine Pitrou solip...@pitrou.net wrote:
Why won't you feel confident? Are there any specific issues (apart from
the lack of a WSGI PEP)?
If they are technical problems, they should be reported on the bug
tracker.
If they are representational, cultural or
On Sep 16, 2010, at 11:28 PM, Nick Coghlan wrote:
There are some APIs that should be able to handle bytes *or* strings,
but the current use of string literals in their implementation means
that bytes don't work. This turns out to be a PITA for some networking
related code which really wants to be
On 16 September 2010 07:16, Terry Reedy tjre...@udel.edu wrote:
I'm not working to get Django running on Python 3.1 because I don't
feel confident I'll be able to put any apps I write into production.
Why not? Since the I/O speed problem is fixed, I have no idea what you are
referring to.
On Thu, 16 Sep 2010 09:52:48 -0400, Barry Warsaw ba...@python.org wrote:
On Sep 16, 2010, at 11:28 PM, Nick Coghlan wrote:
There are some APIs that should be able to handle bytes *or* strings,
but the current use of string literals in their implementation means
that bytes don't work. This
Maybe you want to mention *who* warns?
Georg
Am 13.09.2010 10:20, schrieb florent.xicluna:
Author: florent.xicluna
Date: Mon Sep 13 10:20:19 2010
New Revision: 84771
Log:
Silence warning about 1/0
Modified:
python/branches/release27-maint/Lib/test/test_io.py
Modified:
On Thu, 16 Sep 2010 17:27:50 +0200
Georg Brandl g.bra...@gmx.net wrote:
Maybe you want to mention *who* warns?
I suppose it's the -3 flag:
$ ~/cpython/27/python -3 -c 1/0
-c:1: DeprecationWarning: classic int division
Traceback (most recent call last):
File string, line 1, in module
That reminds me of the undocumented re.Scanner -- which is meant to do
exactly this. Wouldn't it be about time to document or remove it?
Georg
Am 16.09.2010 14:02, schrieb raymond.hettinger:
Author: raymond.hettinger
Date: Thu Sep 16 14:02:17 2010
New Revision: 84847
Log:
Add tokenizer
On Thu, Sep 16, 2010 at 09:52:48AM -0400, Barry Warsaw wrote:
On Sep 16, 2010, at 11:28 PM, Nick Coghlan wrote:
There are some APIs that should be able to handle bytes *or* strings,
but the current use of string literals in their implementation means
that bytes don't work. This turns out to
On Thu, 16 Sep 2010 11:30:12 -0400
R. David Murray rdmur...@bitdance.com wrote:
And then BaseHeader uses self.lit.colon, etc, when manipulating strings.
It also has to use slice notation rather than indexing when looking at
individual characters, which is a PITA but not terrible.
I'm not
On 16/09/2010 16:37, Georg Brandl wrote:
That reminds me of the undocumented re.Scanner -- which is meant to do
exactly this. Wouldn't it be about time to document or remove it?
There was a long discussion about this on the bug tracker (the
suggestion to document it was rejected at the
On Thu, Sep 16, 2010 at 8:42 AM, Toshio Kuratomi a.bad...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Sep 16, 2010 at 09:52:48AM -0400, Barry Warsaw wrote:
On Sep 16, 2010, at 11:28 PM, Nick Coghlan wrote:
There are some APIs that should be able to handle bytes *or* strings,
but the current use of string
On 16/09/2010, Guido van Rossum gu...@python.org wrote:
In all cases I can imagine where such polymorphic functions make
sense, the necessary and sufficient assumption should be that the
encoding is a superset of 7-bit(*) ASCII. This includes UTF-8, all
Latin-N variant, and AFAIK also the
On Thu, Sep 16, 2010 at 10:46 AM, Martin (gzlist) gzl...@googlemail.com wrote:
On 16/09/2010, Guido van Rossum gu...@python.org wrote:
In all cases I can imagine where such polymorphic functions make
sense, the necessary and sufficient assumption should be that the
encoding is a superset of
At 12:08 PM 9/16/2010 +0100, Chris Withers wrote:
Following on from this question:
http://twistedmatrix.com/pipermail/twisted-python/2010-September/022877.html
...I'd thought that the correct names for distributions would have
been documented in one of:
...
Where are the standards for this
On Thu, Sep 16, 2010 at 10:56:56AM -0700, Guido van Rossum wrote:
On Thu, Sep 16, 2010 at 10:46 AM, Martin (gzlist) gzl...@googlemail.com
wrote:
On 16/09/2010, Guido van Rossum gu...@python.org wrote:
In all cases I can imagine where such polymorphic functions make
sense, the necessary
At 12:08 PM 9/16/2010 +0100, Chris Withers wrote:
...I'd thought that the correct names for distributions would have
been documented in one of:
http://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0345
http://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0376
http://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0386
...but having read them, I
I am trying to rebujild the 2.7 maintenance branch and get this error
on Ubuntu 10.04.1 LTS:
XXX lineno: 743, opcode: 0
Traceback (most recent call last):
File /usr/local/src/python-2.7-maint-svn/Lib/site.py, line 62, in module
import os
File /usr/local/src/python-2.7-maint-svn/Lib/os.py,
On Thu, Sep 16, 2010 at 06:28, Nick Coghlan ncogh...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Sep 16, 2010 at 10:26 PM, Antoine Pitrou solip...@pitrou.net wrote:
Why won't you feel confident? Are there any specific issues (apart from
the lack of a WSGI PEP)?
If they are technical problems, they should be
Go ahead and file the bug, but chances are that some other installed
Python is executing the code and picking up the .pyc files which have
bytecode new to Python 2.7.
On Thu, Sep 16, 2010 at 11:41, Tom Browder tom.brow...@gmail.com wrote:
I am trying to rebujild the 2.7 maintenance branch and
On Thu, Sep 16, 2010 at 13:48, Brett Cannon br...@python.org wrote:
Go ahead and file the bug, but chances are that some other installed
Python is executing the code and picking up the .pyc files which have
bytecode new to Python 2.7.
But isn't that a problem with the build system? It seems
On Thu, Sep 16, 2010 at 9:59 AM, Paul Moore p.f.mo...@gmail.com wrote:
On 16 September 2010 07:16, Terry Reedy tjre...@udel.edu wrote:
I'm not working to get Django running on Python 3.1 because I don't
feel confident I'll be able to put any apps I write into production.
Why not? Since the
On Thu, Sep 16, 2010 at 11:16 AM, Toshio Kuratomi a.bad...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Sep 16, 2010 at 10:56:56AM -0700, Guido van Rossum wrote:
On Thu, Sep 16, 2010 at 10:46 AM, Martin (gzlist) gzl...@googlemail.com
wrote:
On 16/09/2010, Guido van Rossum gu...@python.org wrote:
In all
Please file the bug and it can be discussed further there.
On Thu, Sep 16, 2010 at 12:05, Tom Browder tom.brow...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Sep 16, 2010 at 13:48, Brett Cannon br...@python.org wrote:
Go ahead and file the bug, but chances are that some other installed
Python is executing the
On Sep 16, 2010, at 01:41 PM, Tom Browder wrote:
I am trying to rebujild the 2.7 maintenance branch and get this error
on Ubuntu 10.04.1 LTS:
I just tried this on my vanilla 10.04.1 system. I checked out release27-maint
ran configure make. It built without problem.
XXX lineno: 743, opcode: 0
On 16/09/2010, Guido van Rossum gu...@python.org wrote:
On Thu, Sep 16, 2010 at 11:16 AM, Toshio Kuratomi a.bad...@gmail.com
wrote:
You were talking about encodings that were supersets of 7-bit ASCII.
I think Martin was demonstrating a byte string that was a superset of
7-bit
ASCII being fed
On Thu, Sep 16, 2010 at 14:36, Barry Warsaw ba...@python.org wrote:
On Sep 16, 2010, at 01:41 PM, Tom Browder wrote:
I am trying to rebujild the 2.7 maintenance branch and get this error
on Ubuntu 10.04.1 LTS:
I just tried this on my vanilla 10.04.1 system. I checked out release27-maint
ran
On 9/16/2010 3:07 PM, Jacob Kaplan-Moss wrote:
On Thu, Sep 16, 2010 at 9:59 AM, Paul Moore p.f.mo...@gmail.com wrote:
On 16 September 2010 07:16, Terry Reedy tjre...@udel.edu wrote:
I'm not working to get Django running on Python 3.1 because I don't
feel confident I'll be able to put any apps
Le 15/09/2010 21:45, Tarek Ziadé a écrit :
Could we remove in any case the wsgiref.egg-info file ? Since we've
been working on a new format for that (PEP 376), that should be
starting to get used in the coming years, it'll be a bit of a
non-sense to have that metadata file in the sdtlib
On Sep 16, 2010, at 02:56 PM, Tom Browder wrote:
On Thu, Sep 16, 2010 at 14:36, Barry Warsaw ba...@python.org wrote:
When you say installed python 2.7 do you mean the one you
installed to /usr/local from a from-source build, or something else
(e.g. a Python 2.7 package perhaps)?
It was the
At 10:18 PM 9/16/2010 +0200, Ãric Araujo wrote:
Le 15/09/2010 21:45, Tarek Ziadé a écrit : Could we remove in
any case the wsgiref.egg-info file ? Since we've been working on a
new format for that (PEP 376), that should be starting to get used
in the coming years, it'll be a bit of a
On Thu, 16 Sep 2010 17:40:53 +0200, Antoine Pitrou solip...@pitrou.net wrote:
On Thu, 16 Sep 2010 11:30:12 -0400
R. David Murray rdmur...@bitdance.com wrote:
And then BaseHeader uses self.lit.colon, etc, when manipulating strings.
It also has to use slice notation rather than indexing
I'm attempting to file a bug but keep getting:
An error has occurred
A problem was encountered processing your request. The tracker
maintainers have been notified of the problem.
-Tom
Thomas M. Browder, Jr.
Niceville, Florida
USA
___
Python-Dev
Le jeudi 16 septembre 2010 23:10:22, Tom Browder a écrit :
I'm attempting to file a bug but keep getting:
File another bug about this bug!
--
Victor Stinner
http://www.haypocalc.com/
___
Python-Dev mailing list
Python-Dev@python.org
If you're talking about distutils2 on Python 3, then of course
anything goes: backward compatibility isn't an issue. For 2.x, not
writing the files would indeed produce backward compatibility problems.
I was talking about distutils in 3.2 (or in the release where
wsgiref.egg-info goes
On Thu, 16 Sep 2010 16:51:58 -0400
R. David Murray rdmur...@bitdance.com wrote:
What do we store in the model? We could say that the model is always
text. But then we lose information about the original bytes message,
and we can't reproduce it. For various reasons (mailman being a big one),
USAOn Thu, Sep 16, 2010 at 16:36, Victor Stinner
victor.stin...@haypocalc.com wrote:
Le jeudi 16 septembre 2010 23:10:22, Tom Browder a écrit :
I'm attempting to file a bug but keep getting:
File another bug about this bug!
I did, and eventually discovered the problem: I tried to nosy Barry
On Sep 16, 2010, at 4:51 PM, R. David Murray wrote:
Given a message, there are many times you want to serialize it as text
(for example, for presentation in a UI). You could provide alternate
serialization methods to get text out on demandbut then what if
someone wants to push that text
On Sep 16, 2010, at 06:11 PM, Glyph Lefkowitz wrote:
That may be a handy way to deal with some grotty internal
implementation details, but having a 'decode()' method is broken. The
thing I care about, as a consumer of this API, is that there is a
clearly defined Message interface, which gives me
On Sep 16, 2010, at 7:34 PM, Barry Warsaw wrote:
On Sep 16, 2010, at 06:11 PM, Glyph Lefkowitz wrote:
That may be a handy way to deal with some grotty internal
implementation details, but having a 'decode()' method is broken. The
thing I care about, as a consumer of this API, is that
On Thu, 16 Sep 2010 18:11:30 -0400, Glyph Lefkowitz gl...@twistedmatrix.com
wrote:
On Sep 16, 2010, at 4:51 PM, R. David Murray wrote:
Given a message, there are many times you want to serialize it as text
(for example, for presentation in a UI). You could provide alternate
On Sep 16, 2010, at 09:34 PM, R. David Murray wrote:
Say we start with this bytes input:
To: Glyph Lefkowitz gl...@twistedmatrix.com
From: R. David Murray rdmur...@bitdance.com
Subject: =?utf-8?q?p=F6stal?=
A simple message.
Part of the responsibility of the email module is to
On Fri, 17 Sep 2010 11:34:26 am R. David Murray wrote:
Perhaps another difference is that in my mind *as an application
developer*, the real email message consists of unicode headers and
message bodies, with attachments that are sometimes binary, and that
the wire-format is this formalized
On 9/16/2010 3:07 PM, Jacob Kaplan-Moss wrote:
On 16 September 2010 07:16, Terry Reedytjre...@udel.edu wrote:
I'm not working to get Django running on Python 3.1 because I don't
feel confident I'll be able to put any apps I write into production.
Why not? Since the I/O speed problem is
On Fri, 17 Sep 2010 00:05:12 +0200, Antoine Pitrou solip...@pitrou.net wrote:
On Thu, 16 Sep 2010 16:51:58 -0400
R. David Murray rdmur...@bitdance.com wrote:
What do we store in the model? We could say that the model is always
text. But then we lose information about the original bytes
On Thu, 16 Sep 2010 21:53:17 -0400, Barry Warsaw ba...@python.org wrote:
And of course, what happens if the original subject is in one charset and the
prefix is in an incompatible one? Then you end up with a wire format of two
RFC 2047 encoded words separated by whitespace. You have to keep
On Thu, 16 Sep 2010 23:45:12 -0400, Terry Reedy tjre...@udel.edu wrote:
Based on the discussion so far, I think you should go ahead and
implement the API agreed on by the mail sig both because is *has* been
agreed on (and thinking about the wsgi discussion, that seems to be a
major
51 matches
Mail list logo
