Le Thu, 11 Aug 2011 03:34:37 +0200,
brian.curtin python-check...@python.org a écrit :
http://hg.python.org/cpython/rev/77a65b078852
changeset: 71809:77a65b078852
parent: 71803:1b4fae183da3
user:Brian Curtin br...@python.org
date:Wed Aug 10 20:05:21 2011 -0500
summary:
Le Thu, 11 Aug 2011 09:03:35 +1000,
Nick Coghlan ncogh...@gmail.com a écrit :
On Thu, Aug 11, 2011 at 4:55 AM, Brian Curtin brian.cur...@gmail.com
wrote:
Now that we have concurrent.futures, is there any plan for
multiprocessing to follow suit? PEP 3148 mentions a hope to add or move
On Thu, Aug 11, 2011 at 5:07 PM, Antoine Pitrou solip...@pitrou.net wrote:
Le Thu, 11 Aug 2011 09:03:35 +1000,
Nick Coghlan ncogh...@gmail.com a écrit :
On Thu, Aug 11, 2011 at 4:55 AM, Brian Curtin brian.cur...@gmail.com
wrote:
Now that we have concurrent.futures, is there any plan for
On Thu, Aug 11, 2011 at 10:56 AM, Nick Coghlan ncogh...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Aug 11, 2011 at 5:07 PM, Antoine Pitrou solip...@pitrou.net
wrote:
Le Thu, 11 Aug 2011 09:03:35 +1000,
Nick Coghlan ncogh...@gmail.com a écrit :
On Thu, Aug 11, 2011 at 4:55 AM, Brian Curtin
Hi,
IIRC the reason why we don't do it on 2.x is because we don't have the
'source' directive available in Sphinx and therefore we would have to
update all the links manually to link to h.p.o instead of s.p.o.
In 3.2 and higher, there is a custom source role in
Hi,
I’ve read the latest version of this PEP, as updated by Nick Coghlan in
the Mercurial repo on July, 20th. Excuse me if I repeat old arguments,
I did not reread all the threads.
In summary, I don’t think the PEP is useful right now, nor that it will
set a good practice for the future.
*
Hi,
I’ve read PEP 402 and would like to offer comments.
I know a bit about the import system, but not down to the nitty-gritty
details of PEP 302 and __path__ computations and all this fun stuff (by
which I mean, not fun at all). As such, I can’t find nasty issues in
dark corners, but I can
On Thu, Aug 11, 2011 at 00:26, Georg Brandl g.bra...@gmx.net wrote:
Am 11.08.2011 03:34, schrieb brian.curtin:
http://hg.python.org/cpython/rev/3a6782f2a4a8
changeset: 71811:3a6782f2a4a8
user:Brian Curtin br...@python.org
date:Wed Aug 10 20:32:10 2011 -0500
summary:
On Thu, Aug 11, 2011 at 16:33, Éric Araujo mer...@netwok.org wrote:
Hi,
IIRC the reason why we don't do it on 2.x is because we don't have the
'source' directive available in Sphinx and therefore we would have to
update all the links manually to link to h.p.o instead of s.p.o.
In 3.2 and
Le 11/08/2011 16:47, Sandro Tosi a écrit :
Is there a reason we can't use the same sphinx role in 2.7 too? And
also the same sphinx (thus sphinxext) versions on 2.7 and 3.x? that
would probably help in keeping the diffs on the documentation smaller.
Even though the pyspecific module is wholly
I think you missed the point of the PEP. The point is to create a new,
python-dev-blessed standard that the distros will follow. The primary
goal is so that a script can specify python2 or python3 in the #!
line and expect that to work on all compliant linux systems, which we
hope will be all of
Hi Devid,
I think you missed the point of the PEP. The point is to create a new,
python-dev-blessed standard that the distros will follow. The primary
goal is so that a script can specify python2 or python3 in the #!
line and expect that to work on all compliant linux systems, which we
On Aug 11, 2011, at 04:39 PM, Éric Araujo wrote:
* XXX what is the __file__ of a pure virtual package? ``None``?
Some arbitrary string? The path of the first directory with a
trailing separator? No matter what we put, *some* code is
going to break, but the last choice might allow
On Aug 11, 2011, at 11:39 AM, Barry Warsaw wrote:
On Aug 11, 2011, at 04:39 PM, Éric Araujo wrote:
* XXX what is the __file__ of a pure virtual package? ``None``?
Some arbitrary string? The path of the first directory with a
trailing separator? No matter what we put, *some* code is
On Thu, 11 Aug 2011 11:39:52 -0400
Barry Warsaw ba...@python.org wrote:
On Aug 11, 2011, at 04:39 PM, Éric Araujo wrote:
* XXX what is the __file__ of a pure virtual package? ``None``?
Some arbitrary string? The path of the first directory with a
trailing separator? No matter what
Am 11.08.2011 17:01, schrieb Merwok:
Le 11/08/2011 16:47, Sandro Tosi a écrit :
Is there a reason we can't use the same sphinx role in 2.7 too? And
also the same sphinx (thus sphinxext) versions on 2.7 and 3.x? that
would probably help in keeping the diffs on the documentation smaller.
Even
At 04:39 PM 8/11/2011 +0200, Ãric Araujo wrote:
Hi,
I've read PEP 402 and would like to offer comments.
Thanks.
Minor: I would reserve packaging for
packaging/distribution/installation/deployment matters, not Python
modules. I suggest Python package semantics.
Changing to Python package
On Thu, 11 Aug 2011 17:12:22 +0200, =?UTF-8?B?w4lyaWMgQXJhdWpv?=
mer...@netwok.org wrote:
Iâm sorry if my opinion on that main point was lost among remarks on
details. To rephrase one part of my reply: Right now, the de facto
standard is that shebangs can use python to mean python2 and
Den 09.08.2011 11:33, skrev Марк Коренберг:
Probably I want to re-invent a bicycle. I want developers to say me
why we can not remove GIL in that way:
1. Remove GIL completely with all current logick.
2. Add it's own RW-locking to all mutable objects (like list or dict)
3. Add RW-locks to every
Le 29/07/2011 19:01, Guido van Rossum a écrit :
I will add your alternative to the PEP (except if you would like to do
that yourself?). If I understood correctly, you propose to:
* rename codecs.open() to codecs.open_stream()
* change codecs.open() to reuse open() (and so
On 8/11/2011 10:36 AM, Éric Araujo wrote:
It would be interesting to have feedback from people who lived the
transition to Python 2.
There was no comparable transition. Python 2.0 was basically 1.6 renamed
for a different distributor. I regard Python 2.2, which introduced
new-style, as the
On 8/11/2011 3:31 PM, Victor Stinner wrote:
Le 29/07/2011 19:01, Guido van Rossum a écrit :
I will add your alternative to the PEP (except if you would like to do
that yourself?). If I understood correctly, you propose to:
* rename codecs.open() to codecs.open_stream()
* change codecs.open()
On Fri, Aug 12, 2011 at 4:30 AM, P.J. Eby p...@telecommunity.com wrote:
At 04:39 PM 8/11/2011 +0200, Éric Araujo wrote:
The resulting list (whether empty or not) is then stored in a
``sys.virtual_package_paths`` dictionary, keyed by module name.
This was probably said on import-sig, but
On Fri, Aug 12, 2011 at 1:12 AM, Éric Araujo mer...@netwok.org wrote:
I’m sorry if my opinion on that main point was lost among remarks on
details. To rephrase one part of my reply: Right now, the de facto
standard is that shebangs can use python to mean python2 and python3 to
mean python3.
On Fri, Aug 12, 2011 at 8:21 AM, Terry Reedy tjre...@udel.edu wrote:
On 8/11/2011 3:31 PM, Victor Stinner wrote:
Ok, most people prefer this option. Should I modify the PEP to move
this option has the first/main proposition (move my proposition as an
alternative?), or can the PEP be validated
25 matches
Mail list logo
