[Python-Dev] Status of Python 3.6 PEPs?
Hi, I see many PEPs accepted for Python 3.6, or stil in draft status, but only a few final PEPs. What is happening? Reminder: the deadline for new features in Python 3.6 is 2016-09-12, only in 2 months and these 2 months are summer in the northern hemisphere which means holiday for many of them... Python 3.6 schedule and What's New in Python 3.6 list some PEPs: https://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0494/ https://docs.python.org/dev/whatsnew/3.6.html "PEP 499 -- python -m foo should bind sys.modules['foo'] in addition to sys.modules['__main__']" https://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0499/ => draft "PEP 498 -- Literal String Interpolation" https://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0498/ => accepted -- it's merged in Python 3.6, the status should be updated to Final no? "PEP 495 -- Local Time Disambiguation" https://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0495/ => accepted Alexander Belopolsky asked for a review of the implementation: https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2016-June/145450.html "PEP 447 -- Add __getdescriptor__ method to metaclass" https://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0447/ => draft "PEP 487 -- Simpler customisation of class creation" https://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0487/ => draft "PEP 520 -- Preserving Class Attribute Definition Order" https://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0520/ => accepted -- what is the status of its implementation? "PEP 519 -- Adding a file system path protocol" https://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0519/ => accepted "PEP 467 -- Minor API improvements for binary sequences" https://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0467 => draft -- I saw recently some discussions around this PEP (on python-ideas?) It looks like os.fspath() exists, so the PEP is implemented. Its status should be Final, but the PEP should also be mentioned in What's New in Python 3.6 please. I also see some discussions for even more compact dict implementation. I wrote 3 PEPs, but I didn't have time recently to work of them (to make progress on the implementation of FAT Python): "PEP 509 -- Add a private version to dict" https://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0509/ => draft Pyjion, Cython, and Yury Selivanov are interested to use this feature, but last time I asked Guido, he didn't seem convinced by the advantages of the PEP. "PEP 510 -- Specialize functions with guards" https://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0510/ "PEP 511 -- API for code transformers" https://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0511/ These two PEPs are directly related to my FAT Python work. I was asked to prove that FAT Python makes CPython faster. Sadly, I failed to prove that. Moreover, it took me almost 2 months (and I'm not done yet!) to get stable benchmarks results on Python. I want to make sure that my changes don't make Python slower (don't introduce Python regressions), but the CPython benchmark is unstable, some benchmarks are very unstable. To get more information, follow the sp...@python.org mailing list ;-) I probably forgot some PEPs, there are so many PEPs in the draft state :-( Victor ___ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Python-Dev] Status of Python 3.6 PEPs?
On Tue, Jul 12, 2016 at 7:26 PM, Victor Stinner wrote: > "PEP 499 -- python -m foo should bind sys.modules['foo'] in addition > to sys.modules['__main__']" > https://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0499/ > => draft > I have a vague recollection that this ran into some trickinesses with certain forms of import (zip??). If that's not the case, is this one simply awaiting pronouncement? ChrisA ___ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Python-Dev] Status of Python 3.6 PEPs?
I opened the PEP 499: it links to https://bugs.python.org/issue19702 "Update pickle to take advantage of PEP 451" which is still open (since 2013!). (It also has two dependencies which are now closed.) "PEP 451 -- A ModuleSpec Type for the Import System" https://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0451/ (this one was already implemented in Python 3.4) Victor 2016-07-12 11:30 GMT+02:00 Chris Angelico : > On Tue, Jul 12, 2016 at 7:26 PM, Victor Stinner > wrote: >> "PEP 499 -- python -m foo should bind sys.modules['foo'] in addition >> to sys.modules['__main__']" >> https://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0499/ >> => draft >> > > I have a vague recollection that this ran into some trickinesses with > certain forms of import (zip??). If that's not the case, is this one > simply awaiting pronouncement? > > ChrisA > ___ > Python-Dev mailing list > Python-Dev@python.org > https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev > Unsubscribe: > https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/victor.stinner%40gmail.com ___ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Python-Dev] Status of Python 3.6 PEPs?
> > "PEP 520 -- Preserving Class Attribute Definition Order" > https://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0520/ > => accepted -- what is the status of its implementation? > ... > > > I also see some discussions for even more compact dict implementation. > Here is implementation of the compact dict preserving insertion order. http://bugs.python.org/issue27350 I hope it is reviewed before merging PEP 520 implementation. ___ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
[Python-Dev] Should PY_SSIZE_T_CLEAN break Py_LIMITED_API?
I was using Py_LIMITED_API under 3.5 and PY_SSIZE_T_CLEAN was set, this causes some functions not in the limited api to be used and the resulting extension segfaults in Linux. Is that right? Thanks, Daniel ___ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Python-Dev] Should PY_SSIZE_T_CLEAN break Py_LIMITED_API?
On 12 July 2016 at 23:21, Daniel Holth wrote: > I was using Py_LIMITED_API under 3.5 and PY_SSIZE_T_CLEAN was set, this > causes some functions not in the limited api to be used and the resulting > extension segfaults in Linux. Is that right? No, it suggests there's a bug in the way some of the #ifdef's are interacting. Regards, Nick. -- Nick Coghlan | ncogh...@gmail.com | Brisbane, Australia ___ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Python-Dev] Status of Python 3.6 PEPs?
On Tue, 12 Jul 2016 at 02:27 Victor Stinner wrote: > Hi, > > I see many PEPs accepted for Python 3.6, or stil in draft status, but > only a few final PEPs. What is happening? > > [SNIP] > > "PEP 519 -- Adding a file system path protocol" > https://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0519/ > => accepted > > [SNIP] > > It looks like os.fspath() exists, so the PEP is implemented. Its > status should be Final, but the PEP should also be mentioned in What's > New in Python 3.6 please. > I'm gong to mark the PEP as final once we finish implementing it (still need to update os.path: http://bugs.python.org/issue27182). Considering we have updated the PEP once already based on implementation lessons I don't want to rush flipping its state. As for not being in What's New, I have a tracking issue and that doesn't need to happen by b1 so I'm not spending time on it yet ( http://bugs.python.org/issue27283). -Brett ___ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Python-Dev] Status of Python 3.6 PEPs?
On Tue, Jul 12, 2016 at 3:26 AM, Victor Stinner wrote: > "PEP 520 -- Preserving Class Attribute Definition Order" > https://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0520/ > => accepted -- what is the status of its implementation? The implementation is currently under review (http://bugs.python.org/issue24254). -eric ___ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Python-Dev] Status of Python 3.6 PEPs?
On 12 July 2016 at 19:26, Victor Stinner wrote: > "PEP 499 -- python -m foo should bind sys.modules['foo'] in addition > to sys.modules['__main__']" > https://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0499/ > => draft I'm a little wary of this one, as we just received a bug report regarding some subtleties of the 3.5.2 change that separated the "import the parent module" step from the "execute the requested main module" step when using the -m switch with a submodule: http://bugs.python.org/issue27487 The problem there relates to some odd behaviour that can arise when importing the parent module implicitly imports the submodule that has been requested to be run as __main__. While PEP 499 would eliminate the dual import problem when the import happens *after* __main__ starts execution, it wouldn't prevent it when the import happens *first* (as in the case of it happening as a side-effect of importing the parent module), making the consequences even more surprising and harder to debug. Cheers, Nick. -- Nick Coghlan | ncogh...@gmail.com | Brisbane, Australia ___ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Python-Dev] Status of Python 3.6 PEPs?
On 12 July 2016 at 20:05, INADA Naoki wrote: >> >> "PEP 520 -- Preserving Class Attribute Definition Order" >> https://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0520/ >> => accepted -- what is the status of its implementation? >> I also see some discussions for even more compact dict implementation. > > Here is implementation of the compact dict preserving insertion order. > http://bugs.python.org/issue27350 > > I hope it is reviewed before merging PEP 520 implementation. Several of my review comments on the draft 520 implementation were aimed at ensuring the assumption of the use of ODict specifically were minimised, so the test, docs and implementation tweaks needed to adjust back to an insertion-ordered-by-default plain dict will be pretty minimal, even if the current 520 implementation lands first (which seems likely). Cheers, Nick. -- Nick Coghlan | ncogh...@gmail.com | Brisbane, Australia ___ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
