On Mon, Jan 01, 2007 at 07:44:08PM -0800, Brett Cannon wrote:
> >* telnetlib
> >> + Telnet is not used very much anymore.
> >> - Telnet is unsafe.
> >> - Most people use SSH instead.
> >
> >I don't know how common telnet lib use is currently, but I have found it
> >useful in wri
I was explaining function annotations to a friend this past weekend
and found that, even though I had written the PEP and spent months
debating the little details of how annotations were to work, I was
hard-pressed to answer the question of "why are we doing this?"
The biggest problem I faced then
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Jan 2, 2007, at 1:08 PM, Collin Winter wrote:
> The biggest problem I faced then and now is justifying the use-cases
> for annotations. Here's what I could come up with off the top of my
> head: information for typecheckers; doc strings for paramet
At 12:08 PM 1/2/2007 -0600, Collin Winter wrote:
>I could say You Aren't Going to Need It, but that gets the tense
>wrong; we're getting along without annotations quite nicely here in
>the present. In short: I'd like to request that PEP 3107 be rejected
>as an overly-specific, unnecessary addition
On 1/1/07, Barry Warsaw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I also have this feeling that by ditching so much that's widely used,
> we're setting Python 3.0 up for a lot of criticism that the batteries
> were removed.
I was uncomfortable with telnet leaving for that reason.
> For example, as icky as all
On 1/2/07, Phillip J. Eby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> At 12:08 PM 1/2/2007 -0600, Collin Winter wrote:
> >I could say You Aren't Going to Need It, but that gets the tense
> >wrong; we're getting along without annotations quite nicely here in
> >the present. In short: I'd like to request that PEP 3
On 1/1/07, Josiah Carlson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > * stat
> > > > + ``os.stat`` now returns a tuple with attributes.
> > >
> > > The stat module also offers useful functions like stat.IS_DIR() for
> > > determining if an object is a directory.
> >
> >
> > Perhaps the functions should mo
At 08:13 PM 1/2/2007 +0100, BJörn Lindqvist wrote:
>On 1/2/07, Phillip J. Eby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>At 12:08 PM 1/2/2007 -0600, Collin Winter wrote:
>> >I could say You Aren't Going to Need It, but that gets the tense
>> >wrong; we're getting along without annotations quite nicely here in
>>
On 1/1/07, Guido van Rossum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I believe the main argument *against* having the tb included in the
> exception is that it would greatly increase the cyclic nature of
> tracebacks and stack frames, which in turn would cause lots of code to
> break due to late GC'ing of unc
On 1/2/07, Jim Jewett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 1/1/07, Guido van Rossum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > I believe the main argument *against* having the tb included in the
> > exception is that it would greatly increase the cyclic nature of
> > tracebacks and stack frames, which in turn wou
On 1/1/07, Brett Cannon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> =
>
> Previously deprecated
> -
>
> Modules in this section have been deprecated at some point in the
> Python 2.x release series but are currently still distributed with
> Python
(though not on all platfo
On 1/2/07, Barry Warsaw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> As for the mass extinction being planned, I'm not so sure. I have a
> vague unease about it. For one thing I think that the str/unicode ->
> unicode/bytearray change will be disruptive enough that we may not
> fully understand what interfaces
On 1/2/07, Oleg Broytmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Mon, Jan 01, 2007 at 07:44:08PM -0800, Brett Cannon wrote:
> >* telnetlib
> >> + Telnet is not used very much anymore.
> >> - Telnet is unsafe.
> >> - Most people use SSH instead.
> >
> >I don't know how common telnet li
On 1/1/07, Mike Orr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 1/1/07, Brett Cannon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> * thread
> + People should use 'threading' instead.
'threading' has no equivalent to 'thread.get_ident()'. If this
function is ported, I'd support renaming 'thread'. You need it to
print "T
On 1/1/07, Barry Warsaw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Jan 1, 2007, at 10:03 PM, Mike Klaas wrote:
> On 1/1/07, Brett Cannon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> * new
>> + Just a rebinding of names from the 'types' module.
>> + Can also call ``typ
On 1/1/07, Barry Warsaw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Jan 1, 2007, at 10:46 PM, Anthony Baxter wrote:
> I could not agree more. The list of modules Brett gave covers enough
> that pretty much every single piece of code I have will need to be
> edit
On 1/1/07, Josiah Carlson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
"Brett Cannon" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 1/1/07, Josiah Carlson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > "Brett Cannon" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > * telnetlib
> > > + Telnet is not used very much anymore.
> > > - Telnet is unsafe.
On 1/2/07, Phillip J. Eby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> At 08:13 PM 1/2/2007 +0100, BJörn Lindqvist wrote:
> >On 1/2/07, Phillip J. Eby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>You left off overloading and argument adaptation as use cases. These are
> >>considerably more readable when specified in-line, just
On 1/2/07, Jim Jewett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 1/1/07, Brett Cannon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> =
>
> Previously deprecated
> -
>
> Modules in this section have been deprecated at some point in the
> Python 2.x release series but are currently still dist
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Jan 2, 2007, at 6:47 PM, Brett Cannon wrote:
> Are you at least okay with base64, quopri, and uu going? You are just
> arguing for the saving of binascii, right?
>
> Does anyone else care to try to save binascii?
base64 and quopri implement speci
On 1/2/07, Guido van Rossum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 1/2/07, Jim Jewett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On 1/1/07, Guido van Rossum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > I believe the main argument *against*
> > This should probably be made explicit in PEP 344.
> Feel free to send a patch to me
At 05:48 PM 1/2/2007 -0600, Collin Winter wrote:
>Is whatever savings you see there worth changing the language for? Is
>function overloading really that important and that common?
Ah, but now you're making a different argument. Your original statement
was that "we're getting along without annot
Jim Jewett wrote:
>> * getopt
>> + optparse provides better functionality.
>
> Yes and no. getopt does provide a (non-python-specific) standard
> parsing, and is still widely used.
> I would say keep it unless the converter could automate the
> translation to *lightweigt* optparse usage. (S
Brett,
Thanks for writing this up.
Here are my thoughts on this (after 3 weeks away, I'm still catching up):
The link to PEP 4 is broken.
"nis" -- NIS is still widely used by many people; probably premature to remove.
"md5" and "sha" -- should note pointer to "hashlib".
"base64"/"quopri"/"uu"
On 1/2/07, Barry Warsaw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Jan 2, 2007, at 6:47 PM, Brett Cannon wrote:
> Are you at least okay with base64, quopri, and uu going? You are just
> arguing for the saving of binascii, right?
>
> Does anyone else care to tr
Barry Warsaw writes:
> To me, a standard library reorganization would proceed like this:
> figure out the new hierarchy and package names now and implement them
> for Python 2.6. Make sure every old package name continues to work,
> but encourage people (through documentation and social coer
On 1/2/07, Bill Janssen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Brett,
Thanks for writing this up.
Welcome! Sometimes I worry about my penchant for Python masochism.
Here are my thoughts on this (after 3 weeks away, I'm still catching up):
The link to PEP 4 is broken.
Thanks, fixed.
"nis" -- NIS
> Perhaps, but consistency is more important (at least to me). Best bet would
> be to put them in a package.
>
> > > * Servers
> > > > > + BaseHTTPServer
> > > > > + CGIHTTPServer
> > > > > + DocXMLRPCServer
> > > > > + SimpleHTTPServer
> > > > > + SimpleXMLRPCServer
> > > > >
Brett Cannon wrote:
> "nis" -- NIS is still widely used by many people; probably premature
> to remove.
>
> Yuck, really? Anyone else agree with this?
Yes, absolutely; Bill beat me to the punch. I know of new deployments
going with NIS instead of LDAP, even.
--
Ivan Krstić <[EMAIL PROT
"Brett Cannon" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 1/1/07, Josiah Carlson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I would guess that Raymond Hettinger would have something to say about
> > this (being that he was going to add the long/int <-> binary conversion
> > to binascii). I don't know if he has been payi
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Jan 2, 2007, at 7:52 PM, Brett Cannon wrote:
>> base64 and quopri implement specific RFCs so I think they should
>> stay. uu implements a defacto standard, but I don't like its
>> interface (it uses file-like objects instead of strings). For Py3K
On Wednesday 03 January 2007 10:47, Brett Cannon wrote:
> > > > * base64/quopri/uu
> > > >
> > > > > + Support exists in the codecs module.
> > > > > + If removed (along with binhex), also remove
> > > > > binascii. - C implementation of base64, binhex, and uu
> > > > > modules.
> > > >
> A
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Jan 2, 2007, at 7:51 PM, Bill Janssen wrote:
> Let me suggest a consolidation idea I don't see there: a grouping
> similar to that which has been done with email, but called "web".
> This package would include "urllib", "urllib2", "urlparse", "htt
On 1/2/07, Anthony Baxter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Additionally, base32 and base16 are not supported by codecs,
> according to the docs, and neither is the ability to specify
> alternate character mappings (I don't know how heavily used the
> last is, though).
We use the "urlsafe" version hea
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Jan 2, 2007, at 10:53 PM, Anthony Baxter wrote:
> Additionally, base32 and base16 are not supported by codecs,
> according to the docs, and neither is the ability to specify
> alternate character mappings (I don't know how heavily used the
> last i
"Collin Winter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I was explaining function annotations to a friend this past weekend
> and found that, even though I had written the PEP and spent months
> debating the little details of how annotations were to work, I was
> hard-pressed to answer the question of "why
Just a quick comment on the discussion in general: It seems that there
are a number of modules which fall in to the set of "widely used, but
obscure and/or unmaintained". Perhaps what is needed is to annotate the
list of modules to be dropped with a set of prerequisite conditions -
i.e. what ha
On 1/2/07, Ivan Krstić <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Brett Cannon wrote:
> "nis" -- NIS is still widely used by many people; probably premature
> to remove.
>
> Yuck, really? Anyone else agree with this?
Yes, absolutely; Bill beat me to the punch. I know of new deployments
going with NIS
On 1/2/07, Josiah Carlson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
"Brett Cannon" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 1/1/07, Josiah Carlson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I would guess that Raymond Hettinger would have something to say about
> > this (being that he was going to add the long/int <-> binary
conve
On 1/2/07, Anthony Baxter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Wednesday 03 January 2007 10:47, Brett Cannon wrote:
> > > > * base64/quopri/uu
> > > >
> > > > > + Support exists in the codecs module.
> > > > > + If removed (along with binhex), also remove
> > > > > binascii. - C implementation
40 matches
Mail list logo
