On Sun, Apr 19, 2009 at 05:51, Steven Bethard steven.beth...@gmail.com wrote:
That's an unfortunate decision. When the 2.X line stops being
maintained (after 2.7 maybe?) we're going to be stuck with the 3
suffix forever for the real Python.
Yes, but that's the only decision that really works.
Steven Bethard wrote:
That's an unfortunate decision. When the 2.X line stops being
maintained (after 2.7 maybe?) we're going to be stuck with the 3
suffix forever for the real Python.
I don't see why we have to be stuck with it forever.
When 2.x has faded into the sunset, we can start
Nick Coghlan wrote:
Note that such an approach would then require an altaltinstall command
in order to be able to install a specific version of python 3.x without
changing the python3 alias (e.g. installing 3.2 without overriding 3.1).
Seems like what we need is something in between
In article 49eab0c2.8040...@gmail.com,
Nick Coghlan ncogh...@gmail.com wrote:
Steven Bethard wrote:
On Sat, Apr 18, 2009 at 9:37 PM, Nick Coghlan ncogh...@gmail.com wrote:
Note that such an approach would then require an altaltinstall command
in order to be able to install a specific
On Sun, Apr 19, 2009 at 2:06 AM, Nick Coghlan ncogh...@gmail.com wrote:
That said, I'm starting to wonder if an even better option may be to
just drop the kwargs support from the function and require people to
always supply a parameters dictionary. That would simplify the signature
to the
Nick Coghlan writes:
3. Change the shebang lines in Python standard library scripts to be
version specific and update release.py to fix them all when bumping the
version number in the source tree.
+1
I think that it's probably best to leave python, python2, and
python3 for the use of
I think that it's probably best to leave python, python2, and
python3 for the use of downstream distributors. ISTR that was what
Guido concluded, in the discuss that led to Python 3 defaulting to
altinstall---it wasn't just convenient because Python 3 is a major
change, but that experience
2009/4/19 Steven Bethard steven.beth...@gmail.com:
On Sat, Apr 18, 2009 at 8:14 PM, Benjamin Peterson benja...@python.org
wrote:
2009/4/18 Nick Coghlan ncogh...@gmail.com:
I see a few options:
1. Abandon the python name for the 3.x series and commit to calling it
python3 now and forever
Martin v. Löwis wrote:
I think that it's probably best to leave python, python2, and
python3 for the use of downstream distributors. ISTR that was what
Guido concluded, in the discuss that led to Python 3 defaulting to
altinstall---it wasn't just convenient because Python 3 is a major
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Benjamin Peterson wrote:
2009/4/18 Nick Coghlan ncogh...@gmail.com:
Benjamin Peterson wrote:
2009/4/18 Mitchell L Model mlmli...@comcast.net:
Some library files, such as pdb.py, begin with
#!/usr/bin/env python
In various discussions
On Sun, Apr 19, 2009 at 1:38 AM, Mart Sõmermaa mrts.py...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Apr 19, 2009 at 2:06 AM, Nick Coghlan ncogh...@gmail.com wrote:
That said, I'm starting to wonder if an even better option may be to
just drop the kwargs support from the function and require people to
always
Mart Sõmermaa mrts.py...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Apr 19, 2009 at 2:06 AM, Nick Coghlan ncogh...@gmail.com wrote:
That said, I'm starting to wonder if an even better option may be to
just drop the kwargs support from the function and require people to
always supply a parameters dictionary.
Bill Janssen janssen at parc.com writes:
Or even better, stop trying to use a mapping, and just make the params
value a list of (name, value) pairs.
You can even accept both a list of (name, value) pairs /and/ some **kwargs, like
the dict constructor does. It would be a pity to drop the
Antoine Pitrou solip...@pitrou.net wrote:
Bill Janssen janssen at parc.com writes:
Or even better, stop trying to use a mapping, and just make the params
value a list of (name, value) pairs.
You can even accept both a list of (name, value) pairs /and/ some **kwargs,
like
the dict
Bill Janssen janssen at parc.com writes:
This whole discussion seems a bit rare and obscure to me. I've built
URLs for years without this method, and never felt the lack. What bugs me
is the lack of a way to build multipart-formdata payloads, the only standard
way to send non-Latin1
Antoine Pitrou solip...@pitrou.net wrote:
Bill Janssen janssen at parc.com writes:
This whole discussion seems a bit rare and obscure to me. I've built
URLs for years without this method, and never felt the lack. What bugs me
is the lack of a way to build multipart-formdata payloads,
Bill Janssen janssen at parc.com writes:
``The content type application/x-www-form-urlencoded is inefficient
for sending large quantities of binary data or text containing non-ASCII
characters.
The fact that it's inefficient (i.e. takes more bytes than an optimal encoding
scheme would)
On Mon, 20 Apr 2009 05:26:59 am Bill Janssen wrote:
Mart Sõmermaa mrts.py...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Apr 19, 2009 at 2:06 AM, Nick Coghlan ncogh...@gmail.com
wrote:
That said, I'm starting to wonder if an even better option may be
to just drop the kwargs support from the function and
18 matches
Mail list logo
