Collin Winter writes:
> On Wed, Nov 4, 2009 at 6:49 PM, Ben Finney wrote:
> > Okay. It's probably best for anyone with their Python developer hat
> > on (which, in this forum, is all the time for any Python developer)
> > to make the status of 3to2 clear when recommending it to people
> > concer
Hi Ben,
On Wed, Nov 4, 2009 at 6:49 PM, Ben Finney wrote:
> "Martin v. Löwis" writes:
>
>> Ben Finney wrote:
>> > "Martin v. Löwis" writes:
>> >
>> >> Well, 3to2 would then be an option for you: use Python 3 as the
>> >> source language.
>> >
>> > I was under the impression that 2to3 was offici
"Martin v. Löwis" writes:
> Ben Finney wrote:
> > "Martin v. Löwis" writes:
> >
> >> Well, 3to2 would then be an option for you: use Python 3 as the
> >> source language.
> >
> > I was under the impression that 2to3 was officially supported as
> > part of Python, but 3to2 was a third-party too
Eric Smith wrote:
Raymond Hettinger wrote:
Summarizing my opposition to a new set method:
1) there already are at least two succinct ways to get the same effect
2) those ways work with any container, not just sets
3) set implementations in other languages show that this isn't needed.
4) there is
Raymond Hettinger wrote:
Summarizing my opposition to a new set method:
1) there already are at least two succinct ways to get the same effect
2) those ways work with any container, not just sets
3) set implementations in other languages show that this isn't needed.
4) there is value to keeping t
[Steven D'Aprano]
Anyway, given the level of opposition to the suggestion, I'm no longer
willing to carry the flag for it. If anyone else -- perhaps the OP --
feels they want to take it any further, be my guest.
[geremy condra]
I've said before that I'd like there to be one, standard way of
Zooko O'Whielacronx wrote:
Folks:
So, if you guys slip in your favorite new Python 3 feature into 2.7
and add a deprecation warning for your least favorite Python 2
misfeature,
Just run with the -3 flag for warnings.
Also see my response to Glyph.
Terry Jan Reedy
Glyph Lefkowitz wrote:
For what it's worth, the official position of the Twisted project is not
that we have "no plan" to move to Python 3. It's that our plan is to do
exactly as Raymond suggests, and give the users a vote - in this case,
you vote with your patches :).
You probably will not
On Wed, 4 Nov 2009 17:40:35 -0500, Fred Drake wrote:
> The packaging story is in such bad shape that it needs the work
> regardless, and keeping it to Python 3 would significantly reduce the
> set of potential volunteers.
Well I guess that is a 'marketing decision'. Not a coding issue.
Actually
PyCon 2010: Poster sessions
===
Due date: November 30, 2009
PyCon 2010 introduces a new type of presentation, the poster session.
Poster sessions consist of two pieces:
* A display space where you can put up information about a topic
*
On Wed, Nov 04, 2009 at 03:54:44PM -0700, Zooko O'Whielacronx wrote:
> It occurred to me to wonder why I haven't investigated how hard it
> would be to make my Python packages Python-3-compatible. That's right
> -- I haven't even looked closely. I couldn't even tell you off the
> top of my head w
2009/11/4 Zooko O'Whielacronx :
> On the other hand, I'm totally committed to supporting Python 2.7,
> because my customers will demand it and because I expect that it will
> be easy.
Why do you think your customers will demand 2.7 support but not 3.1
support? If I were one of your customers, I'd
Folks:
It occurred to me to wonder why I haven't investigated how hard it
would be to make my Python packages Python-3-compatible. That's right
-- I haven't even looked closely. I couldn't even tell you off the
top of my head what is in Python 3 that I would have to think about
except for the ne
Ben Finney wrote:
> "Martin v. Löwis" writes:
>
>> Well, 3to2 would then be an option for you: use Python 3 as the source
>> language.
>
> I was under the impression that 2to3 was officially supported as part of
> Python, but 3to2 was a third-party tool. What's the status of 3to2 now?
> Is it an
On Wed, Nov 4, 2009 at 5:16 PM, David Lyon wrote:
> I would even go so far as to use the python 3 as a carrot for
> the new work.
The packaging story is in such bad shape that it needs the work
regardless, and keeping it to Python 3 would significantly reduce the
set of potential volunteers.
> i
On Wed, Nov 4, 2009 at 14:23, Ben Finney wrote:
> "Martin v. Löwis" writes:
>
>> Well, 3to2 would then be an option for you: use Python 3 as the source
>> language.
>
> I was under the impression that 2to3 was officially supported as part of
> Python, but 3to2 was a third-party tool. What's the s
"Martin v. Löwis" writes:
> Well, 3to2 would then be an option for you: use Python 3 as the source
> language.
I was under the impression that 2to3 was officially supported as part of
Python, but 3to2 was a third-party tool. What's the status of 3to2 now?
Is it an official part of Python?
--
On Wed, 4 Nov 2009 13:29:35 +0100, Tarek Ziadé
wrote:
> I've started to refactor the code in a module I have called
> "sysconfig", reusing distutils/sysconfig, distutils/command/install
> and site code.
>
> This "sysconfig" module should provide at the end very useful APIs to
> query the current
On Wed, Nov 4, 2009 at 10:20, sstein...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> On Nov 4, 2009, at 1:06 AM, Lennart Regebro wrote:
>
>> 2009/11/3 sstein...@gmail.com :
>>>
>>> On Nov 2, 2009, at 7:26 PM, James Y Knight wrote:
It really sounds like you're saying that switching to 3.x isn't worth
the
>>
On Wed, Nov 4, 2009 at 6:34 AM, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
> On Wed, 4 Nov 2009 11:54:47 am Greg Ewing wrote:
>> Steven D'Aprano wrote:
>> > I don't know how expensive it is to create a set iterator,
>>
>> Not expensive enough to justify burdening the set type with
>> extra functionality that will be
On Tue, Nov 3, 2009 at 12:35 PM, Guido van Rossum wrote:
> I've checked draft (!) PEP 3003, "Python Language Moratorium", into
> SVN. As authors I've listed Jesse, Brett and myself.
>
+1 from me.
-- Alexandre
___
Python-Dev mailing list
Python-Dev@pyth
>> That's not my experience. I see a change in source (say, on Django)
>> available for 3.x within 5 seconds.
>
> This is for which version of 2to3 ? I got similar experience (several
> minutes), but maybe I am using 2to3 the wrong way. On my machine, with
> 2to3 from 3.1.1, it takes ~ 1s to conve
On Wed, Nov 4, 2009 at 12:02 PM, "Martin v. Löwis" wrote:
> > The main reason I want a long 2.x series is that I believe it would more
> > easily allow us infrastructure folks to drop support for *older*
> > versions. With this big 2.x->3.x chasm, I can't really see an end in
> > sight for Twist
On Thu, Nov 5, 2009 at 4:02 AM, "Martin v. Löwis" wrote:
>
> That's not my experience. I see a change in source (say, on Django)
> available for 3.x within 5 seconds.
This is for which version of 2to3 ? I got similar experience (several
minutes), but maybe I am using 2to3 the wrong way. On my ma
On Nov 4, 2009, at 1:39 PM, Carl Trachte wrote:
On 11/4/09, sstein...@gmail.com wrote:
Maybe the 3.x line should just be put out of our misery, merged back
to 2.7, 2.8, 2.9, and proceed as Glyph suggested in passing with
increasing levels of deprecation until it just turns into 3.x on its
ow
> It seems that there is no buildbot to test a wide unicode build.
>
> On http://www.python.org/dev/buildbot/3.x/ all outputs of the "configure"
> steps show this message::
> checking what type to use for str... unsigned short
> which looks like a ucs2 build to me.
>
> Since wide unicode is the
> For one thing, we have a very long row to hoe here. The migration to
> 3.0 is a long, tedious process with little tangible benefit. I hope
> that sometime in the next decade Twisted can accelerate the process of
> dropping old 2.x versions, but I seriously doubt we could do a
> feature-complete
Antoine Pitrou wrote:
> Paul Moore gmail.com> writes:
>> FWIW, I did a quick survey of some packages (a sampling of packages
>> I've used or considered using in the past):
>>
>> Twisted - no plans yet for Python 3
>
> Well Twisted depends on zope.interface which is not ported yet.
That's not str
On Wed, Nov 4, 2009 at 10:39 AM, Carl Trachte wrote:
> On 11/4/09, sstein...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>> Maybe the 3.x line should just be put out of our misery, merged back
>> to 2.7, 2.8, 2.9, and proceed as Glyph suggested in passing with
>> increasing levels of deprecation until it just turns into
That's not going to happen. Stop trolling the python-dev list.
On Wed, Nov 4, 2009 at 1:20 PM, sstein...@gmail.com wrote:
> Maybe the 3.x line should just be put out of our misery, merged back to
> 2.7, 2.8, 2.9, and proceed as Glyph suggested in passing with increasing
> levels of deprecation u
On 11/4/09, sstein...@gmail.com wrote:
> Maybe the 3.x line should just be put out of our misery, merged back
> to 2.7, 2.8, 2.9, and proceed as Glyph suggested in passing with
> increasing levels of deprecation until it just turns into 3.x on its
> own by running out of numbers.
As a user, I'm
Nick Coghlan wrote:
> Lennart Regebro wrote:
>> I also would really like to see a real port of the bytes class to 2.6,
>> but I have a vague memory that there was some reason that wouldn't
>> work.
>
> Not so much that it wouldn't work, but that the interfaces to support
> using it effectively rea
On Nov 4, 2009, at 1:06 AM, Lennart Regebro wrote:
2009/11/3 sstein...@gmail.com :
On Nov 2, 2009, at 7:26 PM, James Y Knight wrote:
It really sounds like you're saying that switching to 3.x isn't
worth the
cost to you, but you want to force people (including yourself) to
do so
anyways
On Wed, Nov 4, 2009 at 5:54 PM, Collin Winter wrote:
> Do note that the --track_memory option to perf.py imposes some
> overhead that interferes with the performance figures.
Thanks for the notice, without -m/--track_memory the deviation in
results is indeed much smaller.
> I'd recommend
> runni
On Tue, Nov 3, 2009 at 11:06 PM, Lennart Regebro wrote:
> I should maybe point out that although I'm generally +1 on
> backporting, I'm not specifically anything on backporting the nonlocal
> keyword. There are probably things that would help more from a
> compatibility standpoint than that.
>
> F
On Wed, Nov 4, 2009 at 4:20 AM, Mart Sõmermaa wrote:
> On Tue, May 12, 2009 at 8:54 AM, Cesare Di Mauro
> wrote:
>>> Also, I checked out wpython at head to run Unladen Swallow's
>>> benchmarks against it, but it refuses to compile with either gcc 4.0.1
>>> or 4.3.1 on Linux (fails in Python/ast.c
At 12:51 AM 11/4/2009 -0500, Glyph Lefkowitz wrote:
With the 2.x series, users and operating systems seem to move on
fairly rapidly, because dependencies generally continue to work if you
upgrade just one version. This isn't quite as formal a requirement as
I would like (warnings get generated,
On Tue, Nov 3, 2009 at 9:51 PM, Glyph Lefkowitz
wrote (amongst way too many words):
> [...] For example, 2.8 could emit a deprecation
> warning for every old-style class that was defined, 2.9 could emit a
> deprecation warning for every string constant declared without a 'b' or 'u'
> prefix unless
Hi Mart
I had some problems and little time to dedicate to wpython in the last
period, but I restarted again with it in the last month.
Currently I'm working on changing and documenting the code so that almost
every optimization can be selected. So you'll compile it enabling only the
ones you are
M.-A. Lemburg wrote:
> Nick Coghlan wrote:
>> Lennart Regebro wrote:
>>> I also would really like to see a real port of the bytes class to 2.6,
>>> but I have a vague memory that there was some reason that wouldn't
>>> work.
>> Not so much that it wouldn't work, but that the interfaces to support
>
Hi,
I wanted to make some brief comments on this thread:
- 2to3 encourages people to see Python 3 as exotic and other---and not
to actually write in it.
- 3to2 encourages people to use Python 3 and also provides a route to
Python 2 compatibility.
I hope that a point will be reached where pe
Terry Reedy wrote:
> Guido van Rossum wrote:
>> On Tue, Nov 3, 2009 at 9:37 AM, "Martin v. Löwis"
>> wrote:
>>> (and no, adding things like nonlocal to 2.7 doesn't making porting of
>>> a real application or library any easier, since the existing application
>>> or library simply doesn't use that
Glyph Lefkowitz twistedmatrix.com> writes:
>
> Keep in mind also that the 2.x translation process is extremely slow
> and results in a clunky development process. There's no '2to3 --
> interactive' commandline that lets me type python 2 at a >>> prompt
> and get python 3 results out so that
On Wed, Oct 28, 2009 at 7:05 PM, Tarek Ziadé wrote:
> Ok then I'll work on a patch for that change and start an issue about it soon.
As I expected, being able to provide all those paths pulls a lot of
other stuffs out of distutils.
In fact, almost all the APIs that are located in distutils/sysco
Nick Coghlan wrote:
> Lennart Regebro wrote:
>> I also would really like to see a real port of the bytes class to 2.6,
>> but I have a vague memory that there was some reason that wouldn't
>> work.
>
> Not so much that it wouldn't work, but that the interfaces to support
> using it effectively rea
On Tue, May 12, 2009 at 8:54 AM, Cesare Di Mauro
wrote:
>> Also, I checked out wpython at head to run Unladen Swallow's
>> benchmarks against it, but it refuses to compile with either gcc 4.0.1
>> or 4.3.1 on Linux (fails in Python/ast.c). I can send you the build
>> failures off-list, if you're i
Lennart Regebro wrote:
> I also would really like to see a real port of the bytes class to 2.6,
> but I have a vague memory that there was some reason that wouldn't
> work.
Not so much that it wouldn't work, but that the interfaces to support
using it effectively really aren't there - lots of area
Jack Diederich wrote:
> +1. There are no compelling language changes on the horizon ("yield
> from" is nice but not necessary).
Another +1 here.
A note in the PEP that there are no changes to SVN that would need to be
rolled back due to the moratorium would be a good addition (as per
Antoine's r
On Wed, 4 Nov 2009 11:54:47 am Greg Ewing wrote:
> Steven D'Aprano wrote:
> > I don't know how expensive it is to create a set iterator,
>
> Not expensive enough to justify burdening the set type with
> extra functionality that will be extremely rarely used.
As my previous posts on this topic trie
On Wed, 4 Nov 2009 10:10:30 am Guido van Rossum wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 3, 2009 at 2:46 PM, Steven D'Aprano
wrote:
> > Since I was the person who decided that "arbitrary" meant "give a
> > different result each time", I should answer that.
> You're obviously talking about a *random* element. This i
On Nov 3, 2009, at 3:42 PM, Michael Foord wrote:
Barry Warsaw wrote:
On Nov 3, 2009, at 12:35 PM, Guido van Rossum wrote:
I've checked draft (!) PEP 3003, "Python Language Moratorium", into
SVN. As authors I've listed Jesse, Brett and myself.
On python-ideas the moratorium idea got fairly p
2009/11/4 Glyph Lefkowitz :
> On Nov 3, 2009, at 5:16 PM, Paul Moore wrote:
>>
>> 2009/11/3 Brett Cannon :
>>>
>>> I'm afraid there is some FUD going around here, which is
>>> understandable since no one wants to burn a ton of time on something
>>> that will be difficult or take a lot of time. But
52 matches
Mail list logo
