On 11 Nov, 2009, at 2:48, anatoly techtonik wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 10, 2009 at 6:44 PM, Ronald Oussoren
> wrote:
>>
>> What's so bad about IDLE that you'd like to replace it?
>
> That was exactly my previous question. You don't use IDLE either, so
> why not to replace it with something that you
On 2009-11-10, at 22:17, Martin v. Löwis wrote:
> If that imaginary editor has lots of build dependencies that make
> it really difficult to use it, I would be opposed to including it.
> If it requires one library that is typically already available on
> a Linux system, it would be fine with me.
s/
On 2009-11-10, at 22:07, Greg Ewing wrote:
> So, I'd say that, like democracy, [IDLE is] not very good, but
> it's better than any of the alternatives. :-)
Speaking purely as a Python user, I am very happy that IDLE is part of the
Python distribution. Personally, I use and like emacs too much, a
Martin v. Löwis wrote:
If that imaginary editor has lots of build dependencies that make
it really difficult to use it, I would be opposed to including it.
If it requires one library that is typically already available on
a Linux system, it would be fine with me.
If I manage to get PyGUI into
> Does that mean even if authors of some imaginary editor agree to
> incorporate their code into Python, the framework that it is built
> upon will have to be incorporated into Python also (and eventually
> abandoned at original location)?
It depends. It should work the same way as IDLE: it's ok t
anatoly techtonik wrote:
why not to replace it with something that you can actually use, with
something that is at least extensible? So people will be interested to
learn and contribute.
IDLE is written in Python, so it's about as extensible
as you can get.
Seems to me the only kind of IDE th
anatoly techtonik writes:
> Does that mean even if authors of some imaginary editor agree to
> incorporate their code into Python, the framework that it is built
> upon will have to be incorporated into Python also (and eventually
> abandoned at original location)?
I would assume so. How els
On Tue, Nov 10, 2009 at 10:49 PM, "Martin v. Löwis" wrote:
>
> This is not how it works. We cannot incorporate something into Python
> without explicit consent and support from the author(s). So for any
> editor to be incorporated as a replacement (along with all libraries
> it depends on) we woul
On Tue, Nov 10, 2009 at 10:26 AM, Raymond Hettinger wrote:
>
> [Guido van Rossum]
>>
>> . We used to have releases once a year and
>> we got really big serious feedback from our biggest users that the
>> release cycle was going too fast. We discussed it amply and agreed on
>> a minimum time of 18
On Tue, Nov 10, 2009 at 9:26 PM, Michael Foord
wrote:
>
>> Then there will be another issue - all editors are based upon some
>> frameworks - I didn't see any popular cross-platform GUI toolkits in
>> Python, so we will inevitably face the need to replace Tkinter with
>> other default GUI toolkit.
On Tue, Nov 10, 2009 at 6:44 PM, Ronald Oussoren wrote:
>
> What's so bad about IDLE that you'd like to replace it?
That was exactly my previous question. You don't use IDLE either, so
why not to replace it with something that you can actually use, with
something that is at least extensible? So p
[MvL]
I personally think that decoupling the releases would be best, i.e.
not start thinking about 3.2 for another 6 months.
[Benjamin]
The problem with that is that there is a period of time where 2.x has
features which 3.x doesn't. My preference is to move back the whole
schedule 6 months.
Stop email
Sent from my BlackBerry®
powered by Sinyal Kuat INDOSAT
-Original Message-
From: python-dev-requ...@python.org
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 2009 23:09:45
To:
Subject: Python-Dev Digest, Vol 76, Issue 87
Send Python-Dev mailing list submissions to
python-dev@python.org
To subscr
Nick Coghlan schrieb:
> Martin v. Löwis wrote:
>> Nick Coghlan wrote:
>>> Ben Finney wrote:
anatoly techtonik writes:
> Quite an interesting question recently popped up in pygame community
> that I'd like to ask to Python developers.
This forum is specifically about developm
Benjamin Peterson wrote:
> 2009/11/10 "Martin v. Löwis" :
>> I personally think that decoupling the releases would be best, i.e.
>> not start thinking about 3.2 for another 6 months.
>
> The problem with that is that there is a period of time where 2.x has
> features which 3.x doesn't. My preferen
2009/11/10 "Martin v. Löwis" :
> I personally think that decoupling the releases would be best, i.e.
> not start thinking about 3.2 for another 6 months.
The problem with that is that there is a period of time where 2.x has
features which 3.x doesn't. My preference is to move back the whole
schedu
>> The buildbot waterfall is much greener now. Thanks to all who have
>> contributed to making it so (and it hasn't just been Mark and Antoine
>> and I, though we've been the most directly active (and yes, Mark, you
>> did contribute several fixes!)).
>
> The buildbots still show occasional oddit
Le Thu, 05 Nov 2009 22:53:27 -0500, R. David Murray a écrit :
> The buildbot waterfall is much greener now. Thanks to all who have
> contributed to making it so (and it hasn't just been Mark and Antoine
> and I, though we've been the most directly active (and yes, Mark, you
> did contribute sever
Hello again,
I've now removed priority requests, tried to improve the internal doc a
bit, and merged the changes into py3k.
Afterwards, the new Windows 7 buildbot has hung in test_multiprocessing,
but I don't know whether it's related.
Regards
Antoine.
Guido van Rossum python.org> writes:
Martin v. Löwis wrote:
>>> PEP 3003 states that Python 3.2 will be released 18-24 months after
>>> Python 3.1. Python 3.1 was released on June 2009-06-27 [1], so
>>> theoretically Python 3.2 should be released not before 2010-12-19 [2].
>> The PEP 3003 text isn't allowing for the fact that 3.1 is "
>> PEP 3003 states that Python 3.2 will be released 18-24 months after
>> Python 3.1. Python 3.1 was released on June 2009-06-27 [1], so
>> theoretically Python 3.2 should be released not before 2010-12-19 [2].
>
> The PEP 3003 text isn't allowing for the fact that 3.1 is "3.0 as it
> should have
> If we filter list of http://wiki.python.org/moin/PythonEditors by
> language/license/framework, we will be able to see if there is any
> suitable open source Python code to replace IDLE's.
This is not how it works. We cannot incorporate something into Python
without explicit consent and support
anatoly techtonik wrote:
On Tue, Nov 10, 2009 at 12:10 AM, "Martin v. Löwis" wrote:
Anatoly's question is actually a fair one for python-dev - we're the
ones that *ship* Idle, so it is legitimate to ask our reasons for
continuing to do so.
OTOH, the second (or, rather, third) questio
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Raymond Hettinger wrote:
> [Guido van Rossum]
>> . We used to have releases once a year and
>> we got really big serious feedback from our biggest users that the
>> release cycle was going too fast. We discussed it amply and agreed on
>> a minimum time
[Guido van Rossum]
. We used to have releases once a year and
we got really big serious feedback from our biggest users that the
release cycle was going too fast. We discussed it amply and agreed on
a minimum time of 18 months between releases.
If the language moratorium goes into effect, wou
2009/11/9 Benjamin Peterson :
> Not to my knowledge. I would prefer to not add a fixer for this
> directly to 2to3 because it is not correct for most programs. However,
> I think 2to3 should grow some sort of plugin system, so custom fixers
> can easily be written and used.
Well, 2to3 is only plug
On Tue, Nov 10, 2009 at 8:09 AM, Antoine Pitrou wrote:
> Guido van Rossum python.org> writes:
>>
>> Was this discussed somewhere?
>
> I don't remember so, except for a short subthread on python-ideas where you
> indeed mentioned (to my disappointment :-)) that you were against a one-year
> releas
On 10 Nov, 2009, at 17:20, anatoly techtonik wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 10, 2009 at 12:10 AM, "Martin v. Löwis"
> wrote:
>>>
>>> Anatoly's question is actually a fair one for python-dev - we're the
>>> ones that *ship* Idle, so it is legitimate to ask our reasons for
>>> continuing to do so.
>>
>>
On Tue, Nov 10, 2009 at 12:10 AM, "Martin v. Löwis" wrote:
>>
>> Anatoly's question is actually a fair one for python-dev - we're the
>> ones that *ship* Idle, so it is legitimate to ask our reasons for
>> continuing to do so.
>
> OTOH, the second (or, rather, third) question (does anybody think i
Guido van Rossum python.org> writes:
>
> Was this discussed somewhere?
I don't remember so, except for a short subthread on python-ideas where you
indeed mentioned (to my disappointment :-)) that you were against a one-year
release period.
Regards
Antoine.
___
On Tue, Nov 10, 2009 at 5:13 AM, Nick Coghlan wrote:
> Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis wrote:
>> 2009-11-02 21:00 Benjamin Peterson napisał(a):
>>> I've updated PEP 373 with my proposed release schedule:
>>>
>>> - 2.7/3.2 alpha 1 2009-12-05
>>> - 2.7/3.2 alpha 2 2010-01-09
>>> - 2.7/3.2 alpha
On Nov 10, 2009, at 8:28 AM, Nick Coghlan wrote:
Barry Warsaw wrote:
I don't think it's worth making a quick 2.6.5 release for this if
it's
primary intent is to produce new Windows binaries. I'm okay with
making
the changes to the tree, but we'll release 2.6.5 on a "normal"
schedule.
Pe
Barry Warsaw wrote:
> I don't think it's worth making a quick 2.6.5 release for this if it's
> primary intent is to produce new Windows binaries. I'm okay with making
> the changes to the tree, but we'll release 2.6.5 on a "normal" schedule.
Perhaps publish a source patch relative to 2.6.4 for pe
Antoine Pitrou wrote:
> Nick Coghlan gmail.com> writes:
>> It's also one of the major reasons for not sharing mutable containers
>> between threads if you can avoid it (and serialising access to them if
>> you can't)
>
> Not necessarily, for example it is common to rely on the fact that
> list.a
On Nov 8, 2009, at 12:56 PM, Martin v. Löwis wrote:
Also, for Python 2.5 and earlier, any SSL-based code is vulnerable
to a MitM
anyway, so this can only be an issue for code using the new APIs
in Python
2.6.
That's not going to stop the
wannabe-self-proclaimed-so-called-vulnerability-"exp
Nick Coghlan gmail.com> writes:
>
> It's also one of the major reasons for not sharing mutable containers
> between threads if you can avoid it (and serialising access to them if
> you can't)
Not necessarily, for example it is common to rely on the fact that list.append()
is atomic.
Regards
An
Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis wrote:
> 2009-11-02 21:00 Benjamin Peterson napisał(a):
>> I've updated PEP 373 with my proposed release schedule:
>>
>> - 2.7/3.2 alpha 1 2009-12-05
>> - 2.7/3.2 alpha 2 2010-01-09
>> - 2.7/3.2 alpha 3 2010-02-06
>> - 2.7/3.2 alpha 4 2010-03-06
>> - 2.7/3.2 bet
Unreg
--Pesan Asli--
Dari:python-dev-requ...@python.org
Pengirim:python-dev-bounces+wa2n39=gmail@python.org
Ke:python-dev@python.org
Balas Ke:python-dev@python.org
Perihal:Python-Dev Digest, Vol 76, Issue 83
Terkirim:10 Nov 2009 03:00
Send Python-Dev mailing list submissions to
Martin v. Löwis wrote:
>> I'm not sure, but isn't that thread-unsafe?
>
> You are right; it's thread-unsafe.
>
> I would fix it by catching the RuntimeError, and retrying. Given the
> current GIL strategy (including proposed changes to it), it won't happen
> two times in a row, so the number of r
Martin v. Löwis wrote:
> Nick Coghlan wrote:
>> Ben Finney wrote:
>>> anatoly techtonik writes:
>>>
Quite an interesting question recently popped up in pygame community
that I'd like to ask to Python developers.
>>> This forum is specifically about development *of* Python.
>> Anatoly's q
2009-11-02 21:00 Benjamin Peterson napisał(a):
> I've updated PEP 373 with my proposed release schedule:
>
> - 2.7/3.2 alpha 1 2009-12-05
> - 2.7/3.2 alpha 2 2010-01-09
> - 2.7/3.2 alpha 3 2010-02-06
> - 2.7/3.2 alpha 4 2010-03-06
> - 2.7/3.2 beta 1 2010-04-03
> - 2.7/3.2 beta 2 2010-05-01
> - 2.7
41 matches
Mail list logo
