On Mon, Mar 12, 2012 at 10:48:04PM -0700, Andrey Petrov wrote:
> @Senthil: I originally asked Guido for guidance on improving the
> standard library and perhaps including some of my favourite projects,
> but he pointed out that in a couple of years we might end up again in
> the same position as be
Dear authors of Python's standard library: Please accept my deepest
apologies. We didn't mean for the messaging to come off as
unappreciative for you work, and I am very sorry for that!
Without the aforementioned urllib/httplib/etc I would have never made
it as far as to build my own libraries whi
On Mon, Mar 12, 2012 at 07:23:11PM -0700, Andrey Petrov wrote:
> I've had the pleasure of speaking with Guido at PyCon and it became evident
> that some of Python's included batteries are significantly lagging behind the
> rapidly-evolving defacto standards of the community specifically in cases li
Definitely think some library vetting needs to occur. Superior alternatives
do exist and are difficult to find and choose from. Stuff like LXML,
Requests, Tornado are clear winners.
The more of this done externally (ie PyPI the better). I still think a set
of requirements for "official approval" w
On Tue, Mar 13, 2012 at 06:43, Guido van Rossum wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 12, 2012 at 9:23 PM, Brian Curtin wrote:
>> Downloads don't mean the code is good. Voting is gamed. I really don't
>> think there's a good automated solution to tell us what the
>> high-quality replacement projects are.
>
> Sure
On Mon, Mar 12, 2012 at 9:23 PM, Brian Curtin wrote:
> Downloads don't mean the code is good. Voting is gamed. I really don't
> think there's a good automated solution to tell us what the
> high-quality replacement projects are.
Sure, these are imperfect metrics. But not having any metrics at all
On Mon, Mar 12, 2012 at 9:22 PM, Terry Reedy wrote:
> I would rather we figure out how to encourage authors of advancing packages
> to contribute better implementations of existing features and well-tested
> new features back to the stdlib module.
I would not. There are many excellent packages ou
On Mon, Mar 12, 2012 at 21:14, Andrey Petrov wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 12, 2012 at 8:58 PM, Brian Curtin wrote:
>> On Mon, Mar 12, 2012 at 19:23, Andrey Petrov wrote:
>>> What such a snippet might look like:
>>>
>>> "Batteries are included with Python but sometimes they are old and
>>> leaky—this is
On 3/12/2012 10:23 PM, Andrey Petrov wrote:
I've had the pleasure of speaking with Guido at PyCon and it became
evident that some of Python's included batteries are significantly
lagging behind the rapidly-evolving defacto standards of the
community—specifically in cases like urllib and urllib2,
On Mon, Mar 12, 2012 at 8:58 PM, Brian Curtin wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 12, 2012 at 19:23, Andrey Petrov wrote:
>> What such a snippet might look like:
>>
>> "Batteries are included with Python but sometimes they are old and
>> leaky—this is one of those cases. Please have a look in PyPI for more mode
On 3/12/2012 8:48 PM, C. Titus Brown wrote:
I feel like there's a middle ground where stable, long-term go-to modules could
be mentioned, though. I don't spend a lot of time browsing PyPI, but I suspect
almost everyone spends a certain amount of time in the Python docs (which is a
testimony to t
On Mon, Mar 12, 2012 at 19:23, Andrey Petrov wrote:
> What such a snippet might look like:
>
> "Batteries are included with Python but sometimes they are old and
> leaky—this is one of those cases. Please have a look in PyPI for more modern
> alternatives provided by the Python community."
What d
On Tue, Mar 13, 2012 at 05:42:55AM +0200, Eli Bendersky wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 13, 2012 at 05:25, C. Titus Brown wrote:
> > I see the point, but as a reasonably knowledgeable Python programmer
> > (intelligent? who knows...) I regularly discover nifty new modules
> > that "replace" stdlib modules. ?
On Tue, Mar 13, 2012 at 05:25, C. Titus Brown wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 13, 2012 at 05:22:45AM +0200, Eli Bendersky wrote:
>> On Tue, Mar 13, 2012 at 05:07, R. David Murray wrote:
>> > I don't like any of the suggested wordings. ?I have no problem with
>> > us recommending other modules, but most of t
On Tue, Mar 13, 2012 at 05:22:45AM +0200, Eli Bendersky wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 13, 2012 at 05:07, R. David Murray wrote:
> > I don't like any of the suggested wordings. ?I have no problem with
> > us recommending other modules, but most of the Python libraries are
> > perfectly functional (not "leak
On Tue, Mar 13, 2012 at 05:07, R. David Murray wrote:
> I don't like any of the suggested wordings. I have no problem with
> us recommending other modules, but most of the Python libraries are
> perfectly functional (not "leaky" or some other pejorative), they just
> aren't as capable as the wiz-
I don't like any of the suggested wordings. I have no problem with
us recommending other modules, but most of the Python libraries are
perfectly functional (not "leaky" or some other pejorative), they just
aren't as capable as the wiz-bang new stuff that's available on PyPI.
--David
_
Hi Pythonistas,
I've had the pleasure of speaking with Guido at PyCon and it became evident
that some of Python's included batteries are significantly lagging behind
the rapidly-evolving defacto standards of the community—specifically in
cases like urllib and urllib2, which lack important features
On Mon, Mar 12, 2012 at 20:51, Guido van Rossum wrote:
> I'm very sympathetic to this PEP. I would accept it outright except I
> have a few quibbles on details, and some questions and remarks.
>
> - There are several examples of poor English grammar, perhaps from
> your co-author. Can you fix the
On Tue, Mar 13, 2012 at 10:51 AM, Guido van Rossum wrote:
> - I don't quite understand how bind() is supposed to work. Maybe an
> example would help? (It could also use some motivation. I think this
> is meant to expose a canonical version of the algorithm that maps
> arguments to parameters. What
I'm very sympathetic to this PEP. I would accept it outright except I
have a few quibbles on details, and some questions and remarks.
- There are several examples of poor English grammar, perhaps from
your co-author. Can you fix these? (Do you need me to produce a list?)
- You're using an informa
> benjamin.peterson wrote:
>> http://hg.python.org/cpython/rev/3877bf2e3235
>> changeset: 75542:3877bf2e3235
>> user: Benjamin Peterson
>> date: Mon Mar 12 09:46:44 2012 -0700
>> summary:
>> give the AST class a __dict__
>
> This seems to have broken the Windows buildbots.
http
On Mon, Mar 12, 2012 at 4:47 PM, Michael Foord wrote:
>
> On 12 Mar 2012, at 16:31, Guido van Rossum wrote:
>
>> More to the point, I am approving the PEP.
>>
>> We chatted briefly at the sprint and I just want to emphasize that the
>> external version should not grow new features before the stdli
On 12 Mar 2012, at 16:31, Guido van Rossum wrote:
> More to the point, I am approving the PEP.
>
> We chatted briefly at the sprint and I just want to emphasize that the
> external version should not grow new features before the stdlib
> version has those same features (we don't want users compl
On Mar 12, 2012, at 07:33 PM, Brett Cannon wrote:
>It came up at the sprints about how to choose new PEP numbers. It was
>agreed that the newest, *lowest* number should be used (e.g. 418) and not
>the next highest number (e.g. 3156). I have already updated PEP 1 to
>reflect this.
+1
-Barry
_
We've had many discussions in the past about PEP 335 and they always
ended in non-action. I'm cutting any future discussions short and
officially rejecting the PEP. Amongst other reasons, I really dislike
that the PEP adds to the bytecode for all uses of these operators even
though almost no call s
It came up at the sprints about how to choose new PEP numbers. It was
agreed that the newest, *lowest* number should be used (e.g. 418) and not
the next highest number (e.g. 3156). I have already updated PEP 1 to
reflect this.
___
Python-Dev mailing list
On Mon, 12 Mar 2012 17:56:10 +0100
benjamin.peterson wrote:
> http://hg.python.org/cpython/rev/3877bf2e3235
> changeset: 75542:3877bf2e3235
> user:Benjamin Peterson
> date:Mon Mar 12 09:46:44 2012 -0700
> summary:
> give the AST class a __dict__
This seems to have broken the
More to the point, I am approving the PEP.
We chatted briefly at the sprint and I just want to emphasize that the
external version should not grow new features before the stdlib
version has those same features (we don't want users complaining that
the stdlib version is no good). Also, if you have
Great. Thank you.
Wendy Watts
IT Recruiter
VTRIT
100 First Street, Suite 200 I San Francisco, CA 55120
t: 415.536.5844 I f: 415.536.2845
wwa...@vtrit.com | vtrit.com
-Original Message-
From: Brian Curtin [mailto:br...@python.org]
Sent: Monday, March 12, 2012 4:01 PM
To: Watts,
+10 for the record. (given we all already agreed upon this in the summit :)
make it so.
On Mon, Mar 12, 2012 at 3:05 PM, Michael Foord wrote:
> Hello all,
>
> At the Python Language Summit adding the "mock" library to the Python
> Standard Library was discussed and agreed. Here is a very brief
On Mon, Mar 12, 2012 at 15:40, Watts, Wendy wrote:
> Hello, my name is Wendy; I am a IT recruiter for vtrIT which is a division
> of Volt Workforce Technical Solutions located in San Francisco. I have an
> urgent Senior and Junior Python Engineer positions open for a client located
> in CA. I am r
Hello, my name is Wendy; I am a IT recruiter for vtrIT which is a
division of Volt Workforce Technical Solutions located in San Francisco.
I have an urgent Senior and Junior Python Engineer positions open for a
client located in CA. I am reaching out to you in finding out your
status of new opportu
Hello all,
At the Python Language Summit adding the "mock" library to the Python Standard
Library was discussed and agreed. Here is a very brief PEP covering the
decision and rationale.
All the best,
Michael Foord
PEP: 417
Title: Including mock in the Standard Library
Version: $Revision$
Last
On Mon, Mar 12, 2012 at 11:43 AM, PJ Eby wrote:
> I wish Gmail defaulted to reply-all in the edit box.
There's a lab for that. :-)
-Fred
--
Fred L. Drake, Jr.
"A person who won't read has no advantage over one who can't read."
--Samuel Langhorne Clemens
_
On Wed, Feb 29, 2012 at 9:13 PM, Peter Moody wrote:
> Just checking in:
>
> On Mon, Feb 20, 2012 at 5:48 PM, Nick Coghlan wrote:
>> At the very least:
>> - the IP Interface API needs to move to a point where it more clearly
>> *is* an IP Address and *has* an associated IP Network (rather than
>>
Ugh; this was supposed to be sent to the list, not just Guido. (I wish
Gmail defaulted to reply-all in the edit box.)
-- Forwarded message --
From: PJ Eby
Date: Mon, Mar 12, 2012 at 12:16 AM
Subject: Re: [Import-SIG] Where to discuss PEP 382 vs. PEP 402 (namespace
packages)?
To:
37 matches
Mail list logo
