On Feb 27, 2013, at 11:51 AM, Michael Foord wrote:
> Hello all,
>
> PyCon, and the Python Language Summit, is nearly upon us. We have a good
> number of people confirmed to attend. If you are intending to come to the
> language summit but haven't let me know please do so.
>
> The agenda of to
On 02/26/2013 06:30 PM, Terry Reedy wrote:
On 2/26/2013 1:47 PM, Larry Hastings wrote:
I think positional-only functions should be discouraged, but we don't
If I were writing something like Clinic, I would be tempted to not
have that option. But I was actually thinking about something in the
On Thu, Feb 28, 2013 at 1:35 PM, Brett Cannon wrote:
> That should be fine as that is what we already do for accelerator modules
> anyway. If you want to work towards having an equivalent of CPython's
> Modules/ directory so you can ditch your custom Lib/ modules by treating
> your specific code a
On Thu, Feb 28, 2013 at 3:17 PM, fwierzbi...@gmail.com <
fwierzbi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 28, 2013 at 12:00 PM, Antoine Pitrou
> wrote:
> > IMHO, we should remove the plat-* directories, they are completely
> > unmaintained, undocumented, and serve no useful purpose.
> Oh I didn't know
On Thu, Feb 28, 2013 at 12:00 PM, Antoine Pitrou wrote:
> IMHO, we should remove the plat-* directories, they are completely
> unmaintained, undocumented, and serve no useful purpose.
Oh I didn't know that - so definitely adding to that is right out :)
Really for cases like Jython's zlib.py (no u
On Thu, 28 Feb 2013 11:46:04 -0800
"fwierzbi...@gmail.com" wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 28, 2013 at 11:24 AM, Chris Jerdonek
> wrote:
> > On Thu, Feb 28, 2013 at 1:30 AM, Antoine Pitrou wrote:
> >> Le Wed, 27 Feb 2013 11:33:30 -0800,
> >> "fwierzbi...@gmail.com" a écrit :
> >>>
> >>> There are a couple
On Thu, Feb 28, 2013 at 11:46 AM, fwierzbi...@gmail.com
wrote:
>> Agreed on those problems. Would it be possible to use a design
>> pattern in these cases so the Jython-only code wouldn't need to be
>> part of the CPython repo? A naive example would be refactoring zlib
>> to allow subclassing in
On Thu, Feb 28, 2013 at 11:24 AM, Chris Jerdonek
wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 28, 2013 at 1:30 AM, Antoine Pitrou wrote:
>> Le Wed, 27 Feb 2013 11:33:30 -0800,
>> "fwierzbi...@gmail.com" a écrit :
>>>
>>> There are a couple of spots that might be more controversial. For
>>> example, Jython has a file Li
On Thu, Feb 28, 2013 at 1:30 AM, Antoine Pitrou wrote:
> Le Wed, 27 Feb 2013 11:33:30 -0800,
> "fwierzbi...@gmail.com" a écrit :
>>
>> There are a couple of spots that might be more controversial. For
>> example, Jython has a file Lib/zlib.py that implements zlib in terms
>> of the existing Java
On Thu, Feb 28, 2013 at 4:03 PM, Antoine Pitrou wrote:
> Le Thu, 28 Feb 2013 13:36:10 +0200,
> Maciej Fijalkowski a écrit :
>> Hi
>>
>> I know this is a hard topic, but python-dev is already incredibly
>> high-volume and dragging discussion off-topic is making following
>> important stuff (while
On Thu, Feb 28, 2013 at 1:30 AM, Antoine Pitrou wrote:
> Le Wed, 27 Feb 2013 11:33:30 -0800,
> "fwierzbi...@gmail.com" a écrit :
>>
>> There are a couple of spots that might be more controversial. For
>> example, Jython has a file Lib/zlib.py that implements zlib in terms
>> of the existing Java
On Thu, Feb 28, 2013 at 1:15 AM, Nick Coghlan wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 28, 2013 at 1:37 PM, Barry Warsaw wrote:
>> On Feb 27, 2013, at 11:33 AM, fwierzbi...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>The easy part for Jython is pushing some of our "if is_jython:" stuff
>>>into the appropriate spots in CPython's Lib/.
>>
>>
On Wed, Feb 27, 2013 at 7:37 PM, Barry Warsaw wrote:
> On Feb 27, 2013, at 11:33 AM, fwierzbi...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>>I am suggesting that we push forward on the "shared library" approach to the
>>files in the Lib/* directory, so that would certainly include IronPython and
>>PyPy as well I hope.
>
On Thursday, February 28, 2013 at 9:49 AM, Stefan Krah wrote:
> Jesse Noller mailto:jnol...@gmail.com)> wrote:
> > > Why would it help to resolve such an issue (if it is an issue at all!)
> > > for a single person on a private mailing list?
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > See: http://mail.python.org/pip
Jesse Noller wrote:
> > Why would it help to resolve such an issue (if it is an issue at all!)
> > for a single person on a private mailing list?
>
>
> See: http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2013-February/124463.html
That was quick. Thanks!
Stefan Krah
__
Steven D'Aprano wrote:
> The question of whether or not the PSF is violating the Apache license in
> some way is not one that is helped by having arbitrary people give their
> uninformed opinions.
No one will be preventing lawyers from giving their opinions on python-legal.
In fact, at least one
On Thursday, February 28, 2013 at 7:26 AM, Stefan Krah wrote:
> Jesse Noller mailto:jnol...@gmail.com)> wrote:
> > > > We have one: p...@python.org (mailto:p...@python.org)
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > That's not exactly a public mailing-list.
> >
> > Nope. But it's also where lawyers flock and t
See: http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-legal-sig
Open archives. As the header says this is for the discussion of CLA/other
issues. If specific legal questions or alterations to Python/the PSF
trademarks, CLA/etc are requested those *must* be sent to p...@python.org for
board overs
Le Thu, 28 Feb 2013 13:36:10 +0200,
Maciej Fijalkowski a écrit :
> Hi
>
> I know this is a hard topic, but python-dev is already incredibly
> high-volume and dragging discussion off-topic is making following
> important stuff (while ignoring unimportant stuff) very hard.
>
> For example in a rec
On Thu, Feb 28, 2013 at 8:53 AM, Benjamin Peterson wrote:
> 2013/2/28 Brett Cannon :
> >
> >
> >
> > On Thu, Feb 28, 2013 at 6:34 AM, Michael Foord <
> fuzzy...@voidspace.org.uk>
> > wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> On 28 Feb 2013, at 07:36, Georg Brandl wrote:
> >>
> >> > Am 27.02.2013 17:51, schrieb Micha
2013/2/28 Brett Cannon :
>
>
>
> On Thu, Feb 28, 2013 at 6:34 AM, Michael Foord
> wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 28 Feb 2013, at 07:36, Georg Brandl wrote:
>>
>> > Am 27.02.2013 17:51, schrieb Michael Foord:
>> >> Hello all,
>> >>
>> >> PyCon, and the Python Language Summit, is nearly upon us. We have a
>> >
On Thu, Feb 28, 2013 at 6:34 AM, Michael Foord wrote:
>
> On 28 Feb 2013, at 07:36, Georg Brandl wrote:
>
> > Am 27.02.2013 17:51, schrieb Michael Foord:
> >> Hello all,
> >>
> >> PyCon, and the Python Language Summit, is nearly upon us. We have a
> good number of people confirmed to attend. If y
Le Fri, 01 Mar 2013 00:21:48 +1100,
Steven D'Aprano a écrit :
>
> The question of whether or not the PSF is violating the Apache
> license in some way is not one that is helped by having arbitrary
> people give their uninformed opinions. I sympathize with curious
> people wanting to see what's go
On 28/02/13 23:26, Stefan Krah wrote:
Jesse Noller wrote:
We have one: p...@python.org
That's not exactly a public mailing-list.
Nope. But it's also where lawyers flock and these issues can rapidly be
resolved.
If the list isn't publicly archived, the same questions will arise over
and o
On Feb 28, 2013, at 8:03 AM, "Stephen J. Turnbull" wrote:
> Stefan Krah writes:
>
>> Why would [the PSF list] help to resolve such an issue (if it is an
>> issue at all!)
>
> Precisely.
>
> If there *is* a compliance problem, there's nothing to be done before
> talking to the lawyers. Altho
Stefan Krah writes:
> Why would [the PSF list] help to resolve such an issue (if it is an
> issue at all!)
Precisely.
If there *is* a compliance problem, there's nothing to be done before
talking to the lawyers. Although license *choice* is primarily a
political issue, *compliance* is technic
On Feb 28, 2013, at 7:31 AM, Jesse Noller wrote:
>
>
> On Feb 28, 2013, at 7:23 AM, Antoine Pitrou wrote:
>
>> Le Thu, 28 Feb 2013 06:57:36 -0500,
>> Jesse Noller a écrit :
>>>
>>> On Feb 28, 2013, at 6:55 AM, Antoine Pitrou
>>> wrote:
>>>
Le Thu, 28 Feb 2013 06:48:24 -0500,
J
On Feb 28, 2013, at 7:23 AM, Antoine Pitrou wrote:
> Le Thu, 28 Feb 2013 06:57:36 -0500,
> Jesse Noller a écrit :
>>
>> On Feb 28, 2013, at 6:55 AM, Antoine Pitrou
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Le Thu, 28 Feb 2013 06:48:24 -0500,
>>> Jesse Noller a écrit :
>
> Perhaps it's an idea to have a py
Jesse Noller wrote:
> >> We have one: p...@python.org
> >
> > That's not exactly a public mailing-list.
>
> Nope. But it's also where lawyers flock and these issues can rapidly be
> resolved.
If the list isn't publicly archived, the same questions will arise over
and over again (probably on py
Le Thu, 28 Feb 2013 06:57:36 -0500,
Jesse Noller a écrit :
>
> On Feb 28, 2013, at 6:55 AM, Antoine Pitrou
> wrote:
>
> > Le Thu, 28 Feb 2013 06:48:24 -0500,
> > Jesse Noller a écrit :
> >>>
> >>> Perhaps it's an idea to have a python-legal mailing list for these
> >>> topics?
> >>>
> >>> I
On Feb 28, 2013, at 6:55 AM, Antoine Pitrou wrote:
> Le Thu, 28 Feb 2013 06:48:24 -0500,
> Jesse Noller a écrit :
>>>
>>> Perhaps it's an idea to have a python-legal mailing list for these
>>> topics?
>>>
>>> I don't think it's fundamentally wrong to scrutinize licenses,
>>> provided that th
Le Thu, 28 Feb 2013 06:48:24 -0500,
Jesse Noller a écrit :
> >
> > Perhaps it's an idea to have a python-legal mailing list for these
> > topics?
> >
> > I don't think it's fundamentally wrong to scrutinize licenses,
> > provided that the discussion stays civil and factual.
> >
> > IIRC Debian
On Feb 28, 2013, at 6:42 AM, Stefan Krah wrote:
> Jesse Noller wrote:
>> http://www.python.org/psf/contrib/contrib-form/ + http://opensource.org/
>>licenses/apache2.0.php
>> and why PSF doesn't comply the 4. Redistribution clause from Apache 2.0
>>license
>>
>>
>>
>> I'm
On 28 Feb 2013, at 03:42, Barry Warsaw wrote:
> On Feb 27, 2013, at 04:51 PM, Michael Foord wrote:
>
>> If you have other items you'd like to discuss please let me know and I can
>> add them to the agenda.
>
> I'd like to have some discussions around promotion of Python 3, how we can
> acceler
On 27 Feb 2013, at 19:01, fwierzbi...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 27, 2013 at 8:51 AM, Michael Foord
> wrote:
>> If you have other items you'd like to discuss please let me know and I can
>> add them to the agenda.
>
> I'd like to discuss merging Jython's standard Lib (the *.py files). We
Jesse Noller wrote:
> http://www.python.org/psf/contrib/contrib-form/ + http://opensource.org/
> licenses/apache2.0.php
>and why PSF doesn't comply the 4. Redistribution clause from Apache 2.0
> license
>
>
>
> I'm not even touching your security through obscurity trollbai
On 27 Feb 2013, at 18:50, Antoine Pitrou wrote:
> On Wed, 27 Feb 2013 16:51:16 +
> Michael Foord wrote:
>
>> Hello all,
>>
>> PyCon, and the Python Language Summit, is nearly upon us. We have a good
>> number of people confirmed to attend. If you are intending to come to the
>> language
Hi
I know this is a hard topic, but python-dev is already incredibly
high-volume and dragging discussion off-topic is making following
important stuff (while ignoring unimportant stuff) very hard.
For example in a recent topic "cffi in stdlib" I find a mail that says
"we have to find a sufficient
On 28 Feb 2013, at 07:36, Georg Brandl wrote:
> Am 27.02.2013 17:51, schrieb Michael Foord:
>> Hello all,
>>
>> PyCon, and the Python Language Summit, is nearly upon us. We have a good
>> number of people confirmed to attend. If you are intending to come to the
>> language summit but haven't
On Feb 27, 2013, at 3:20 PM, anatoly techtonik wrote:
>
> * security by obscurity in legal position of PSF towards contributors
> https://code.google.com/legal/individual-cla-v1.0.html
>vs
> http://www.python.org/psf/contrib/contrib-form/ +
> http://www.samurajdata.se/opensource/mirro
On 28/02/13 07:20, anatoly techtonik wrote:
* as an exercise - try to build a scroller for a running Python script
* it is impossible for Python 2 and probably for Python 3 as well
What do you mean by "a scroller"?
[...]
and why PSF doesn't comply the 4. Redistribution clause fr
Having had some time to think about this problem space, here's my take on it:
===
The problem-space can be broken down into four layers:
1. the items
2. interaction between grouped items
3. the grouping itself
4. conversion from a class to a group
Here are *potential
Armin Rigo:
> Maybe. Feel like adding an issue to
> https://bitbucket.org/cffi/cffi/issues, with references?
OK, issue #62 added.
> This looks
> like a Windows-specific extension, which means that I don't
> automatically know about it.
While SAL is Windows-specific, gcc supports some si
Le Wed, 27 Feb 2013 11:33:30 -0800,
"fwierzbi...@gmail.com" a écrit :
>
> There are a couple of spots that might be more controversial. For
> example, Jython has a file Lib/zlib.py that implements zlib in terms
> of the existing Java support for zlib. I do wonder if such a file is
> acceptable in
Le Thu, 28 Feb 2013 10:06:00 +0100,
Armin Rigo a écrit :
>
> Yes, you're right, and the 32-bit Windows platform is still important.
> However, it only works on 32-bit. On typical 64-bit Posix
> environments, if you don't declare argtypes/restype, you usually end
> up very quickly with confusion
Le Thu, 28 Feb 2013 10:57:50 +1300,
Greg Ewing a écrit :
> Antoine Pitrou wrote:
> > We have to find sufficiently silly species of snakes, though.
>
> Glancing through http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_snakes,
> we have:
>
> Wart snakes
> Java wart snakes
> Pipe snakes
> Stiletto snakes
> Rub
On Thu, Feb 28, 2013 at 1:37 PM, Barry Warsaw wrote:
> On Feb 27, 2013, at 11:33 AM, fwierzbi...@gmail.com wrote:
>>The easy part for Jython is pushing some of our "if is_jython:" stuff
>>into the appropriate spots in CPython's Lib/.
>
> I wonder if there isn't a better way to do this than sprinkl
On 28 February 2013 09:06, Armin Rigo wrote:
> And I think
> that even on 64-bit Windows, passing 0 as a NULL pointer is buggy,
> because it will pass a 32-bit 0. (It may be that it doesn't actually
> make a difference and works anyway, but I'm not sure.) Similarly, a
> function that returns a p
On Thu, Feb 28, 2013 at 10:27 AM, Paul Moore wrote:
> On 27 February 2013 23:18, Armin Rigo wrote:
>> from cffi import FFI
>> ffi = FFI()
>> ffi.cdef("""
>> int MessageBox(HWND hWnd, LPCTSTR lpText, LPCTSTR lpCaption, UINT uType);
>> """)
>> lib = ffi.dlopen("USER32.DLL")
>> lib.MessageBox(ff
Hi Paul,
On Thu, Feb 28, 2013 at 9:27 AM, Paul Moore wrote:
> Presumably ffi.NULL isn't needed and I can use 0? (After all, 0 and NULL are
> equivalent in C, so that's
> not a correctness issue).
Indeed. I created
https://bitbucket.org/cffi/cffi/issue/61/convert-0-to-a-null-pointer.
In C, NULL
On 27 February 2013 23:18, Armin Rigo wrote:
> from cffi import FFI
> ffi = FFI()
> ffi.cdef("""
> int MessageBox(HWND hWnd, LPCTSTR lpText, LPCTSTR lpCaption, UINT uType);
> """)
> lib = ffi.dlopen("USER32.DLL")
> lib.MessageBox(ffi.NULL, "Hello, world!", "Title", 0)
Yeah, that's loads bette
Hi Neil,
On Thu, Feb 28, 2013 at 12:34 AM, Neil Hodgson wrote:
>Wouldn't it be better to understand the SAL annotations like _In_opt so
> that spurious NULLs (for example) produce a good exception from cffi instead
> of failing inside the system call?
Maybe. Feel like adding an issue to
h
52 matches
Mail list logo
