On May 14, 2013, at 9:39 AM, Gregory P. Smith g...@krypto.org wrote:
Bad: doctests.
I'm hoping that core developers don't get caught-up in the doctests are bad
meme.
Instead, we should be clear about their primary purpose which is to test
the examples given in docstrings. In many cases,
2013/5/17 Antoine Pitrou solip...@pitrou.net:
Hello,
Some pieces of code are still guarded by:
#ifdef HAVE_FSTAT
...
#endif
I would expect all systems to have fstat() these days. It's pretty
basic POSIX, and even Windows has had it for ages. Shouldn't we simply
make those code blocks
On Sun, May 19, 2013 at 4:41 PM, Raymond Hettinger
raymond.hettin...@gmail.com wrote:
nicer repr is worth Sorry, I broke your tests, made your published
examples
out of date, and slowed down your code.
While the first two considerations are always potentially applicable
when using enums, the
On Sun, 19 May 2013 10:08:39 +0200
Charles-François Natali cf.nat...@gmail.com wrote:
2013/5/17 Antoine Pitrou solip...@pitrou.net:
Hello,
Some pieces of code are still guarded by:
#ifdef HAVE_FSTAT
...
#endif
I would expect all systems to have fstat() these days. It's pretty
On Sat, May 18, 2013 at 10:27 PM, Raymond Hettinger
raymond.hettin...@gmail.com wrote:
BTW, I'm +1 on the idea for ordering keyword-args. It makes
it easier to debug if the arguments show-up in the order they
were created. AFAICT, no purpose is served by scrambling them
(which is
On Sat, 18 May 2013 22:47:35 -0700
Guido van Rossum gu...@python.org wrote:
On Sat, May 18, 2013 at 10:27 PM, Raymond Hettinger
raymond.hettin...@gmail.com wrote:
BTW, I'm +1 on the idea for ordering keyword-args. It makes
it easier to debug if the arguments show-up in the order they
were
On Sun, May 19, 2013 at 7:27 AM, Raymond Hettinger
raymond.hettin...@gmail.com wrote:
On May 15, 2013, at 4:32 AM, Christian Tismer tis...@stackless.com wrote:
What is the current status of this discussion?
I'd like to know whether it is a considered alternative implementation.
As far as I
On Sun, May 19, 2013 at 11:01 PM, Antoine Pitrou solip...@pitrou.net wrote:
The main use case seems to be the OrderedDict constructor itself.
Otherwise, I can't think of any situation where I would've wanted it.
I've had a couple related to populating other mappings where order
matters, at
Fake values would probably cause hard to debug problems. It's a long standing
Python tradition not to offer low level APIs that the platform doesn't have.
—
Sent from Mailbox
On Sun, May 19, 2013 at 5:20 AM, Antoine Pitrou solip...@pitrou.net
wrote:
On Sun, 19 May 2013 10:08:39 +0200
On Sun, 19 May 2013 07:47:14 -0700 (PDT)
Guido van Rossum gvanros...@gmail.com wrote:
Fake values would probably cause hard to debug problems. It's a long standing
Python tradition not to offer low level APIs that the platform doesn't have.
I meant the platform, not Python.
Regards
Antoine.
Hm. Wouldn'tvevery call site be slowed down by checking for that flag?
—
Sent from Mailbox
On Sun, May 19, 2013 at 7:42 AM, Nick Coghlan ncogh...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, May 19, 2013 at 11:01 PM, Antoine Pitrou solip...@pitrou.net wrote:
The main use case seems to be the OrderedDict
On Sun, May 19, 2013 at 4:40 PM, Nick Coghlan ncogh...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, May 19, 2013 at 11:01 PM, Antoine Pitrou solip...@pitrou.net wrote:
The main use case seems to be the OrderedDict constructor itself.
Otherwise, I can't think of any situation where I would've wanted it.
I've had
On Mon, May 20, 2013 at 12:51 AM, Antoine Pitrou solip...@pitrou.net wrote:
On Sun, 19 May 2013 07:47:14 -0700 (PDT)
Guido van Rossum gvanros...@gmail.com wrote:
Fake values would probably cause hard to debug problems. It's a long
standing Python tradition not to offer low level APIs that the
On 19 May 2013 11:57, Guido van Rossum gvanros...@gmail.com wrote:
Hm. Wouldn'tvevery call site be slowed down by checking for that flag?
Actually, when I was thinking on the subject I came to the same idea, of having
some functions marked differently so they would use a different call mechanism
On Mon, 20 May 2013 01:09:19 +1000
Nick Coghlan ncogh...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, May 20, 2013 at 12:51 AM, Antoine Pitrou solip...@pitrou.net wrote:
On Sun, 19 May 2013 07:47:14 -0700 (PDT)
Guido van Rossum gvanros...@gmail.com wrote:
Fake values would probably cause hard to debug
Anyway, if you're doing arithmetic on enums you're doing it wrong.
—
Sent from Mailbox
On Sun, May 19, 2013 at 4:55 AM, Nick Coghlan ncogh...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, May 19, 2013 at 4:41 PM, Raymond Hettinger
raymond.hettin...@gmail.com wrote:
nicer repr is worth Sorry, I broke your tests,
Attached is a pretty trivial example of asynchronous interaction with a
python subprocess using tulip on Windows. It does not use transports or
protocols -- instead sock_recv() and sock_sendall() are used inside tasks.
I am not sure what the plan is for dealing with subprocesses currently.
Shouldn't this go to the python-tulip list?
2013/5/19 Richard Oudkerk shibt...@gmail.com:
Attached is a pretty trivial example of asynchronous interaction with a
python subprocess using tulip on Windows. It does not use transports or
protocols -- instead sock_recv() and sock_sendall() are
On Sat, May 18, 2013 at 11:41 PM, Raymond Hettinger
raymond.hettin...@gmail.com wrote:
On May 14, 2013, at 9:39 AM, Gregory P. Smith g...@krypto.org wrote:
Bad: doctests.
I'm hoping that core developers don't get caught-up in the doctests are
bad meme.
Don't doctests intended for
On 19/05/2013 5:03pm, Benjamin Peterson wrote:
Shouldn't this go to the python-tulip list?
Yes. Sorry about that.
--
Richard
___
Python-Dev mailing list
Python-Dev@python.org
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev
Unsubscribe:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 05/19/2013 10:48 AM, Guido van Rossum wrote:
Anyway, if you're doing arithmetic on enums you're doing it wrong.
Hmm, bitwise operations, even?
Tres.
- --
===
Tres Seaver
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 05/19/2013 12:14 PM, Dan Stromberg wrote:
On Sat, May 18, 2013 at 11:41 PM, Raymond Hettinger
raymond.hettin...@gmail.com wrote:
On May 14, 2013, at 9:39 AM, Gregory P. Smith g...@krypto.org
wrote:
Bad: doctests.
I'm hoping that
On 5/19/2013 4:13 PM, Tres Seaver wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 05/19/2013 10:48 AM, Guido van Rossum wrote:
Anyway, if you're doing arithmetic on enums you're doing it wrong.
Hmm, bitwise operations, even?
Those are logic, not arithmetic as usually understood.
This is more out of curiosity than to spark change (although I
wouldn't argue against it): Does anyone know why it was decided to
document external to source files rather than inline?
When rapidly digging through source, it would be much more helpful to
see parameter docs than to either have to
On Sun, 19 May 2013 15:29:37 -0700
Demian Brecht demianbre...@gmail.com wrote:
This is more out of curiosity than to spark change (although I
wouldn't argue against it): Does anyone know why it was decided to
document external to source files rather than inline?
When rapidly digging through
2013/5/19 Demian Brecht demianbre...@gmail.com:
This is more out of curiosity than to spark change (although I
wouldn't argue against it): Does anyone know why it was decided to
document external to source files rather than inline?
When rapidly digging through source, it would be much more
On 20 May 2013 00:57, Guido van Rossum gvanros...@gmail.com wrote:
Hm. Wouldn'tvevery call site be slowed down by checking for that flag?
Yeah, I forgot about having to push everything through the tp_call slot, so
we can't easily limit the ordering check to just those cases where the
callable
On 20 May 2013 06:25, Terry Jan Reedy tjre...@udel.edu wrote:
On 5/19/2013 4:13 PM, Tres Seaver wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 05/19/2013 10:48 AM, Guido van Rossum wrote:
Anyway, if you're doing arithmetic on enums you're doing it wrong.
Hmm, bitwise
@benjamin: Ah, i see. I wasn't around pre-Sphinx. However, unless
there's some custom build steps that I'm unaware of that may prevent
it, it should still be relatively easy to maintain the desired
narrative structure as long as the inline API docs are kept terse.
@antoine: Sorry, I may not have
Hi all,
I just installed Python 2.7.5 64-bit () on a Windows 7 64-bit OS computer.
When I evaluate sys.maxint I don't get what I was expected. I get this:
Python 2.7.5 (default, May 15 2013, 22:44:16) [MSC v.1500 64 bit (AMD64)]
on win32
Type copyright, credits or license() for more
2013/5/19 Pierre Rouleau prouleau...@gmail.com:
Hi all,
I just installed Python 2.7.5 64-bit () on a Windows 7 64-bit OS computer.
When I evaluate sys.maxint I don't get what I was expected. I get this:
Python 2.7.5 (default, May 15 2013, 22:44:16) [MSC v.1500 64 bit (AMD64)] on
win32
On Sun, May 19, 2013 at 1:13 PM, Tres Seaver tsea...@palladion.com wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 05/19/2013 10:48 AM, Guido van Rossum wrote:
Anyway, if you're doing arithmetic on enums you're doing it wrong.
Hmm, bitwise operations, even?
I think it's rather
OK thanks, Benjamin,
you are correct sys.maxsize is 2*63-1 on it.
I was under the impression that Python was using int_64_t for the
implementation of Win64 based integers. Most probably because I've sen
discussion on Python 64 bits and those post were most probably were in the
scope of some
On Sat, May 18, 2013 at 11:41 PM, Raymond Hettinger
raymond.hettin...@gmail.com wrote:
On May 14, 2013, at 9:39 AM, Gregory P. Smith g...@krypto.org wrote:
Bad: doctests.
I'm hoping that core developers don't get caught-up in the doctests are
bad meme.
So long as doctests insist on
2013/5/19 Gregory P. Smith g...@krypto.org:
Idea: I don't believe anybody has written a fixer for lib2to3 that applies
fixers to doctests. That'd be an interesting project for someone.
2to3 can operate on doctests, though it doesn't do anything different
to them than it does to normal
On that topic of bitness for 64-bit platforms, would it not be better for
CPython to be written such that it uses the same 64-bit strategy on all
64-bit platforms, regardless of the OS?
As it is now, Python running on 64-bit Windows behaves differently (in
terms of bits for the Python's integer)
On Sun, 19 May 2013 19:37:46 -0400
Pierre Rouleau prouleau...@gmail.com wrote:
On that topic of bitness for 64-bit platforms, would it not be better for
CPython to be written such that it uses the same 64-bit strategy on all
64-bit platforms, regardless of the OS?
As it is now, Python
On Sun, May 19, 2013 at 7:41 PM, Antoine Pitrou solip...@pitrou.net wrote:
On Sun, 19 May 2013 19:37:46 -0400
Pierre Rouleau prouleau...@gmail.com wrote:
On that topic of bitness for 64-bit platforms, would it not be better for
CPython to be written such that it uses the same 64-bit
On 20 May 2013 08:51, Demian Brecht demianbre...@gmail.com wrote:
@benjamin: Ah, i see. I wasn't around pre-Sphinx. However, unless
there's some custom build steps that I'm unaware of that may prevent
it, it should still be relatively easy to maintain the desired
narrative structure as long
On May 19, 2013 4:31 PM, Benjamin Peterson benja...@python.org wrote:
2013/5/19 Gregory P. Smith g...@krypto.org:
Idea: I don't believe anybody has written a fixer for lib2to3 that
applies
fixers to doctests. That'd be an interesting project for someone.
2to3 can operate on doctests,
On 20/05/2013 12:47am, Pierre Rouleau wrote:
Moreover, the development version is 3.4, and in Python 3 the int
type is a variable-length integer type (sys.maxint doesn't exist
anymore). So this discussion is largely moot now.
Good to know. Too bad there still are libraries not
On 5/19/2013 7:22 PM, Mark Janssen wrote:
On Sun, May 19, 2013 at 1:13 PM, Tres Seaver tsea...@palladion.com wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 05/19/2013 10:48 AM, Guido van Rossum wrote:
Anyway, if you're doing arithmetic on enums you're doing it wrong.
Hmm, bitwise
On Sun, 19 May 2013 20:04:03 -0400
Ned Batchelder n...@nedbatchelder.com wrote:
On 5/19/2013 7:22 PM, Mark Janssen wrote:
On Sun, May 19, 2013 at 1:13 PM, Tres Seaver tsea...@palladion.com wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 05/19/2013 10:48 AM, Guido van Rossum
On Mon, May 20, 2013 at 10:14 AM, Antoine Pitrou solip...@pitrou.net wrote:
On Sun, 19 May 2013 20:04:03 -0400
Ned Batchelder n...@nedbatchelder.com wrote:
On 5/19/2013 7:22 PM, Mark Janssen wrote:
On Sun, May 19, 2013 at 1:13 PM, Tres Seaver tsea...@palladion.com wrote:
-BEGIN PGP
[Raymond Hettinger]
I'm hoping that core developers don't get caught-up in the doctests are bad
meme.
Instead, we should be clear about their primary purpose which is to test
the examples given in docstrings.
I disagree.
In many cases, there is a great deal of benefit to docstrings that
@nick: Yes, I realize what docstrings are for (I should have used that
term rather than inline docs, my bad there :)). I think the problem
that I've run into is simply inconsistencies in methods of documenting
code (and the few times that it would have been helpful, what I was
looking at had not
Joao S. O. Bueno wrote:
Actually, when I was thinking on the subject I came to the same idea, of having
some functions marked differently so they would use a different call mechanism -
but them I wondered around having a different opcode for the ordered-dict calls.
Would that be feasible?
No,
On Sun, May 19, 2013 at 4:27 PM, Gregory P. Smith g...@krypto.org wrote:
Now you've got me wondering what Python would be like if repr, `` and
__repr__ never existed as language features. Upon first thoughts, I actually
don't see much downside (no, i'm not advocating making that change).
On 20/05/13 09:27, Gregory P. Smith wrote:
On Sat, May 18, 2013 at 11:41 PM, Raymond Hettinger
raymond.hettin...@gmail.com wrote:
On May 14, 2013, at 9:39 AM, Gregory P. Smith g...@krypto.org wrote:
Bad: doctests.
I'm hoping that core developers don't get caught-up in the doctests are
bad
On Mon, May 20, 2013 at 11:19 AM, Demian Brecht demianbre...@gmail.com wrote:
@nick: Yes, I realize what docstrings are for (I should have used that
term rather than inline docs, my bad there :)). I think the problem
that I've run into is simply inconsistencies in methods of documenting
code
On Mon, May 20, 2013 at 11:46 AM, Guido van Rossum gu...@python.org wrote:
On Sun, May 19, 2013 at 4:27 PM, Gregory P. Smith g...@krypto.org wrote:
Now you've got me wondering what Python would be like if repr, `` and
__repr__ never existed as language features. Upon first thoughts, I actually
Gregory P. Smith writes:
I really do applaud the goal of keeping examples in documentation up to
date. But doctest as it is today is the wrong approach to that. A repr
mismatch does not mean the example is out of date.
Of course it does. The user sees something in the doc that's
On 05/19/2013 05:24 PM, Nick Coghlan wrote:
This is the point I was trying to make: once you use IntEnum (as you
would in any case where you need bitwise operators), Enum gets out of
the way for everything other than __str__, __repr__, and one other
slot (that escapes me for the moment...).
53 matches
Mail list logo
