On 3 December 2015 at 02:35, Guido van Rossum wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 2, 2015 at 7:32 AM, Emanuel Barry wrote:
>>
>> Nick Coghlan made a pretty elaborated blog post about that here:
>> http://opensource.com/life/14/9/why-python-4-wont-be-python-3
>
> I wholeheartedly agree with what Nick writes ther
On 02/12/2015 23:36, Barry Warsaw wrote:
On Dec 02, 2015, at 11:26 PM, Gregory P. Smith wrote:
Except that we should skip version 4 and go directly to 5 in homage to
http://www.montypython.net/scripts/HG-handgrenade.php.
Five is right out.
https://youtu.be/QM9Bynjh2Lk?t=3m35s
-Barry
Can
On 3/12/2015 5:41 a.m., Random832 wrote:
Why bother with the dot? Why not rename 3.5 to Python 5, and then go to
Python 6, etc, and then your "4.0" would be 10.
Then we could call it Python X!
Everything is better with an X in the name.
--
Greg
___
On 03.12.15 01:26, Gregory P. Smith wrote:
Except that we should skip version 4 and go directly to 5 in homage to
http://www.montypython.net/scripts/HG-handgrenade.php.
Good point! So now we can assign version 4 as a term of un-realising any
stupid ideas.
On Dec 02, 2015, at 11:26 PM, Gregory P. Smith wrote:
>Except that we should skip version 4 and go directly to 5 in homage to
>http://www.montypython.net/scripts/HG-handgrenade.php.
Five is right out.
https://youtu.be/QM9Bynjh2Lk?t=3m35s
-Barry
pgplrHBCVtY0F.pgp
Description: OpenPGP digital s
Except that we should skip version 4 and go directly to 5 in homage to
http://www.montypython.net/scripts/HG-handgrenade.php.
On Wed, Dec 2, 2015 at 9:13 AM Guido van Rossum wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 2, 2015 at 8:57 AM, Barry Warsaw wrote:
>
>> On Dec 02, 2015, at 08:35 AM, Guido van Rossum wrote:
>
On Wed, Dec 2, 2015 at 8:57 AM, Barry Warsaw wrote:
> On Dec 02, 2015, at 08:35 AM, Guido van Rossum wrote:
>
> >I wholeheartedly agree with what Nick writes there
>
> As do I.
>
> One interesting point will be what *nix calls the /usr/bin thingie for
> Python
> 4. It would seem weird to call it
On Dec 02, 2015, at 08:35 AM, Guido van Rossum wrote:
>I wholeheartedly agree with what Nick writes there
As do I.
One interesting point will be what *nix calls the /usr/bin thingie for Python
4. It would seem weird to call it /usr/bin/python3 and symlink it to say
/usr/bin/python4.0 but maybe
On 2015-12-02, Andrew Barnert wrote:
> Python could just go from 3.9 to 4.0, as a regular dot release, just
> to dispel the idea of an inevitable backward-incompatible "Python 4".
> (That should be around 2 years after the expiration of 2.7 support,
> py2/py3 naming, etc., right?)
Why bother with
On Wed, Dec 2, 2015 at 7:32 AM, Emanuel Barry wrote:
> Nick Coghlan made a pretty elaborated blog post about that here:
> http://opensource.com/life/14/9/why-python-4-wont-be-python-3
>
I wholeheartedly agree with what Nick writes there -- but I can't resist
noting that the title is backwards --
On Dec 2, 2015, at 07:01, Random832 wrote:
>
> On 2015-12-02, Victor Stinner wrote:
>>> Are there plans for a Python 4?
>>
>> No. Don't. Don't schedule any "removal" or *any* kind of "break
>> backward compatibility" anymore, or you will definetly kill the Python
>> community.
>
> I feel like
You may also be interested in a project I've been working on, airspeed
velocity, which will automatically benchmark historical versions of a git
or hg repo.
http://github.com/spacetelescope/asv
astropy, scipy, numpy and dask are already using it.
Cheers,
Mike
Hi Fabio,
Let me know if you have any questions related to the Python benchmarks run
nightly in Intel’s 0-Day Lab.
Thanks,
Stefan
From: "Stewart, David C"
mailto:david.c.stew...@intel.com>>
Date: Tuesday 1 December 2015 at 17:26
To: Fabio Zadrozny mailto:fabi...@gmail.com>>
Cc: "R. David Murr
> From: victor.stin...@gmail.com
> Date: Wed, 2 Dec 2015 15:46:37 +0100
> To: random...@fastmail.com
> Subject: Re: [Python-Dev] Deleting with setting C API functions
> CC: python-dev@python.org
>
> 2015-12-02 15:40 GMT+01:00 Random832 :
> > Are there plans for a Python 4?
>
> No. Don't. Don't sc
On 2015-12-02, Victor Stinner wrote:
>> Are there plans for a Python 4?
>
> No. Don't. Don't schedule any "removal" or *any* kind of "break
> backward compatibility" anymore, or you will definetly kill the Python
> community.
I feel like I should note that I agree with your position here, I was
j
2015-12-02 15:40 GMT+01:00 Random832 :
> Are there plans for a Python 4?
No. Don't. Don't schedule any "removal" or *any* kind of "break
backward compatibility" anymore, or you will definetly kill the Python
community.
It will probably take 10 years or more to convert *all* Python 2 code
around t
On 2015-12-02, M.-A. Lemburg wrote:
> A first step would be to replace the macro with a proper function
> to avoid false positive warnings, even when using the correct API.
>
> Then we could add a warning to the PyObject_SetAttr() function and
> hope that not too many projects use the stable ABI a
On 2 December 2015 at 22:41, M.-A. Lemburg wrote:
> On 02.12.2015 13:29, Serhiy Storchaka wrote:
>> On 02.12.15 12:06, Victor Stinner wrote:
>>> 2015-12-02 9:42 GMT+01:00 Serhiy Storchaka :
You have enough time to update your projects, and you can update them
uniformly for all versions.
On 02.12.2015 13:29, Serhiy Storchaka wrote:
> On 02.12.15 12:06, Victor Stinner wrote:
>> 2015-12-02 9:42 GMT+01:00 Serhiy Storchaka :
>>> You have enough time to update your projects, and you can update them
>>> uniformly for all versions. And may be you will found few weird bugs related
>>> to m
On 02.12.15 12:06, Victor Stinner wrote:
2015-12-02 9:42 GMT+01:00 Serhiy Storchaka :
You have enough time to update your projects, and you can update them
uniformly for all versions. And may be you will found few weird bugs related
to misuse of Set* API.
Did you check popular projects using C
2015-12-02 9:42 GMT+01:00 Serhiy Storchaka :
> You have enough time to update your projects, and you can update them
> uniformly for all versions. And may be you will found few weird bugs related
> to misuse of Set* API.
Did you check popular projects using C extensions to check if they
call Set*(
середа, 02-гру-2015 08:30:35 ви написали:
> Le 1 déc. 2015 16:51, "Serhiy Storchaka" a écrit :
> > Wouldn't be worth to deprecate deleting with Set* functions? Neither
> > other abstract Set* APIs, not concrete Set* APIs don't support deleting.
> >Deleting with Set* API can be unintentional and hi
22 matches
Mail list logo
