Re: [Python-Dev] Status of Python 3.6 PEPs?

2016-07-12 Thread Nick Coghlan
On 12 July 2016 at 20:05, INADA Naoki wrote: >> >> "PEP 520 -- Preserving Class Attribute Definition Order" >> https://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0520/ >> => accepted -- what is the status of its implementation? >> I also see some discussions for even more compact dict implementation. > > Here is

Re: [Python-Dev] Status of Python 3.6 PEPs?

2016-07-12 Thread Nick Coghlan
On 12 July 2016 at 19:26, Victor Stinner wrote: > "PEP 499 -- python -m foo should bind sys.modules['foo'] in addition > to sys.modules['__main__']" > https://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0499/ > => draft I'm a little wary of this one, as we just received a bug report regarding some subtleties of

Re: [Python-Dev] Status of Python 3.6 PEPs?

2016-07-12 Thread Eric Snow
On Tue, Jul 12, 2016 at 3:26 AM, Victor Stinner wrote: > "PEP 520 -- Preserving Class Attribute Definition Order" > https://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0520/ > => accepted -- what is the status of its implementation? The implementation is currently under review (http://bugs.python.org/issue24254)

Re: [Python-Dev] Status of Python 3.6 PEPs?

2016-07-12 Thread Brett Cannon
On Tue, 12 Jul 2016 at 02:27 Victor Stinner wrote: > Hi, > > I see many PEPs accepted for Python 3.6, or stil in draft status, but > only a few final PEPs. What is happening? > > [SNIP] > > "PEP 519 -- Adding a file system path protocol" > https://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0519/ > => accept

Re: [Python-Dev] Should PY_SSIZE_T_CLEAN break Py_LIMITED_API?

2016-07-12 Thread Nick Coghlan
On 12 July 2016 at 23:21, Daniel Holth wrote: > I was using Py_LIMITED_API under 3.5 and PY_SSIZE_T_CLEAN was set, this > causes some functions not in the limited api to be used and the resulting > extension segfaults in Linux. Is that right? No, it suggests there's a bug in the way some of the #

[Python-Dev] Should PY_SSIZE_T_CLEAN break Py_LIMITED_API?

2016-07-12 Thread Daniel Holth
I was using Py_LIMITED_API under 3.5 and PY_SSIZE_T_CLEAN was set, this causes some functions not in the limited api to be used and the resulting extension segfaults in Linux. Is that right? Thanks, Daniel ___ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.o

Re: [Python-Dev] Status of Python 3.6 PEPs?

2016-07-12 Thread INADA Naoki
> > "PEP 520 -- Preserving Class Attribute Definition Order" > https://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0520/ > => accepted -- what is the status of its implementation? > ... > > > I also see some discussions for even more compact dict implementation. > Here is implementation of the compact dict preser

Re: [Python-Dev] Status of Python 3.6 PEPs?

2016-07-12 Thread Victor Stinner
I opened the PEP 499: it links to https://bugs.python.org/issue19702 "Update pickle to take advantage of PEP 451" which is still open (since 2013!). (It also has two dependencies which are now closed.) "PEP 451 -- A ModuleSpec Type for the Import System" https://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0451/ (

Re: [Python-Dev] Status of Python 3.6 PEPs?

2016-07-12 Thread Chris Angelico
On Tue, Jul 12, 2016 at 7:26 PM, Victor Stinner wrote: > "PEP 499 -- python -m foo should bind sys.modules['foo'] in addition > to sys.modules['__main__']" > https://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0499/ > => draft > I have a vague recollection that this ran into some trickinesses with certain forms

[Python-Dev] Status of Python 3.6 PEPs?

2016-07-12 Thread Victor Stinner
Hi, I see many PEPs accepted for Python 3.6, or stil in draft status, but only a few final PEPs. What is happening? Reminder: the deadline for new features in Python 3.6 is 2016-09-12, only in 2 months and these 2 months are summer in the northern hemisphere which means holiday for many of them..