On behalf of the Python development community and the Python 3.6 release
team, I would like to announce the availability of Python 3.6.1, the
first maintenance release of Python 3.6. 3.6.0 was released on 2016-12-22
to great interest and now, three months later, we are providing the
first set of b
2017-03-10 1:03 GMT+01:00 Victor Stinner :
> FYI we are already working on a PEP with Julien Palard (FR) and INADA
> Naoki (JP). We will post it when it will be ready ;-)
Ok, Julien wrote the PEP with the help of Naoki and myself. He posted
it on python-ideas for a first review:
https://mail.pytho
On Tue, Mar 21, 2017 at 11:05 AM, Ivan Levkivskyi
wrote:
> There are two places where PEP draft says:
>
> "Note that there is no conceptual difference between explicit and implicit
> subtypes"
>
> and
>
> "The general philosophy is that protocols are mostly like regular ABCs,
> but a static type
On 03/20, Nathaniel Smith wrote:
>
> Modern CPython, and all extant versions of PyPy and Jython, guarantee that
> __del__ is called at most once. MicroPython doesn't support user-defined
> __del__ methods.
>
> It's fine if the text wants to leave that open, but the current phrasing is
> pretty misl
On 21 March 2017 at 18:03, Brett Cannon wrote:
> I do think it's fine, though, to make it very clear that whether you
> subclass or not makes absolutely no difference to tools validating the type
> soundness of the code.
>
There are two places where PEP draft says:
"Note that there is no concep
On Tue, 21 Mar 2017 at 09:17 Matthias Kramm via Python-Dev <
python-dev@python.org> wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 20, 2017 at 2:42 PM, Ivan Levkivskyi
> wrote:
>
> 1. Backward compatibility: People are already using ABCs, including
> generic ABCs from typing module.
> If we prohibit explicit subclassing o
Technically, `__eq__` is implemented by `object` so a `Mapping`
implementation that didn't implement it would still be considered valid.
But probably not very useful (since the default implementation in this case
is implemented by comparing object identity).
On Tue, Mar 21, 2017 at 9:36 AM, Ivan L
On 21 March 2017 at 17:09, Matthias Kramm wrote:
>
> The one thing that isn't clear to me is how type checkers will distinguish
> between
> 1.) Protocol methods in A that need to implemented in B so that B is
> considered a structural subclass of A.
> 2.) Extra methods you get for free when you e
On Mon, Mar 20, 2017 at 2:42 PM, Ivan Levkivskyi
wrote:
> 1. Backward compatibility: People are already using ABCs, including
> generic ABCs from typing module.
> If we prohibit explicit subclassing of these ABCs, then quite a lot of
> code will break.
>
Fair enough. Backwards compatibility is a
