On 11 Dec. 2017 12:26 pm, "Eric V. Smith" wrote:
I see a couple of options:
1a: Use a default type annotation, if one is not is supplied. typing.Any
would presumably make the most sense.
1b: Use None if not type is supplied.
2: Rework the code to not require annotations at all.
1c: annotate w
On 12 Dec. 2017 8:52 am, "Guido van Rossum" wrote:
- 558 (locals()) -- I think this will have to be postponed
+1 for deferring that one to 3.8. While I like where it's heading now, it
isn't urgent, and we already have quite a few refactorings of low level
internals landing in 3.7.
Cheers,
Nic
There is also PEP 544 (Structural subtyping, a.k.a. static duck typing),
but I think we discussed off-list that it is also not time sensitive,
given the (limited) provisional status of typing module.
(Also mypy already supports it, so the question is mainly when this support
is official after poli
On 12/10/2017 5:00 PM, Raymond Hettinger wrote:
On Dec 10, 2017, at 1:37 PM, Eric V. Smith wrote:
On 12/10/2017 4:29 PM, Ivan Levkivskyi wrote:
On 10 December 2017 at 22:24, Raymond Hettinger
mailto:raymond.hettin...@gmail.com>> wrote:
Without typing (only the first currently works):
Congrats Victor! Thanks mr. Inada for reviewing this PEP (and 538). Thanks
everyone else who participated in the lively discussion!
On Sun, Dec 10, 2017 at 4:00 PM, INADA Naoki wrote:
> >
> > Could you explain why not? utf-8 seems like the common thread for using
> > surrogateescape so I'm not s
After this Friday I'm going to go on vacation for a couple of weeks.
Anyone who has a PEP for which they're awaiting acceptance and that
acceptance needs to happen before the 3.7 feature freeze (a.k.a. 3.7b1,
scheduled for January 29 2018, see PEP 537) please ping me with a pointer
to the thread o
.
I see a couple of options:
1a: Use a default type annotation, if one is not is supplied. typing.Any
would presumably make the most sense.
1b: Use None if not type is supplied.
2: Rework the code to not require annotations at all.
I think I'd prefer 1a, since it's easy.
2) would be great :-)
On 12/11/2017 03:58 PM, Carl Bordum Hansen wrote:
>
> I've been lurking at your progress with android support for about a year, and
now that it is closing in I simply have to ask: what does it actually mean that
android is supported? That Android apps
> will be easy to develop in Python? That I
On 12/11/2017 03:40 PM, Victor Stinner wrote:
> 2017-12-11 14:58 GMT+01:00 Xavier de Gaye :
>> The host running the buildbots must be able to run 6 (i.e. 3 x (version 3.x
>> + maintenance version)) emulators simultaneously, so with an eight core cpu,
>> that will be 6 cores running at 100%. The ar
I'm asking for precise hardware specifications since Red Hat may be
able to provide one through the https://osci.io/ program.
Victor
2017-12-11 15:40 GMT+01:00 Victor Stinner :
> 2017-12-11 14:58 GMT+01:00 Xavier de Gaye :
>> The host running the buildbots must be able to run 6 (i.e. 3 x (version
2017-12-11 14:58 GMT+01:00 Xavier de Gaye :
> The host running the buildbots must be able to run 6 (i.e. 3 x (version 3.x
> + maintenance version)) emulators simultaneously, so with an eight core cpu,
> that will be 6 cores running at 100%. The armv7 and arm64 buildbot may be
> set to run only dail
On 12/11/2017 12:56 PM, Victor Stinner wrote:
> 2017-12-10 15:19 GMT+01:00 Xavier de Gaye :
>> * Given the cpu resources required to run the test suite on the arm
>> emulators,
>>it may be difficult to find a contributed buildbot worker. So it remains
>> to
>>find the hardware to run these
On 12/10/2017 11:07 PM, Ned Deily wrote:
> On the one hand, it would be nice to have. But on the other, it does add a large non-zero burden to all core developers and to the release teams, to the minimum extent of trying to make sure that
all ongoing changes don't break platform support.
Yes t
On 12/10/2017 10:27 PM, Skip Montanaro wrote:
> I'm not familiar with software development on/for Android, but
> wouldn't official support also involve suitable package creation or
> does that just fall out for free from the build-for-emulator PR?
>
> Skip
>
The build-for-emulator PR allows build
On 12/10/2017 09:27 PM, Brett Cannon wrote:
> While the note from a technical standpoint is interest, Xavier, I don't quite
see what needs to be done to support Android at this point. Are you simply asking
we add Android API 24 as an official
> platform? Or permission to add your note to the Mis
2017-12-10 15:19 GMT+01:00 Xavier de Gaye :
> Motivations
> ===
>
> * Android is ubiquitous.
> * This would be the first platform supported by Python that is
> cross-compiled,
> thanks to many contributors.
> * Although the Android operating system is linux, it is different from most
>
16 matches
Mail list logo
