[Python-Dev] Premature Destruction of Shared Memory

As suggested by Guido I am posting a potential solution to the following problem for review. Problem A quick fix for this problem is to prevent resource tracker from handling destruction/unlinking of shared memory. A PR

[Python-Dev] Re: PEP 622 version 2 (Structural Pattern Matching)

On Thu, Aug 6, 2020 at 3:46 AM Mark Shannon wrote: > Hi Barry, > > How long do we have to present objections to PEP 622? > We haven't discussed a timeline among ourselves yet (unless it was discussed at the last meeting which missed ). > > I don't feel that the PEP gives adequate prominence

[Python-Dev] Call for papers for PyCon 2020

Hi, I am writing to you on behalf of PyCon Estonia to invite you to take part in the call for papers for our 2020 edition and join us as a speaker at PyCon: https://pyconestonia.typeform.com/to/e0jriV This is the third PyCon Estonia event after successful delivery in 2018 and

[Python-Dev] Re: PEP 622 (Structural Pattern Matching) questions

On Thu, Aug 6, 2020 at 04:31 Mark Shannon wrote: > Hi, > > I have two questions about PEP 622, as it stands. > > 1. Is the current version the final version? That is up to the Steering Council. > 2. Is the difference in semantics between the Django example and the > proposed replacement

[Python-Dev] Re: PEP 622 (Structural Pattern Matching) questions

Hi Daniel, On 06/08/2020 1:11 pm, Daniel Moisset wrote: Hi Mark, As the specific author of that example (and the author of the big it had on a previous version) let me clarify: The change in semantics is intentional. I could be more explicit, and preserve semantics, but I actually find

[Python-Dev] Re: PEP 622 (Structural Pattern Matching) questions

Hi Mark, As the specific author of that example (and the author of the big it had on a previous version) let me clarify: The change in semantics is intentional. I could be more explicit, and preserve semantics, but I actually find very likely that the original code does not support other

[Python-Dev] PEP 622 (Structural Pattern Matching) questions

Hi, I have two questions about PEP 622, as it stands. 1. Is the current version the final version? 2. Is the difference in semantics between the Django example and the proposed replacement deliberate or accidental? (The difference being the change in behaviour for sequences other than list

[Python-Dev] Re: PEP 622 version 2 (Structural Pattern Matching)

Hi Barry, How long do we have to present objections to PEP 622? I don't feel that the PEP gives adequate prominence to the objections so far raised, and there are more issues I would like to bring up. Cheers, Mark. On 05/08/2020 5:58 pm, Barry Warsaw wrote: PEP 622 is already on the SC’s

[Python-Dev] Re: PEP 622 version 2 (Structural Pattern Matching)

Javascript hasn't it yet, but there is an active proposal for it in the standardization committee: https://github.com/tc39/proposal-pattern-matching On Wed, 5 Aug 2020 at 21:34, Luciano Ramalho wrote: > On Tue, Aug 4, 2020 at 1:37 PM Tobias Kohn wrote: > > And experience from other