Hi developers,
What should / shouldn't I do to attract any python developer response to
issue tracker items? I am unsure of the proper procedure to follow so I am
asking here first.
I have filed two issues on the python issue tracker for python curses
issues:
1. # 43715, a documentation up
Greg Ewing writes:
> On 7/04/21 5:22 am, Brandt Bucher wrote:
> > we might consider updating those templates if the term "Reference
> > Implementation" implies a higher standard than "we've put in the
> > work to make this happen, and you can try it out here"
>
> Maybe "prototype implementat
Cross-posted from https://discuss.python.org/t/8111 on Brett’s suggestion.
A while ago, I proposed pip’s migration plan from distutils to sysconfig[1], in
preparation of distuitls’s deprecation and planned removal in Python 3.12. When
working on the implementation, however, I realised sysconfig cu
On 7/04/21 5:22 am, Brandt Bucher wrote:
we might consider updating those templates if the term "Reference Implementation" implies
a higher standard than "we've put in the work to make this happen, and you can try it out
here"
Maybe "prototype implementation" would be better? I think I've use
I just wanted to thank Matthew & Pradeep for writing this PEP and for
clarifications to the broader context of PEP 646 for array typing in
https://github.com/python/peps/pull/1904.
As someone who is heavily involved in the Python numerical computing
community (e.g., NumPy, JAX, Xarray), but who is
The Python Steering Council reviewed PEP 647 -- User-Defined Type Guards, and
is happy to accept the PEP for Python 3.10. Congratulations Eric!
We have one concern about the semantics of the PEP however. In a sense, the
PEP subverts the meaning of the return type defined in the signature of th
On 4/4/21 2:15 AM, Mark Shannon wrote:
Calling something a "reference" implementation suggests that it is something that people can refer to, that is near
perfectly correct and fills in the gaps in the specification.
That is a high standard, and one that is very difficult to attain.
Indeed.
Hi Mark.
Thanks for your reply, I really appreciate it.
Mark Shannon said:
> My intention, and I apologize for not making this clearer, was not to
> denigrate your work, but to question the implications of the term "reference".
>
> Calling something a "reference" implementation suggests that it
Hi,
About this very specific ABI issue, one long term solution would be to
exclude the PyThreadState structure from the C API, to not rely on it
the ABI level.
I started to add getter functions in Python 3.9:
PyThreadState_GetInterpreter(), PyThreadState_GetFrame() and
PyThreadState_GetID(). I'm
On 05. 04. 21 21:46, Pablo Galindo Salgado wrote:
Hi Petr,
Thank you for submitting PEP 652 (Maintaining the Stable ABI). After
evaluating
the situation and discussing the PEP, the Steering Council is happy with
the PEP
and hereby accepts it. The Steering council thinks that this is a great
s
Br. do you feel that? That's the chill of *beta freeze* coming
closer. Meanwhile, your friendly CPython release team doesn’t
rest even on holidays and we have prepared a shiny new release for you:
Python 3.10.0a7.
Dear fellow core develo
On Tue, 6 Apr 2021 at 06:15, Stephen J. Turnbull
wrote:
>
> Paul Moore writes:
>
> > It *is* merged and publicly released - it's in the latest 3.10
> > alpha.
>
> Merged, yes, but in my terminology alphas, betas, and rcs aren't
> "public releases", they're merely "accessible to the public". (I'
12 matches
Mail list logo
