On Fri, Sep 17, 2010 at 5:43 AM, Martin (gzlist) gzl...@googlemail.com wrote:
In the example I gave, 十 encodes in CP932 as '\x8f\\', and the
function gets confused by the second byte. Obviously the right answer
there is just to use unicode, rather than write a function that works
with weird
On 9/15/2010 8:55 PM, Jacob Kaplan-Moss wrote:
To try (again) to make things concrete here:
I didn't work to get Django running on Python 3.0 because it was just too slow.
Soon after 3.0 was released, it was discovered and acknowledged thay the
new I/O has some speed problems. (Why not
Why not? Since the I/O speed problem is fixed, I have no idea what you
are referring to. Please do be concrete.
There's still a performance issue with pickling, but if issue 3873 could
be resolved, Python 3 would actually be faster there.
- Hagen
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital
On Wed, 15 Sep 2010 19:55:16 -0500
Jacob Kaplan-Moss ja...@jacobian.org wrote:
On Wed, Sep 15, 2010 at 6:31 PM, Jesse Noller jnol...@gmail.com wrote:
My goal (personally) is to make sure python 3.2 is perfectly good for use
in web applications, and is therefore a much more interesting
On Thu, Sep 16, 2010 at 8:26 AM, Antoine Pitrou solip...@pitrou.net wrote:
On Wed, 15 Sep 2010 19:55:16 -0500
Jacob Kaplan-Moss ja...@jacobian.org wrote:
On Wed, Sep 15, 2010 at 6:31 PM, Jesse Noller jnol...@gmail.com wrote:
My goal (personally) is to make sure python 3.2 is perfectly good
On Thu, Sep 16, 2010 at 10:26 PM, Antoine Pitrou solip...@pitrou.net wrote:
Why won't you feel confident? Are there any specific issues (apart from
the lack of a WSGI PEP)?
If they are technical problems, they should be reported on the bug
tracker.
If they are representational, cultural or
On Sep 16, 2010, at 11:28 PM, Nick Coghlan wrote:
There are some APIs that should be able to handle bytes *or* strings,
but the current use of string literals in their implementation means
that bytes don't work. This turns out to be a PITA for some networking
related code which really wants to be
On 16 September 2010 07:16, Terry Reedy tjre...@udel.edu wrote:
I'm not working to get Django running on Python 3.1 because I don't
feel confident I'll be able to put any apps I write into production.
Why not? Since the I/O speed problem is fixed, I have no idea what you are
referring to.
On Thu, Sep 16, 2010 at 09:52:48AM -0400, Barry Warsaw wrote:
On Sep 16, 2010, at 11:28 PM, Nick Coghlan wrote:
There are some APIs that should be able to handle bytes *or* strings,
but the current use of string literals in their implementation means
that bytes don't work. This turns out to
On Thu, Sep 16, 2010 at 8:42 AM, Toshio Kuratomi a.bad...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Sep 16, 2010 at 09:52:48AM -0400, Barry Warsaw wrote:
On Sep 16, 2010, at 11:28 PM, Nick Coghlan wrote:
There are some APIs that should be able to handle bytes *or* strings,
but the current use of string
On 16/09/2010, Guido van Rossum gu...@python.org wrote:
In all cases I can imagine where such polymorphic functions make
sense, the necessary and sufficient assumption should be that the
encoding is a superset of 7-bit(*) ASCII. This includes UTF-8, all
Latin-N variant, and AFAIK also the
On Thu, Sep 16, 2010 at 10:46 AM, Martin (gzlist) gzl...@googlemail.com wrote:
On 16/09/2010, Guido van Rossum gu...@python.org wrote:
In all cases I can imagine where such polymorphic functions make
sense, the necessary and sufficient assumption should be that the
encoding is a superset of
On Thu, Sep 16, 2010 at 10:56:56AM -0700, Guido van Rossum wrote:
On Thu, Sep 16, 2010 at 10:46 AM, Martin (gzlist) gzl...@googlemail.com
wrote:
On 16/09/2010, Guido van Rossum gu...@python.org wrote:
In all cases I can imagine where such polymorphic functions make
sense, the necessary
On Thu, Sep 16, 2010 at 06:28, Nick Coghlan ncogh...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Sep 16, 2010 at 10:26 PM, Antoine Pitrou solip...@pitrou.net wrote:
Why won't you feel confident? Are there any specific issues (apart from
the lack of a WSGI PEP)?
If they are technical problems, they should be
On Thu, Sep 16, 2010 at 9:59 AM, Paul Moore p.f.mo...@gmail.com wrote:
On 16 September 2010 07:16, Terry Reedy tjre...@udel.edu wrote:
I'm not working to get Django running on Python 3.1 because I don't
feel confident I'll be able to put any apps I write into production.
Why not? Since the
On Thu, Sep 16, 2010 at 11:16 AM, Toshio Kuratomi a.bad...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Sep 16, 2010 at 10:56:56AM -0700, Guido van Rossum wrote:
On Thu, Sep 16, 2010 at 10:46 AM, Martin (gzlist) gzl...@googlemail.com
wrote:
On 16/09/2010, Guido van Rossum gu...@python.org wrote:
In all
On 16/09/2010, Guido van Rossum gu...@python.org wrote:
On Thu, Sep 16, 2010 at 11:16 AM, Toshio Kuratomi a.bad...@gmail.com
wrote:
You were talking about encodings that were supersets of 7-bit ASCII.
I think Martin was demonstrating a byte string that was a superset of
7-bit
ASCII being fed
On 9/16/2010 3:07 PM, Jacob Kaplan-Moss wrote:
On Thu, Sep 16, 2010 at 9:59 AM, Paul Moore p.f.mo...@gmail.com wrote:
On 16 September 2010 07:16, Terry Reedy tjre...@udel.edu wrote:
I'm not working to get Django running on Python 3.1 because I don't
feel confident I'll be able to put any apps
On 9/16/2010 3:07 PM, Jacob Kaplan-Moss wrote:
On 16 September 2010 07:16, Terry Reedytjre...@udel.edu wrote:
I'm not working to get Django running on Python 3.1 because I don't
feel confident I'll be able to put any apps I write into production.
Why not? Since the I/O speed problem is
On Wed, 15 Sep 2010 11:11:14 -0700
Guido van Rossum gu...@python.org wrote:
Given that wsgiref is in the stdlib, I think we should hold up the 3.2
release (and even the first beta) until this is resolved, unless we
can convince ourselves that it's okay to delete wsgiref from the
stdlib (which
On Thu, Sep 16, 2010 at 8:09 AM, Antoine Pitrou solip...@pitrou.net wrote:
I don't see what we gain by holding up the 3.2 release. Some writing a
Web application will need third-party modules anyway, so downloading
wsgi3ref shouldn't be too painful.
I agree with you. Further, is wsgiref
On Thu, Sep 16, 2010 at 9:31 AM, Jesse Noller jnol...@gmail.com wrote:
My goal (personally) is to make sure python 3.2 is perfectly good for use in
web applications, and is therefore a much more interesting porting target for
web projects/libraries and frameworks.
Python 3 is already quite
On Sep 15, 2010, at 6:44 PM, James Mills prolo...@shortcircuit.net.au wrote:
On Thu, Sep 16, 2010 at 8:09 AM, Antoine Pitrou solip...@pitrou.net wrote:
I don't see what we gain by holding up the 3.2 release. Some writing a
Web application will need third-party modules anyway, so downloading
On Wed, Sep 15, 2010 at 6:31 PM, Jesse Noller jnol...@gmail.com wrote:
My goal (personally) is to make sure python 3.2 is perfectly good for use in
web applications, and is therefore a much more interesting porting target for
web projects/libraries and frameworks.
To try (again) to make
24 matches
Mail list logo
