On Sun, Nov 08, 2009 at 10:27:46PM +0100, Georg Brandl wrote:
Good point, I'll make that change if AMK agrees.
It's certainly fine with me. Do we want to only make that change to
the 2.7 What's New, or should we also do it for the 2.6 one?
--amk
___
On Sun, Nov 8, 2009 at 19:50, geremy condra debat...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Nov 8, 2009 at 9:41 PM, Guido van Rossum gu...@python.org wrote:
On Sun, Nov 8, 2009 at 5:45 PM, geremy condra debat...@gmail.com wrote:
I quote:
This PEP proposes a temporary moratorium (suspension) of all changes
Thanks Brett. I've moved the moratorium PEP to Status: Accepted. I've
added the words about inclusion of 3.2 and exclusion of 3.3 (which
were eaten by a svn conflict when I previously tried to add them) and
added a section to th end stating that an extension will require
another PEP.
--Guido
On
A.M. Kuchling schrieb:
On Sun, Nov 08, 2009 at 10:27:46PM +0100, Georg Brandl wrote:
Good point, I'll make that change if AMK agrees.
It's certainly fine with me. Do we want to only make that change to
the 2.7 What's New, or should we also do it for the 2.6 one?
Why not for 2.6 as well,
John Arbash Meinel wrote:
He wanted to introduce a moratorium at least partially because he was
tired of endless threads about anonymous code blocks, etc. Which aren't
going to be included in the language anyway, so he may as well make a
point to say and neither will anything else for a while.
On Thu, Nov 5, 2009 at 4:13 PM, Yuvgoog Greenle ubershme...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Nov 6, 2009 at 1:55 AM, Bobby R. Ward bobbyrw...@gmail.com wrote:
A switch to ENABLE those warnings?
I think a few people I know would still be raising strings like exceptions
if not for the deprecation
John Arbash Meinel wrote:
He wanted to introduce a moratorium at least partially because he was
tired of endless threads about anonymous code blocks, etc. Which aren't
going to be included in the language anyway, so he may as well make a
point to say and neither will anything else for a while.
Gregory P. Smith schrieb:
On Thu, Nov 5, 2009 at 4:13 PM, Yuvgoog Greenle ubershme...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Nov 6, 2009 at 1:55 AM, Bobby R. Ward bobbyrw...@gmail.com wrote:
A switch to ENABLE those warnings?
I think a few people I know would still be raising strings like exceptions
if
Greg Ewing greg.ewing at canterbury.ac.nz writes:
If anonymous code blocks still get discussed even when
they have no chance of being accepted, this suggests that
a moratorium is *not* going to stop discussion of new
features.
Well, if they get discussed, it's probably that some people
On Sun, 8 Nov 2009 11:14:59 am Steven D'Aprano wrote:
At the very least, I believe, any moratorium should have a clear end
date. A clear end date will be a powerful counter to the impression
that Python the language is moribund. It says, this is an exceptional
pause, not a permanent halt.
On Sun, Nov 8, 2009 at 6:06 PM, Steven D'Aprano st...@pearwood.info wrote:
On Sun, 8 Nov 2009 11:14:59 am Steven D'Aprano wrote:
At the very least, I believe, any moratorium should have a clear end
date. A clear end date will be a powerful counter to the impression
that Python the language is
On Nov 8, 2009, at 7:01 PM, geremy condra debat...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Nov 8, 2009 at 6:06 PM, Steven D'Aprano
st...@pearwood.info wrote:
On Sun, 8 Nov 2009 11:14:59 am Steven D'Aprano wrote:
At the very least, I believe, any moratorium should have a clear end
date. A clear end date
On Sun, Nov 8, 2009 at 8:22 PM, Jesse Noller jnol...@gmail.com wrote:
On Nov 8, 2009, at 7:01 PM, geremy condra debat...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Nov 8, 2009 at 6:06 PM, Steven D'Aprano st...@pearwood.info
wrote:
On Sun, 8 Nov 2009 11:14:59 am Steven D'Aprano wrote:
At the very least, I
On Sun, Nov 8, 2009 at 3:06 PM, Steven D'Aprano st...@pearwood.info wrote:
No new language features in odd-numbered point releases (3.3, 3.5, ...).
Even-numbered point releases (3.4, 3.6, ...) may include new language
features provided they meet the usual standards for new features.
Oh no, not
On Sun, Nov 8, 2009 at 5:45 PM, geremy condra debat...@gmail.com wrote:
I quote:
This PEP proposes a temporary moratorium (suspension) of all changes
to the Python language syntax, semantics, and built-ins for a period
of *at least two years* from the release of Python 3.1.
Emphasis mine.
Guido van Rossum wrote:
On Sun, Nov 8, 2009 at 3:06 PM, Steven D'Aprano st...@pearwood.info wrote:
No new language features in odd-numbered point releases (3.3, 3.5, ...).
Even-numbered point releases (3.4, 3.6, ...) may include new language
features provided they meet the usual standards for
On Sun, Nov 8, 2009 at 9:41 PM, Guido van Rossum gu...@python.org wrote:
On Sun, Nov 8, 2009 at 5:45 PM, geremy condra debat...@gmail.com wrote:
I quote:
This PEP proposes a temporary moratorium (suspension) of all changes
to the Python language syntax, semantics, and built-ins for a period
~b ea2499da0911051453n3569387aj581ad4acf5b79...@mail.gmail.com
4222a8490911051521r1b9c8165id6e0f12d62da0...@mail.gmail.com
ca471dc20911051526u7f3642ecg19e4eb73bcca1...@mail.gmail.com
bbaeab100911051535g68cefa18kdadea33f78de9...@mail.gmail.com
On Nov 6, 2009, at 4:52 PM, exar...@twistedmatrix.com wrote:
On 09:48 pm, rdmur...@bitdance.com wrote:
On Fri, 6 Nov 2009 at 15:48, Glyph Lefkowitz wrote:
Documentation would be great, but then you have to get people to
read the documentation and that's kind of tricky. Better would be
On 12:10 pm, s...@pobox.com wrote:
Guido ... it's IMO pretty mysterious if you encounter this and
don't
Guido already happen to know what it means.
If you require parens maybe it parses better:
import (a or b or c) as mod
Given that the or operator shortcuts I think that (a or b or
exar...@twistedmatrix.com schrieb:
On 12:10 pm, s...@pobox.com wrote:
Guido ... it's IMO pretty mysterious if you encounter this and
don't
Guido already happen to know what it means.
If you require parens maybe it parses better:
import (a or b or c) as mod
Given that the or
On Fri, 6 Nov 2009 09:05:17 am Guido van Rossum wrote:
On Tue, Nov 3, 2009 at 9:35 AM, Guido van Rossum gu...@python.org
wrote:
I've checked draft (!) PEP 3003, Python Language Moratorium, into
SVN. As authors I've listed Jesse, Brett and myself.
I haven't seen substantial opposition
On Fri, 6 Nov 2009 08:46:00 pm Willem Broekema wrote:
CLPython is in steady development, quite complete and stable on the
language level (somewhere between 2.5 and 2.6), but missing most
built-in library functionality. (It reuses the pure-Python parts of
the stdlib.)
As its developer, I
...
A moratorium isn't cost-free. With the back-end free to change, patches
will go stale over 2+ years. People will lose interest or otherwise
move on. Those with good ideas but little patience will be discouraged.
I fully expect that, human nature being as it is, those proposing a
On Sun, Nov 8, 2009 at 1:16 AM, Steven D'Aprano st...@pearwood.info wrote:
Willem, the rationale for this PEP is to give alternative
implementations the chance to catch up with CPython.
Given your statement that CLPython is quite complete on the language
level, but missing standard library
Brett Cannon wrote:
On Thu, Nov 5, 2009 at 19:23, Guido van Rossum gu...@python.org wrote:
On Thu, Nov 5, 2009 at 3:35 PM, Brett Cannon br...@python.org wrote:
On Thu, Nov 5, 2009 at 15:26, Guido van Rossum gu...@python.org wrote:
I have come to the conclusion that there are better ways to
On Fri, Nov 6, 2009 at 6:18 AM, Steven D'Aprano st...@pearwood.info wrote:
I don't know how mature or active it is, so it may not count as either
major or complete, but there's also CLPython:
http://common-lisp.net/project/clpython/
CLPython is in steady development, quite complete and stable
On Fri, Nov 6, 2009 at 10:35, Nick Coghlan ncogh...@gmail.com wrote:
Longer term, a solution may be to extend the standard deprecation period
one release and make pending deprecation warnings required rather than
optional. That way, on the ball developers would have a full release to
quash
On Thu, Nov 5, 2009 at 10:35 AM, Dino Viehland di...@microsoft.com wrote:
Stefan wrote:
It /does/ make some static assumptions in that it considers builtins
true
builtins. However, it does not prevent you from replacing them in your
code, as long as you do it inside the module. Certainly a
Dino Viehland, 05.11.2009 19:35:
Stefan wrote:
It /does/ make some static assumptions in that it considers builtins
true
builtins. However, it does not prevent you from replacing them in your
code, as long as you do it inside the module. Certainly a restriction
compared to Python, where you
Stefan wrote:
I assume that this is artificially exaggerated to make a point, as this
behaviour is obviously not a technical requirement but an optimisation,
which could potentially be disabled.
If there's a way to disable this then that's fine and IMO when it was disabled
you'd still be
On Tue, Nov 3, 2009 at 9:35 AM, Guido van Rossum gu...@python.org wrote:
I've checked draft (!) PEP 3003, Python Language Moratorium, into
SVN. As authors I've listed Jesse, Brett and myself.
I haven't seen substantial opposition against the PEP -- in fact I
can't recall any, and many people
[GvR]
I haven't seen substantial opposition against the PEP -- in fact I
can't recall any, and many people have explicitly posted in support of
it. So unless opposition suddenly appears in the next few days, I'll
move it to the Accepted state next Monday.
But it would have been so much fun to
2009-11-03 18:35:10 Guido van Rossum napisał(a):
I've checked draft (!) PEP 3003, Python Language Moratorium, into
SVN. As authors I've listed Jesse, Brett and myself.
On python-ideas the moratorium idea got fairly positive responses
(more positive than I'd expected, in fact) but I'm bracing
On Thu, Nov 5, 2009 at 14:20, Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis
arfrever@gmail.com wrote:
2009-11-03 18:35:10 Guido van Rossum napisał(a):
I've checked draft (!) PEP 3003, Python Language Moratorium, into
SVN. As authors I've listed Jesse, Brett and myself.
On python-ideas the
On Thu, Nov 5, 2009 at 23:05, Guido van Rossum gu...@python.org wrote:
I haven't seen substantial opposition against the PEP -- in fact I
can't recall any, and many people have explicitly posted in support of
it. So unless opposition suddenly appears in the next few days, I'll
move it to the
On Thu, Nov 5, 2009 at 5:53 PM, Dirkjan Ochtman dirk...@ochtman.nl wrote:
On Thu, Nov 5, 2009 at 23:05, Guido van Rossum gu...@python.org wrote:
I haven't seen substantial opposition against the PEP -- in fact I
can't recall any, and many people have explicitly posted in support of
it. So
On Thu, Nov 5, 2009 at 14:53, Dirkjan Ochtman dirk...@ochtman.nl wrote:
On Thu, Nov 5, 2009 at 23:05, Guido van Rossum gu...@python.org wrote:
I haven't seen substantial opposition against the PEP -- in fact I
can't recall any, and many people have explicitly posted in support of
it. So unless
On Thu, Nov 5, 2009 at 3:21 PM, Jesse Noller jnol...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Nov 5, 2009 at 5:53 PM, Dirkjan Ochtman dirk...@ochtman.nl wrote:
On Thu, Nov 5, 2009 at 23:05, Guido van Rossum gu...@python.org wrote:
I haven't seen substantial opposition against the PEP -- in fact I
can't recall
On Thu, Nov 5, 2009 at 6:26 PM, Guido van Rossum gu...@python.org wrote:
I'm against restricting deprecation warnings within the stdlib as part
of this. I actually want more things cleaned up and possibly
deprecated. That being said, a deprecation warning just means we will
remove it One Day
On Thu, Nov 5, 2009 at 15:26, Guido van Rossum gu...@python.org wrote:
On Thu, Nov 5, 2009 at 3:21 PM, Jesse Noller jnol...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Nov 5, 2009 at 5:53 PM, Dirkjan Ochtman dirk...@ochtman.nl wrote:
On Thu, Nov 5, 2009 at 23:05, Guido van Rossum gu...@python.org wrote:
I
What exactly are those better ways? Document as deprecated only?
-Brett
A switch to ENABLE those warnings?
Lord knows I'm sick of filtering them out of logs.
A switch to enable deprecation warnings would give developers a
chance to see them when migrating to a new version of python. And
On Fri, Nov 6, 2009 at 1:55 AM, Bobby R. Ward bobbyrw...@gmail.com wrote:
A switch to ENABLE those warnings?
I think a few people I know would still be raising strings like exceptions
if not for the deprecation warnings. Most people won't turn on the switch
with the extra warnings.
--yuv
On 5 Nov, 11:55 pm, bobbyrw...@gmail.com wrote:
What exactly are those better ways? Document as deprecated only?
-Brett
A switch to ENABLE those warnings?
Lord knows I'm sick of filtering them out of logs.
A switch to enable deprecation warnings would give developers a
chance to see them
Guido van Rossum wrote:
On Tue, Nov 3, 2009 at 9:35 AM, Guido van Rossum gu...@python.org wrote:
I've checked draft (!) PEP 3003, Python Language Moratorium, into
SVN. As authors I've listed Jesse, Brett and myself.
I haven't seen substantial opposition against the PEP -- in fact I
can't
On Thu, Nov 5, 2009 at 3:35 PM, Brett Cannon br...@python.org wrote:
On Thu, Nov 5, 2009 at 15:26, Guido van Rossum gu...@python.org wrote:
I have come to the conclusion that there are better ways to
pre-announce that a module is going to disappear instead of
deprecation warnings.
What
On Thu, 5 Nov 2009 08:13:55 pm Michael Foord wrote:
There are several partial implementations, including Python inspired
languages, but if we are looking at 'major complete implementations'
then the current list seems to be: CPython, Jython, IronPython and
PyPy. Even Unladen Swallow is a fork
On Thu, Nov 5, 2009 at 19:23, Guido van Rossum gu...@python.org wrote:
On Thu, Nov 5, 2009 at 3:35 PM, Brett Cannon br...@python.org wrote:
On Thu, Nov 5, 2009 at 15:26, Guido van Rossum gu...@python.org wrote:
I have come to the conclusion that there are better ways to
pre-announce that a
On Nov 3, 2009, at 3:42 PM, Michael Foord wrote:
Barry Warsaw wrote:
On Nov 3, 2009, at 12:35 PM, Guido van Rossum wrote:
I've checked draft (!) PEP 3003, Python Language Moratorium, into
SVN. As authors I've listed Jesse, Brett and myself.
On python-ideas the moratorium idea got fairly
Jack Diederich wrote:
+1. There are no compelling language changes on the horizon (yield
from is nice but not necessary).
Another +1 here.
A note in the PEP that there are no changes to SVN that would need to be
rolled back due to the moratorium would be a good addition (as per
Antoine's
On Tue, Nov 3, 2009 at 12:35 PM, Guido van Rossum gu...@python.org wrote:
I've checked draft (!) PEP 3003, Python Language Moratorium, into
SVN. As authors I've listed Jesse, Brett and myself.
+1 from me.
-- Alexandre
___
Python-Dev mailing list
I've checked draft (!) PEP 3003, Python Language Moratorium, into
SVN. As authors I've listed Jesse, Brett and myself.
On python-ideas the moratorium idea got fairly positive responses
(more positive than I'd expected, in fact) but I'm bracing myself for
fierce discussion here on python-dev. It's
Guido van Rossum guido at python.org writes:
The PEP tries to spell out some gray areas but I'm sure there will be
others; that's life. Do note that the PEP proposes to be *retroactive*
back to the 3.1 release, i.e. the frozen version of the language is
the state in which it was released as
* General language semantics
The language operates as-is with only specific exemptions (see
below).
Would PEP 382 (namespace packages) fall under the moratorium?
Regards,
Martin
___
Python-Dev mailing list
Python-Dev@python.org
Barry Warsaw wrote:
On Nov 3, 2009, at 12:35 PM, Guido van Rossum wrote:
I've checked draft (!) PEP 3003, Python Language Moratorium, into
SVN. As authors I've listed Jesse, Brett and myself.
On python-ideas the moratorium idea got fairly positive responses
(more positive than I'd expected,
Guido van Rossum writes:
On Tue, Nov 3, 2009 at 11:23 AM, M.-A. Lemburg m...@egenix.com wrote:
One question:
There are currently number of patch waiting on the tracker for
additional Unicode feature support and it's also likely that we'll
want to upgrade to a more recent Unicode
On Tue, Nov 3, 2009 at 12:35 PM, Guido van Rossum gu...@python.org wrote:
I've checked draft (!) PEP 3003, Python Language Moratorium, into
SVN. As authors I've listed Jesse, Brett and myself.
On python-ideas the moratorium idea got fairly positive responses
(more positive than I'd expected,
On Tue, Nov 3, 2009 at 11:23 AM, M.-A. Lemburg m...@egenix.com wrote:
This suspension of features is designed to allow non-CPython implementations
to catch up to the core implementation of the language, help ease adoption
of Python 3.x, and provide a more stable base for the community.
I'd
On Tue, Nov 3, 2009 at 09:35, Guido van Rossum gu...@python.org wrote:
I've checked draft (!) PEP 3003, Python Language Moratorium, into
SVN. As authors I've listed Jesse, Brett and myself.
On python-ideas the moratorium idea got fairly positive responses
(more positive than I'd expected, in
On Tue, Nov 3, 2009 at 10:20 AM, Martin v. Löwis mar...@v.loewis.de wrote:
* General language semantics
The language operates as-is with only specific exemptions (see
below).
Would PEP 382 (namespace packages) fall under the moratorium?
Import semantics are a bit of a gray area.
Guido I've checked draft (!) PEP 3003, Python Language Moratorium,
Guido into SVN.
LGTM.
Skip
___
Python-Dev mailing list
Python-Dev@python.org
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev
Unsubscribe:
Guido van Rossum wrote:
I've checked draft (!) PEP 3003, Python Language Moratorium, into
SVN. As authors I've listed Jesse, Brett and myself.
On python-ideas the moratorium idea got fairly positive responses
(more positive than I'd expected, in fact) but I'm bracing myself for
fierce
On Nov 3, 2009, at 12:35 PM, Guido van Rossum wrote:
I've checked draft (!) PEP 3003, Python Language Moratorium, into
SVN. As authors I've listed Jesse, Brett and myself.
On python-ideas the moratorium idea got fairly positive responses
(more positive than I'd expected, in fact) but I'm
On Tue, Nov 3, 2009 at 2:35 PM, Guido van Rossum gu...@python.org wrote:
fierce discussion here on python-dev. It's important to me that if if
this is accepted it is a rough consensus decision (working code we
+1 to the PEP.
--
.Facundo
Blog: http://www.taniquetil.com.ar/plog/
PyAr:
On 4/11/2009 4:35 AM, Guido van Rossum wrote:
I've checked draft (!) PEP 3003, Python Language Moratorium, into
SVN. As authors I've listed Jesse, Brett and myself.
Good move, +1.
Cheers,
Mark
___
Python-Dev mailing list
Python-Dev@python.org
+1. There are no compelling language changes on the horizon (yield
from is nice but not necessary). I see the main benefit of a
moratorium as social rather than technical by encouraging people to
work on the lib instead of the language. Plus, I'd gladly proxy my
vote to any one of the three PEP
On Tue, Nov 3, 2009 at 11:21 AM, Brett Cannon br...@python.org wrote:
Are you going to gauge it roughly from python-dev feedback, or should
we take a more formal vote on python-committers once the PEP has
settled?
I'll not take a formal vote unless the discussion suggests there's a
lot of
67 matches
Mail list logo
