Antoine Pitrou wrote:
Guido van Rossum guido at python.org writes:
Is it even wort doing a 2.7 release? Isn't the effort better spent on
3.2 alone? (Note, these aren't rhetorical questions. It's well
possible that there are good reasons for pushing along with 2.7. Maybe
considering those
2.7 has an up-to-date backport of the C IO lib (as well as the memoryview
object), which means it is better for people wanting to ease transition to
3.x.
But of course, as Martin said, few people will want to support 2.7 only and
not
2.6.
Since 2.7 will be closer to 3.2 than 2.6, the
Martin v. Löwis wrote:
2.7 has an up-to-date backport of the C IO lib (as well as the memoryview
object), which means it is better for people wanting to ease transition to
3.x.
But of course, as Martin said, few people will want to support 2.7 only and
not
2.6.
Since 2.7 will be closer
I should maybe point out that although I'm generally +1 on
backporting, I'm not specifically anything on backporting the nonlocal
keyword. There are probably things that would help more from a
compatibility standpoint than that.
For example, from __future__ import unicode_literals doesn't switch
Brett Cannon wrote:
On Sun, Nov 1, 2009 at 13:39, Raymond Hettinger pyt...@rcn.com wrote:
As I said: Python 2 support is not only about supporting old versions of
Python,
but also supporting users of Python2-only modules. So 2.7 support will
for the most part be a case not of supporting
I'm -0 on backporting nonlocal to 2.7. I could be +0 if we added from
__future__ import nonlocal_keyword (or some such phrasing) to enable
it.
--
--Guido van Rossum (python.org/~guido)
___
Python-Dev mailing list
Python-Dev@python.org
[Guido van Rossum]
I'm -0 on backporting nonlocal to 2.7. I could be +0 if we added from
__future__ import nonlocal_keyword (or some such phrasing) to enable
it.
With the from __future__ option, what keeps you from being
a full +1 on nonlocal? Is there something that makes it a better
On Mon, Nov 2, 2009 at 10:06 AM, Raymond Hettinger pyt...@rcn.com wrote:
[Guido van Rossum]
I'm -0 on backporting nonlocal to 2.7. I could be +0 if we added from
__future__ import nonlocal_keyword (or some such phrasing) to enable
it.
With the from __future__ option, what keeps you from
On Mon, 2 Nov 2009 at 10:09, Guido van Rossum wrote:
On Mon, Nov 2, 2009 at 10:06 AM, Raymond Hettinger pyt...@rcn.com wrote:
[Guido van Rossum]
I'm -0 on backporting nonlocal to 2.7. I could be +0 if we added from
__future__ import nonlocal_keyword (or some such phrasing) to enable
it.
I don't currently have an opinion on this backport proposal, but in
regard to this argument: if we do not do any 2.x releases after 2.7,
then over time the number of packages that can afford to drop 2.6 support
will grow, yet many will need to retain 2.7 support for much longer.
I don't
On Mon, 2 Nov 2009 at 22:17, Martin v. L?wis wrote:
I don't currently have an opinion on this backport proposal, but in
regard to this argument: if we do not do any 2.x releases after 2.7,
then over time the number of packages that can afford to drop 2.6 support
will grow, yet many will need to
On Mon, Nov 2, 2009 at 1:27 PM, R. David Murray rdmur...@bitdance.com wrote:
On Mon, 2 Nov 2009 at 22:17, Martin v. Löwis wrote:
I don't currently have an opinion on this backport proposal, but in
regard to this argument: if we do not do any 2.x releases after 2.7,
then over time the number
R. David Murray wrote:
On Mon, 2 Nov 2009 at 22:17, Martin v. Löwis wrote:
I don't currently have an opinion on this backport proposal, but in
regard to this argument: if we do not do any 2.x releases after 2.7,
then over time the number of packages that can afford to drop 2.6
support
will
Guido van Rossum guido at python.org writes:
Is it even wort doing a 2.7 release? Isn't the effort better spent on
3.2 alone? (Note, these aren't rhetorical questions. It's well
possible that there are good reasons for pushing along with 2.7. Maybe
considering those reasons will also help
Is it even wort doing a 2.7 release? Isn't the effort better spent on
3.2 alone? (Note, these aren't rhetorical questions. It's well
possible that there are good reasons for pushing along with 2.7. Maybe
considering those reasons will also help answering questions about
whether to backport
2009/10/29 Nick Coghlan ncogh...@gmail.com:
Lennart Regebro wrote:
2009/10/28 Antoine Pitrou solip...@pitrou.net:
skip at pobox.com writes:
So 2.7 support will for the most part be a case not of supporting
Python versions, but Python *users*.
Antoine That's still not a good
As I said: Python 2 support is not only about supporting old versions of Python,
but also supporting users of Python2-only modules. So 2.7 support will
for the most part be a case not of supporting Python versions, but
Python *users*. And contrary to what Antoine said, that *is* a good
reason to
On Sun, Nov 1, 2009 at 13:39, Raymond Hettinger pyt...@rcn.com wrote:
As I said: Python 2 support is not only about supporting old versions of
Python,
but also supporting users of Python2-only modules. So 2.7 support will
for the most part be a case not of supporting Python versions, but
2009/10/28 Antoine Pitrou solip...@pitrou.net:
skip at pobox.com writes:
So 2.7 support will for the most part be a case not of supporting
Python versions, but Python *users*.
Antoine That's still not a good reason to backport nonlocal. The same
Antoine reasoning could be
Lennart Regebro wrote:
2009/10/28 Antoine Pitrou solip...@pitrou.net:
skip at pobox.com writes:
So 2.7 support will for the most part be a case not of supporting
Python versions, but Python *users*.
Antoine That's still not a good reason to backport nonlocal. The same
2009/10/22 Martin v. Löwis mar...@v.loewis.de:
What use has such a stepping stone? Why, and (more importantly) when
would anybody currently supporting 2.x give up 2.6 and earlier, and
only support 2.7? And, if they chose to do so, why would they not move
the code base to 3.x right away?
Lennart Regebro regebro at gmail.com writes:
So 2.7 support will for the most part be a case not of supporting
Python versions, but Python *users*.
That's still not a good reason to backport nonlocal. The same reasoning could be
used to backport new features to the 2.6 branch after all.
So 2.7 support will for the most part be a case not of supporting
Python versions, but Python *users*.
Antoine That's still not a good reason to backport nonlocal. The same
Antoine reasoning could be used to backport new features to the 2.6
Antoine branch after all.
No,
skip at pobox.com writes:
So 2.7 support will for the most part be a case not of supporting
Python versions, but Python *users*.
Antoine That's still not a good reason to backport nonlocal. The same
Antoine reasoning could be used to backport new features to the 2.6
On Thu, 22 Oct 2009 12:32:37 -0300, Fabio Zadrozny wrote:
Just as a note, the nonlocal there is not a requirement...
You can just create a mutable object there and change that object (so,
you don't need to actually rebind the object in the outer scope).
E.g.: instead of creating a float
On Thu, Oct 22, 2009 at 1:24 PM, Martin v. Löwis mar...@v.loewis.dewrote:
Can you please explain why it would be desirable
to [backport nonlocal]? 2.7 will likely be the last 2.x release, so only a
fairly
small portion of the applications would be actually able to use this (or
any other new
Others have explained the rationale for the backport, so I won't bother
repeating those arguments.
I understand your point about code supporting 2.6, but as you say, that
applies to any new features being added in 2.7. I'm therefore confused
as to what the rationale for a 2.7 release is.
On Thu, Oct 22, 2009 at 5:51 PM, Martin v. Löwis mar...@v.loewis.dewrote:
From the Django roadmap for supporting 3.0, using 2.6 as a stepping
stone (and if 2.7 was a *better* stepping stone then it would make it
easier):
On Wed, Oct 21, 2009 at 10:56 PM, Mike Krell mbk.li...@gmail.com wrote:
Is there any possibility of backporting support for the nonlocal keyword
into a 2.x release? I see it's not in 2.6, but I don't know if that was an
intentional design choice or due to a lack of demand / round tuits. I'm
Mike Krell wrote:
Is there any possibility of backporting support for the nonlocal keyword
into a 2.x release?
If so, only into 2.7. Can you please explain why it would be desirable
to do that? 2.7 will likely be the last 2.x release, so only a fairly
small portion of the applications would
On 08:24 pm, mar...@v.loewis.de wrote:
Mike Krell wrote:
Is there any possibility of backporting support for the nonlocal
keyword
into a 2.x release?
If so, only into 2.7. Can you please explain why it would be desirable
to do that? 2.7 will likely be the last 2.x release, so only a fairly
exar...@twistedmatrix.com wrote:
On 08:24 pm, mar...@v.loewis.de wrote:
Mike Krell wrote:
Is there any possibility of backporting support for the nonlocal keyword
into a 2.x release?
If so, only into 2.7. Can you please explain why it would be desirable
to do that? 2.7 will likely be the
Martin v. Löwis wrote:
exar...@twistedmatrix.com wrote:
On 08:24 pm, mar...@v.loewis.de wrote:
Mike Krell wrote:
Is there any possibility of backporting support for the nonlocal keyword
into a 2.x release?
If so, only into 2.7. Can you please explain why it would be
From the Django roadmap for supporting 3.0, using 2.6 as a stepping
stone (and if 2.7 was a *better* stepping stone then it would make it
easier):
http://groups.google.com/group/django-developers/msg/0888b1c8f2518059?
Is that still a current plan? It's from November 2008.
This gets us
Is there any possibility of backporting support for the nonlocal keyword
into a 2.x release? I see it's not in 2.6, but I don't know if that was an
intentional design choice or due to a lack of demand / round tuits. I'm
also not sure if this would fall under the scope of the proposed moratorium
On Wed, Oct 21, 2009 at 6:56 PM, Mike Krell mbk.li...@gmail.com wrote:
Is there any possibility of backporting support for the nonlocal keyword
into a 2.x release? I see it's not in 2.6, but I don't know if that was an
intentional design choice or due to a lack of demand / round tuits. I'm
36 matches
Mail list logo
