Aahz aahz at pythoncraft.com writes:
There's absolutely no reason not to have a 3.0.2 before 3.1 comes out.
You're probably right that what Raymond wants to is best not done for
3.0.1 -- but once we've agreed in principle that 3.0.x isn't a true
production release of Python for PEP6
Eric Smith wrote:
Terry Reedy wrote:
Ron Adam wrote:
Steven D'Aprano wrote:
Michael Foord wrote:
Don't we have a pretty-print API - and isn't it spelled __str__ ?
Not really. If it were as simple as calling str(obj), there would be
no need for the pprint module.
I agree. And when I
Hi Neal,
The last post in the thread was:
http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/1999-August/000793.html
referencing a download at
http://sirac.inrialpes.fr/~marangoz/python/lineno/
Cheers,
Andrew
This e-mail is confidential and may be privileged. It may be read, copied and
used only
On 2009-01-30 11:40, Antoine Pitrou wrote:
Aahz aahz at pythoncraft.com writes:
There's absolutely no reason not to have a 3.0.2 before 3.1 comes out.
You're probably right that what Raymond wants to is best not done for
3.0.1 -- but once we've agreed in principle that 3.0.x isn't a true
2009/1/30 Steven D'Aprano st...@pearwood.info:
But that's beside the
point, I don't like __pprint__ in any event. Too special.
I'm not sure what you mean by too special. It's no more special than any
other special method. Do you mean the use-case is not common enough? I would
find this
Martin v. Löwis wrote:
svn up
svnmerge
... conflicts
svn revert -R .
svn up
svnmerge
... same conflicts
Ah. In the 3.0 branch, always do svn revert . after svnmerge.
It's ok (Nick says it isn't exactly ok, but I don't understand why)
Doing svn revert . before making the commit will
Martin v. Löwis wrote:
There are potential problems with doing it that way [1]. The safer
option is to do:
svn revert .
svnmerge merge -M -F py3k-rev
I still don't see the potential problem. If you do svnmerge, svn commit,
all is fine, right?
Sort of. svnmerge still gets confused by the
Nick Coghlan ncoghlan at gmail.com writes:
Doing svn resolved . assumes that you did everything else correctly,
and even then I don't see how svnmerge could both backport the py3k
changes to the metadata and make its own changes and still get the
metadata to a sane state.
The metadata are
Christopher 1) It would be nice if the gzip module (and the zip lib
Christophermodule) supported Universal newlines -- you could read a
Christophercompressed text file with wrong newlines, and have
Christopherthem handled properly. However, that may be hard to do,
2009/1/30 Steve Holden st...@holdenweb.com:
Most consistently missing from this picture has been effective
communications (in both directions) with the user base.
Serious question: does anybody know how to get better communication
from the user base? My impression is that it's pretty hard to
Paul Moore wrote:
[...]
In all honesty, I think pkgutil.simplegeneric should be documented,
exposed, and moved to a library of its own[1].
http://pypi.python.org/pypi/simplegeneric
[...]
Servus,
Walter
___
Python-Dev mailing list
Hi all,
On Thu, Jan 29, 2009 at 6:12 AM, Ben North b...@redfrontdoor.org wrote:
Hi,
I find 'functools.partial' useful, but occasionally I'm unable to use it
because it lacks a 'from the right' version.
-1
For me, the main objection to a partial that places
its stored positional arguments
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Jan 29, 2009, at 5:09 PM, Aahz wrote:
The problem is that the obvious candidate for doing the vetting is the
Release Manager, and Barry doesn't like this approach. The vetting
does
need to be handled by a core committer IMO -- MAL, are you
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Jan 29, 2009, at 6:27 PM, Raymond Hettinger wrote:
The problem is that the obvious candidate for doing the vetting is
the
Release Manager, and Barry doesn't like this approach. The vetting
does
need to be handled by a core committer IMO --
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Jan 29, 2009, at 6:40 PM, Guido van Rossum wrote:
On Thu, Jan 29, 2009 at 3:27 PM, Raymond Hettinger pyt...@rcn.com
wrote:
To get the ball rolling, I have a candidate for discussion.
Very late in the 3.0 process (after feature freeze), the
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Jan 29, 2009, at 7:43 PM, Raymond Hettinger wrote:
We should have insisted that bsddb not be taken out until a
replacement
was put in. The process was broken with the RM insisting on feature
freeze early in the game but letting tools like
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Jan 29, 2009, at 10:59 PM, Brett Cannon wrote:
1. Barry, who is the release manager for 3.0.1, does not like the idea
of the cruft that is being proposed removed from 3.0.1. Personally I
say we continue to peer pressure him as I think a new
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Jan 30, 2009, at 12:53 AM, Martin v. Löwis wrote:
1. Barry, who is the release manager for 3.0.1, does not like the
idea
of the cruft that is being proposed removed from 3.0.1.
I don't think he actually said that (in fact, I think he said
Paul Moore p.f.mo...@gmail.com wrote:
Serious question: does anybody know how to get better communication
from the user base? My impression is that it's pretty hard to find out
who is actually using 3.0, and get any feedback from them. I suppose a
general query on clp might get some
On Fri, Jan 30, 2009 at 4:03 PM, Barry Warsaw ba...@python.org wrote:
To clarify: cruft that should have been removed 3.0 is fine to remove for
3.0.1, for some definition of should have been.
Just to double check, can I take this as a green light to continue
with the cmp removal
ACTIVITY SUMMARY (01/23/09 - 01/30/09)
Python tracker at http://bugs.python.org/
To view or respond to any of the issues listed below, click on the issue
number. Do NOT respond to this message.
2352 open (+54) / 14582 closed (+20) / 16934 total (+74)
Open issues with patches: 788
On Fri, 30 Jan 2009 18:06:48 +0100 (CET), Python tracker
sta...@bugs.python.org wrote:
[snip]
Average duration of open issues: 697 days.
Median duration of open issues: 6 days.
It seems there's a bug in the summary tool. I thought it odd a few
weeks ago when I noticed the median duration
s...@blueyonder.co.uk wrote:
Hi all,
On Thu, Jan 29, 2009 at 6:12 AM, Ben North b...@redfrontdoor.org wrote:
I find 'functools.partial' useful, but occasionally I'm unable to use it
because it lacks a 'from the right' version.
-1
For me, the main objection to a partial that places
its
On Thu, Jan 29, 2009 at 8:25 PM, Raymond Hettinger pyt...@rcn.com wrote:
[Guido van Rossum]
Sorry, not convinced.
No worries. Py3.1 is not far off.
Just so I'm clear. Are you thinking that 3.0.x will never have
fast shelves, or are you thinking 3.0.2 or 3.0.3 after some
external
s...@pobox.com wrote:
Christopher 1) It would be nice if the gzip module (and the zip lib
Christophermodule) supported Universal newlines -- you could read a
Christophercompressed text file with wrong newlines, and have
Christopherthem handled properly. However, that
Hi,
[ Potential new functools.partial_right, e.g.,
split_comma = partial_right(str.split, '.')
]
Thanks for the feedback. Apologies if (as was suggested) this should
have gone to python-ideas; I thought as a fairly small extension to
existing functionality it would be OK here. I'll try
On Fri, Jan 30, 2009 at 08:03, Barry Warsaw ba...@python.org wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Jan 30, 2009, at 12:53 AM, Martin v. Löwis wrote:
1. Barry, who is the release manager for 3.0.1, does not like the idea
of the cruft that is being proposed removed from
On Fri, Jan 30, 2009 at 1:56 PM, Brett Cannon br...@python.org wrote:
Great! Then should we start planning for 3.0.1 in terms of release
dates and what to have in the release so we can get this out the door
quickly?
I think considering there's only two release blockers we should plan
for about
On Fri, Jan 30, 2009 at 12:07, Benjamin Peterson benja...@python.org wrote:
On Fri, Jan 30, 2009 at 1:56 PM, Brett Cannon br...@python.org wrote:
Great! Then should we start planning for 3.0.1 in terms of release
dates and what to have in the release so we can get this out the door
quickly?
Christopher Barker wrote:
I tried to post this to the bug tracker, but my attempt to create an
account failed -- do I need to be pre-approved or something?
No. If you do not get a response from the above, and a retry does not
work, you could email webmas...@python.org with details on what
Paul Moore wrote:
Serious question: does anybody know how to get better communication
from the user base?
One of the nice things about Python is that the downloads are truly free
-- no required 'registration'. On the other hand, there is no option
to give feedback either.
If PSF/devs
I am just replying to the end of this thread to throw in a reminder
about my partial.skip patch, which allows the following usage:
split_one = partial(str.split, partial.skip, 1)
Not looking to say mine is better, but if the idea is being given
merit, I like the skipping arguments method better
Ah. In the 3.0 branch, always do svn revert . after svnmerge.
It's ok (Nick says it isn't exactly ok, but I don't understand why)
Doing svn revert . before making the commit will lose the metadata
changes that svnmerge uses for its bookkeeping (i.e. if this practice is
used regularly, the
Calvin Spealman ironfroggy at gmail.com writes:
I am just replying to the end of this thread to throw in a reminder
about my partial.skip patch, which allows the following usage:
split_one = partial(str.split, partial.skip, 1)
Not looking to say mine is better, but if the idea is being
(I believe that svnmerge actually does get that case right, but I
haven't checked it extensively - since if it does get it right, I don't
understand why it leaves the conflict in place instead of automatically
marking it as resolved).
I think this is a plain bug. It invokes svn merge, which
Serious question: does anybody know how to get better communication
from the user base? My impression is that it's pretty hard to find out
who is actually using 3.0, and get any feedback from them.
I think the bug tracker is a way in which users communicate with
developers. There have been 296
On Fri, Jan 30, 2009 at 7:42 PM, Antoine Pitrou solip...@pitrou.net wrote:
..
If one writes X = partial.skip, it looks quite nice:
split_one = partial(str.split, X, 1)
Or even
_ = partial.skip
split_one = partial(str.split, _, 1)
___
Python-Dev
The O'Reilly Open Source Convention has opened up the Call For
Participation -- deadline for proposals is Tuesday Feb 3.
OSCON will be held July 20-24 in San Jose, California.
For more information, see
http://conferences.oreilly.com/oscon
http://en.oreilly.com/oscon2009/public/cfp/57
--
Aahz
Martin v. Löwis wrote:
See above. You claim that doing things the way I recommend will lose
metadata; I believe this claim is false.
I can see how svn resolved . gets it right (now that I understand how
the conflict is being produced and then fixed automatically by svnmerge,
but not actually
I can see how svn resolved . gets it right (now that I understand how
the conflict is being produced and then fixed automatically by svnmerge,
but not actually marked as resolved).
I still don't understand how svn revert . can avoid losing the
metadata changes unless svnmerge is told to
40 matches
Mail list logo
