On 27 May 2015 at 09:10, Nick Coghlan ncogh...@gmail.com wrote:
The old distutils docs aren't gone, the top level links just moved to the
distutils package docs: https://docs.python.org/3/library/distutils.html
I kept them (with the same deep link URLs) because I know there's stuff in
there
On Mon, 25 May 2015 17:30:02 -0700
Larry Hastings la...@hastings.org wrote:
So, in all three cases it's work that's been under development for a
while. These people did this work out of the kindness of their hearts,
to make Python better. As a community we want to encourage that and
On 27 May 2015 18:18, Antoine Pitrou solip...@pitrou.net wrote:
On Mon, 25 May 2015 17:30:02 -0700
Larry Hastings la...@hastings.org wrote:
So, in all three cases it's work that's been under development for a
while. These people did this work out of the kindness of their hearts,
to
On Wed, 27 May 2015 18:34:29 +1000
Nick Coghlan ncogh...@gmail.com wrote:
I'd actually like to pursue a more nuanced view of what's permitted in
maintenance releases, based on a combination of the language moratorium
PEP, and an approach inspired by PEP 466, requiring that every feature
On 27 May 2015 at 19:02, Antoine Pitrou solip...@pitrou.net wrote:
At some point, we should recognize our pain is more important than
others' when it comes to the fitness of *our* community. I don't see
those other people caring about our pain, and proposing e.g. to offload
some of the
This mailing list is for the development *of *Python, not *with* it. The
best place to ask this would be on python-l...@python.org.
On Wed, May 27, 2015 at 1:08 PM Uladzimir Kryvian newinfe...@gmail.com
wrote:
Hi!
I'm trying to use embedding of Python in my program.
Simple C-program,
On May 27, 2015, at 06:34 PM, Nick Coghlan wrote:
I'd actually like to pursue a more nuanced view of what's permitted in
maintenance releases, based on a combination of the language moratorium
PEP, and an approach inspired by PEP 466, requiring that every feature
added in a maintenance release be
On May 27, 2015 at 10:32:47 AM, Barry Warsaw (ba...@python.org) wrote:
On May 27, 2015, at 06:34 PM, Nick Coghlan wrote:
I'd actually like to pursue a more nuanced view of what's permitted in
maintenance releases, based on a combination of the language moratorium
PEP, and an approach
On May 27, 2015 at 4:18:11 AM, Antoine Pitrou (solip...@pitrou.net) wrote:
On Mon, 25 May 2015 17:30:02 -0700
Larry Hastings la...@hastings.org wrote:
So, in all three cases it's work that's been under development for a
while. These people did this work out of the kindness of their
Antoine Pitrou writes:
For some reason it sounds like we should be altruistic towards
people who are not :-)
There's always a question of how far to go, of course, but one of the
things I like about this community is the attention the developers
give to others' pain. In that sense, I'm
Hi!
I'm trying to use embedding of Python in my program.
Simple C-program, compiled in Debug, that uses py-script that just
imports ctypes gives me an error about no module named _ctypes.
How to compile python lib in Visual Studio statically with ctypes
support? Or how to use shared ctypes lib
On 5/27/2015 4:16 AM, Antoine Pitrou wrote:
I second that sentiment. But it strikes me that we're doing this
because our release frequency is completely inadapted. If we had
feature releases, say, every 6 or 9 months, the problem wouldn't really
exist in the first place.
How about a feature
On May 27, 2015, at 05:15 PM, Terry Reedy wrote:
How about a feature release once a year, on a schedule we choose as best for
us.
We discussed timed releases ages ago and they were rejected by the majority.
Time-based releases can make a lot of sense, especially if the interval is
short enough.
On 27 May 2015 at 03:02, MRAB pyt...@mrabarnett.plus.com wrote:
When I tried:
C:\MinGW64\bin\dlltool.exe
or:
C:\MinGW64\x86_64-w64-mingw32\bin\dlltool.exe
for the 32-bit builds, they wouldn't link.
Was that with -m i386? If so, then I suspect that's the issue.
Steve, did you use
On May 27, 2015, at 6:31 PM, Nick Coghlan ncogh...@gmail.com wrote:
On 28 May 2015 at 10:17, Parasa, Srinivas Vamsi
srinivas.vamsi.par...@intel.com wrote:
Hi All,
This is Vamsi from Server Scripting Languages Optimization team at Intel
Corporation.
Would like to submit a
Nick Coghlan schrieb am 28.05.2015 um 05:02:
On 28 May 2015 at 12:51, Ned Batchelder wrote:
This issue has been fixed, but a day or two late for 3.5b1.
Aye, we only found out about the missing test case via feedback *on*
the beta. We had never needed to worry about it before, but it turns
On 28 May 2015 at 14:30, Larry Hastings la...@hastings.org wrote:
On 05/27/2015 07:51 PM, Ned Batchelder wrote:
This issue has been fixed, but a day or two late for 3.5b1. It prevents
loading the coverage.py extension. It'd be great to get a new beta release
soon. :)
This issue has been fixed, but a day or two late for 3.5b1. It prevents
loading the coverage.py extension. It'd be great to get a new beta
release soon. :)
--Ned.
___
Python-Dev mailing list
Python-Dev@python.org
On 5/27/2015 9:31 PM, Nick Coghlan wrote:
+1 from me, for basically the same reasons Guido gives: Python 2.7 is
going to be with us for a long time, and this particular change
shouldn't have any externally visible impacts at either an ABI or API level.
Immediately after a release, giving the
On 2015-05-27 11:02 PM, Nick Coghlan wrote:
It prevents
loading the coverage.py extension. It'd be great to get a new beta release
soon. :)
Until your email, I hadn't fully thought through the consequences, but
the bug is actually going to block a*lot* of potential testing of the
beta release
On Wed, May 27, 2015 at 9:54 PM, Nick Coghlan ncogh...@gmail.com wrote:
On 28 May 2015 at 14:30, Larry Hastings la...@hastings.org wrote:
On 05/27/2015 07:51 PM, Ned Batchelder wrote:
This issue has been fixed, but a day or two late for 3.5b1. It prevents
loading the coverage.py
Why now? We intentionally decided not to do this for 2.7 in the past
because it was too late for the release cutoff.
Has anyone benchmarked compiling python in profile-opt mode vs having the
computed goto patch? I'd *expect* the benefits to be the roughly the same.
Has this been compared to
On 28 May 2015 at 10:17, Parasa, Srinivas Vamsi
srinivas.vamsi.par...@intel.com wrote:
Hi All,
This is Vamsi from Server Scripting Languages Optimization team at Intel
Corporation.
Would like to submit a request to enable the computed goto based dispatch
in Python 2.x (which happens
On 05/27/2015 07:51 PM, Ned Batchelder wrote:
This issue has been fixed, but a day or two late for 3.5b1. It
prevents loading the coverage.py extension. It'd be great to get a
new beta release soon. :)
http://legacy.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0478/
//arry/
On 05/27/2015 08:02 PM, Nick Coghlan wrote:
On 28 May 2015 at 12:51, Ned Batchelder n...@nedbatchelder.com wrote:
This issue has been fixed, but a day or two late for 3.5b1.
Aye, we only found out about the missing test case via feedback *on*
the beta. We had never needed to worry about it
On 28 May 2015 at 12:51, Ned Batchelder n...@nedbatchelder.com wrote:
This issue has been fixed, but a day or two late for 3.5b1.
Aye, we only found out about the missing test case via feedback *on*
the beta. We had never needed to worry about it before, but it turns
out all our extension
On 05/27/2015 10:35 PM, Larry Hastings wrote:
Well, certainly this sounds like something that needs to go into the
regression test suite. Can someone create the issue?
... and the patch?
NM, the existing fix already added a test to the regression test suite.
I should have read the issue
On 28 May 2015 08:31, Nick Coghlan ncogh...@gmail.com wrote:
On 28 May 2015 07:48, Guido van Rossum gu...@python.org wrote:
On Wed, May 27, 2015 at 2:34 PM, Barry Warsaw ba...@python.org wrote:
On May 27, 2015, at 05:15 PM, Terry Reedy wrote:
How about a feature release once a year,
On Wed, May 27, 2015 at 2:34 PM, Barry Warsaw ba...@python.org wrote:
On May 27, 2015, at 05:15 PM, Terry Reedy wrote:
How about a feature release once a year, on a schedule we choose as best
for
us.
We discussed timed releases ages ago and they were rejected by the
majority.
Time-based
On Wed, 27 May 2015 17:15:39 -0400
Terry Reedy tjre...@udel.edu wrote:
On 5/27/2015 4:16 AM, Antoine Pitrou wrote:
I second that sentiment. But it strikes me that we're doing this
because our release frequency is completely inadapted. If we had
feature releases, say, every 6 or 9 months,
On 28 May 2015 07:48, Guido van Rossum gu...@python.org wrote:
On Wed, May 27, 2015 at 2:34 PM, Barry Warsaw ba...@python.org wrote:
On May 27, 2015, at 05:15 PM, Terry Reedy wrote:
How about a feature release once a year, on a schedule we choose as
best for
us.
We discussed timed
On 26 May 2015 23:25, Paul Moore p.f.mo...@gmail.com wrote:
On 26 May 2015 at 13:55, Steve Dower steve.do...@microsoft.com wrote:
The builds I am responsible for include it because someone reported an
issue
and was persistent and helpful enough that I fixed it for them.
That said, until
32 matches
Mail list logo
